Background Info On Unified Requirements URTB

IACS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES LTD. PERMANENT SECRETARIAT: 36 BROADWAY, LONDON, SW1H 0BH, UNITED KINGDOM TEL: +44(0)207 976 0660 FAX: +44(0)207 808 1100 INTERNET: permsec@iacs.org.uk Web Site: www.iacs.org.uk
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for Unified Requirements (URs)
HFs and TBs for Requirements concerning: Mooring and Anchoring Containers Mobile Offshore Drilling Units Electricity Fire Protection Gas Tankers Polar Class Propellers Subdivision, Stability and Load Line Machinery Installations Navigation Pipes and Pressure Vessels Strength of Ships Materials and Welding Survey and Certification A C D E F G I K L M N P S W Z
IACS
July 2009
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Mooring and Anchoring (UR A)
Res. No. UR A1 UR A2 Title Equipment Shipboard fittings and supporting hull structures associated with towing and mooring on conventional vessels Current Rev. Rev. 5 June 2005 Rev.3 July 2007 HF/TB? TB TB
Technical Background Document UR A1 (Rev.5, June 2005) Requirements for Equipment
1.
Background- Review of UR A1 WP/MW Chairman reported in his final report to GPG that: In relation to development of requirement for anchor (Task No.46), the draft amendment to UR A1 which is to be handled by the CG/MA was proposed for consideration and action by the GPG. The GPG is requested to convey the draft to the Hull Panel and appropriate Project Team on M/A for their technical consideration.
2. GPG undertook the review and approval of UR A1(Rev.5) GPG agreed that section 1.1.2.3 of REC 10 be deleted to avoid any conflict between UR A1 and REC 10 in relation to the anchor proof testing.
Permsec 01/06/2005
UR A2
Technical Background
As a result of investigations regarding the damage caused to deck fittings by towing, IACS members have confirmed that their Rules and the regulatory bodies' standards (ISO) only provide the strength criteria for ropes, wires, fairleads, bollards, strong points, etc for anchoring and mooring. The ETA standard for emergency towing use with tankers has already been included in the Rules of members. Similarly the OCIMF has recommended towing arrangements for tankers over 20,000dwt. In order to respond in a proper manner to the damage caused, it is necessary to analyse examples of the types of actual damage. However, owing to the time constraint and unavailability of information sources, the members were unable to look into an example of damage in depth. Notwithstanding the above, if we accept the reasons for damage described in the Australian proposal, the following observations are made: - Mooring fittings generally also serve as towing fittings. - The strength of shipboard fittings for mooring is related to the required strength of the ships mooring lines as per the regulatory bodies' standards (ISO). In the past there was no trouble because mooring force was typically higher than towing force. Now modern high-power tugs are capable of exerting towline forces that are well in excess of those exerted by tugs in services few years ago. Also tugboat operators may use their own towing lines, which have greater strength than mooring lines. Then it becomes difficult to predetermine working loads. Shipbuilders have been executing reinforcement to the foundation structures that are loaded with towing forces. However these local reinforcements and strength investigations have been carried out their own way, individually, as seen in the existence of various types of foundations / construction. There are no unified standards for reinforcing the foundation of mooring fittings. It should be noted that the Rules of some member Societies do actually prescribe local reinforcement, such as scantling-up of the foundation plate thickness for steering gear installation as well as reinforcement of foundation structure for cargo gear post In order to increase attention to this matter by the shipping industry, we propose herewith requirements for the strength of deck fittings and tie-down structure reinforcement, for shipboard deck fittings used with tugs. Considering issues related to the safety of hull construction, it is considered better to specify a "Safe Working Load" for fittings rather than increasing scantlings specifically. **************** 1027lIGh 21/10/2003.
Technical Background UR A2 (Rev.2, September 2006)

Shipboard fittings and supporting hull structures associated with towing and mooring on conventional vessels 1. Scope and objective Since the original UR A2 was withdrawn in 2005 reflecting the industry feedback, IACS have been receiving further industry inputs with respect to how shipboard fittings were to be designed, used and maintained for ships safe operation. These feedbacks were sent by shipbuilders, ship operators, tug operators and port authorities. In the meantime, MSC80 (18 to 27 May 2005) adopted MSC/Circ.1175, Guidance on Shipboard Towing and Mooring Equipment. The revised UR A2 was developed in line with the requirements in the MSC/Circ. 1175. The valuable comments from industry, approximately 20 organisations, are also considered and incorporated into the revision. 2. Points of discussions or possible discussions The following summarize the changes made in the revision: 1. In view of the concerns of industry about the corrosion, the revision provides the specific corrosion additions to the net thickness, on which basis all strength criteria as specified in the revision are satisfactorily complied with. The general requirements for survey after construction are also provided in order to maintain a sound structural condition under the supervision of the class. (see A2.0, A2.4 and A2.5). 2. The design loads for both towing and mooring are revised in accordance with the MSC/Circ. 1175. In addition to the specified minimum design load requirements, the revision covers a greater design load, which may be specially requested by the applicant, e.g., ship owner or ship operator. (see A2.1.3 and A2.2.3) 3. In selection of towing lines/mooring lines, it is also addressed that side projected area including maximum stacks of deck cargo is to be taken into account, of which concerns were raised by the Port of Rotterdam based on their own feasible study of mooring forces induced by the wind forces due to full stacks of deck cargoes. (see Note to A2.1.3.2 and A2.2.3.1). 4. To ensure safe towing and mooring operations, a preparation of the drawings, towing and mooring arrangement plan and pilot card for information of the operation for ships master and pilot respectively. (see A2.3) 3. Source/ derivation of proposed requirement Hull Panel 4. Decision by voting N.A. 5. GPG Discussion The following issues were discussed at GPG and decided upon by vote: 1. The draft UR was received from the Hull Panel without a proposed uniform application statement or date. A majority of Members agreed to the uniform application statement proposed by ABS (contracted for construction from 1 January 2007, with RS preferring the uniform application statement proposed by GPG Chairman (contracted for construction after 1 July 2007). 2. LR pointed out that there would be a gap between the contract for construction date associated with the amended UR A2 and the 1 January 2007 keel-laying date associated with the entry into force of -the revised SOLAS Reg. II-1/3-8. In order to bridge this gap, all Members agreed to task the Perm Sec to draft a simple UI of SOLAS Reg. II-1/3-8 stating that the requirements in UR A2 (Rev.2) are to be
applied for ships with a keel laying date on or after 1 January 2007. This will require Members to apply the requirements in UR A2 when acting on behalf of an Administration, unless otherwise instructed by the Administration, but provide Members additional time to implement the UR in their Rules.
Permanent Secretariat Note [7 September 2006]: Following initial GPG approval, LR raised concerns that paragraph 2.2.3.1 of UR A2 refers to Recommendation 10, thus making it mandatory, and that Table 5 of Recommendation 10 specifies the number of mooring lines, whereas when it was copied into MSC/Circ.1175 the number of lines was omitted. This would mean that UR A2 could be considered as more restrictive than the Circular and thus an IACS member may be disadvantaged in comparison to a non-IACS member. Further discussion was held by GPG members and it was agreed by all members to add a new footnote to A2.2.3.1 (and A2.1.3(2) which also refers to Recommendation 10) to clarify that Recommendation 10 is not a mandatory requirement. In addition the GPG Chairman has opened a new subject number to discuss the method of making reference to the mandatory/non-mandatory IACS and IMO Instruments in IACS mandatory Resolutions, i.e. footnote and Annex (GPG Small Group on Reference to Mandatory Resolutions, 6158). LR was also concerned about a lack of harmonisation between UR A2 and CSR for both oil tankers and bulk carriers. Nine members (BV, KR, DNV, ABS, NK, RS, CCS, RINA and LR) agreed that this should be dealt with separately from the adoption of the draft UR A2 and that it should be considered and dealt with as rule change by PT1 and PT2 under the instruction of Hull Panel.
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND Revised June 2007 (ref. 6111_IGm) UR A2 (Rev.2, September 2006)
Shipboard fittings and supporting hull structures associated with towing and mooring on conventional vessels 1. Scope and objective Since the original UR A2 was withdrawn in 2005 reflecting the industry feedback, IACS have been receiving further industry inputs with respect to how shipboard fittings were to be designed, used and maintained for ships safe operation. These feedbacks were sent by shipbuilders, ship operators, tug operators and port authorities. In the meantime, MSC80 (18 to 27 May 2005) adopted MSC/Circ.1175, Guidance on Shipboard Towing and Mooring Equipmen t. The revised UR A2 was developed in line with the requiremen ts in the MSC/Circ. 1175. The valuable comments from industry, approximately 20 organisations, are also considered and incorporated into the revision. 2. Points of discussions or possible discussions The following summarize the changes made in the revision: 1. In view of the concerns of industry about the corrosion, the revision provides the specific corrosion additions to the net thickness, on which basis all strength criteria as specified in the revision are satisfactorily complied with. The general requirements for survey after construction are also provided in order to maintain a sound structural condition under the supervision of the class. (see A2.0, A2.4 and A2.5). 2. The design loads for both towing and mooring are revised in accordance with the MSC/Circ. 1175. In addition to the specified minimum design load requirements, the revision covers a greater design load, which may be specially requested by the applicant, e.g., ship owner or ship operator. (see A2.1.3 and A2.2.3) 3. In selection of towing lines/mooring lines, it is also addressed that side projected area including maximu m stacks of deck cargo is to be taken into account, of which concerns were raised by the Port of Rotterdam based on their own feasible study of mooring forces induced by the wind forces due to full stacks of deck cargoes. (see Note to A2.1.3.2 and A2.2.3.1). 4. To ensure safe towing and mooring operations, a preparation of the drawings, towing and mooring arrangement plan and pilot card for information of the operation for ships master and pilot respectively is specified. This plan used for review/survey of shipboard fittings and supporting hull structures by classification society can be used as appropriate operation guidance for proper mooring of the vessel in line with the intent of design of deck fittings. (see A2.3) 5. To reflect the design conditions, especially for the vessel, of which deck fittings are designed based on the reduced breaking strength of mooring lines and the increased numbers of the mooring lines as permitted by the footnote of Table 5 of IACS Recommendation No. 10, the following information are to be clearly indicated on the plan: .1 the arrangement of mooring lines showing number of the lines (N), together with .2 the specified breaking strength of each mooring lines intended to be used (BS). (see A2.3.3) 3. Source/ derivation of proposed requirement Hull Panel 4. Decision by voting N.A.
Page 1 of 2
5. GPG Discussion The following issues were discussed at GPG and decided upon by vote: 1. T h e d r a f t U R w a s r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e H u l l P a n e l w i t h o u t a p r o p o s e d u n i f o r m a p p l i c a t i o n s t a t e me n t o r d a t e . A ma j o r i t y o f M e m b e r s a g r e e d t o t h e u n i f o r m a p p l i c a t i o n s t a t e me n t p r o p o s e d b y A B S ( c o n t r a c t e d f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n f r o m 1 January 2007, with RS preferring the uniform application statement proposed by GPG Chairman (contracted for construction after 1 July 2007). 2. LR pointed out that there would be a gap between the contract for construction date a s s o c ia te d w i t h t h e a me n d e d U R A 2 a n d t h e 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 0 7 k e e l - l a y i n g d a t e associated with the entry into force of -the revised SOLAS Reg. II-1/3-8. In order to bridge this gap, all Members agreed to task the Perm Sec to draft a simple UI of SOLAS Reg. II-1/3-8 stating that the requirements in UR A2 (Rev.2) are to b e applied for ships with a keel lay ing date on or after 1 January 2007. This will require Members to apply the requirements in UR A2 when acting on behalf of an Ad min istration, un le ss o th erwise in stru cted by the Ad min istra tion, bu t p rov id e Members additional time to implement the UR in their Rules.
Permanent Secretariat Note [7 September 2006]: Following initial GPG approval, LR raised concerns that paragraph 2.2.3.1 of UR A2 refers to Recommendation 10, thus making it mandatory, and that Table 5 of Recommendation 10 specifies the number of mooring lines, whereas when it was copied into MSC/Circ.1175 the number of lines was omitted. This would mean that UR A2 could be considered as more restrictive than the Circular and thus an IACS member may be disadvantaged in comparison to a non-IACS member. Further discussion was held by GPG members and it was agreed by all members to add a new footnote to A2.2.3.1 (and A2.1.3(2) which also refers to Recommendation 10) to clarify that Recommendation 10 is not a mandatory requirement. In addition the GPG Chairman has opened a new subject number to discuss the method of making reference to the mandatory/non-mandatory IACS and IMO Instruments in IACS mandatory Resolutions, i.e. footnote and Annex (GPG Small Group on Reference to Mandatory Resolutions, 6158). LR was also concerned about a lack of harmonisation between UR A2 and CSR for both oil tankers and bulk carriers. Nine members (BV, KR, DNV, ABS, NK, RS, CCS, RINA and LR) agreed that this should be dealt with separately from the adoption of the draft UR A2 and that it should be considered and dealt with as rule change by PT1 and PT2 under the instruction of Hull Panel.
Page 2 of 2
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR A2 (Rev.3, July 2007)

Shipboard fittings and supporting hull structures associated with towing and mooring on conventional vessels
1.
Background
Following approval of UR A2 (Rev.2) in September 2006, LR proposed to amend TB in order to clarify GPGs agreement to align the MSC Circular 1175 and UR A2 and introduced the note into paragraphs A2.1.3 and A.2.2.3 stating that only the breaking strengths in the Table 5 of Rec 10 are considered mandatory; the footnote to Table 5 of Rec 10 is not mandatory and thus A2 does not permit the reduction of the breaking strengths of Table 5 when the greater number of lines are used. After GPG discussion in which members could not come to an unanimous decision, GPG Chair in 6111_IGi tasked Hull Panel to answer the following: For the application of the load considerations in UR A2.1.3 and A2.2.3, is there justification for accepting a reduction in the breaking strength of mooring and towing lines as permitted by the footnote to Table 5 of REC 10, in association with a corresponding increase in the number of mooring/towing lines? Hull Panel agreed to the application of the footnote to Table 5 of IACS Recommendation No.10 and submitted a further revision to UR A2 to incorporate this. 2. Discussion
The proposed revision to UR A2 was agreed by GPG, but there were concerns about the initial Technical Background information submitted by Hull Panel since it referred to the approval of towing and mooring arrangements plans. The technical background information was therefore resubmitted with 6111_PHc (see Appendix 1) without reference to the approved plan, together with a revised Technical Background document for UR A2(Rev.2). Since the revision to UR A2 (Rev.2) was made for clarification of its original intention of the requirements related to Design Load of Mooring equipment and its supporting structure, it was agreed that it should be applicable to ships with a keel laying date on or after 1 Jan 2007. It was also agreed that UI SC212 should be editorially modified to replace "UR A2 (Rev.2)" with "UR A2 (Rev.2 or Rev.3)". 3. Conclusion
UR A2(Rev.3) and the revised TB for UR A2(Rev.3) were adopted on 10 July 2007 (6111_IGo) see also 6111_IGm dated 6 June 2007.
Prepared by Permanent Secretariat July 2007

Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX 1 - Hull Panels Reply to GPG (attachment to 6111_PHc) 1. Hull Panel unanimously agrees that the footnote to Table 5 of IACS Recommendation No. 10 can be applied in determination of the breaking strength of mooring line for the application of the load consideration in UR A 2.2.3 based on the following current/additional provisions: 2. In A 2.3. "Towing and mooring arrangements plan" of the UR, it is required that "towing and mooring arrangements plan" is to be available on board for the guidance of the Master." This plan used for review/survey of shipboard fittings and supporting hull structures by member society can be used as appropriate operation guidance for proper mooring of the vessel in line with the intent of designs of deck fittings. 3. In order to reflect the design conditions, especially for the vessel, of which deck fittings are designed based on the reduced breaking strength of mooring lines and the increased numbers of the mooring lines as permitted by the footnote of Table 5 of IACS Recommendation No. 10, the following information are to be clearly indicated on the plan: 3.1. the arrangement of mooring lines showing number of the lines (N), together with 3.2. the breaking strength of each mooring line (BS) 4. HP will reflect the item 3 above into A 2.3 of the UR and submit for GPG's approval. The proposed changes to UR A2 (Rev. 2) is attached for ready reference.
Page 2 of 4
APPENDIX 2 Revised TB for UR A2(Rev.2) (attachment to 6111_PHc)
Technical Background UR A2 (Rev.2, September 2006)

Shipboard fittings and supporting hull structures associated with towing and mooring on conventional vessels 1. Scope and objective Since the original UR A2 was withdrawn in 2005 reflecting the industry feedback, IACS have been receiving further industry inputs with respect to how shipboard fittings were to be designed, used and maintained for ships safe operation. These feedbacks were sent by shipbuilders, ship operators, tug operators and port authorities. In the meantime, MSC80 (18 to 27 May 2005) adopted MSC/Circ.1175, Guidance on Shipboard Towing and Mooring Equipmen t. The revised UR A2 was developed in line with the requiremen ts in the MSC/Circ. 1175. The valuable comments from industry, approximately 20 organisations, are also considered and incorporated into the revision. 2. Points of discussions or possible discussions The following summarize the changes made in the revision: 1. In view of the concerns of industry about the corrosion, the revision provides the specific corrosion additions to the net thickness, on which basis all strength criteria as specified in the revision are satisfactorily complied with. The general requirements for survey after construction are also provided in order to maintain a sound structural condition under the supervision of the class. (see A2.0, A2.4 and A2.5). 2. The design loads for both towing and mooring are revised in accordance with the MSC/Circ. 1175. In addition to the specified minimum design load requirements, the revision covers a greater design load, which may be specially requested by the applicant, e.g., ship owner or ship operator. (see A2.1.3 and A2.2.3) 3. In selection of towing lines/mooring lines, it is also addressed that side projected area including maximu m stacks of deck cargo is to be taken into account, of which concerns were raised by the Port of Rotterdam based on their own feasible study of mooring forces induced by the wind forces due to full stacks of deck cargoes. (see Note to A2.1.3.2 and A2.2.3.1). 4. To ensure safe towing and mooring operations, a preparation of the drawings, towing and mooring arrangement plan and pilot card for information of the operation for ships master and pilot respectively is specified. This plan used for review/survey of shipboard fittings and supporting hull structures by classification society can be used as appropriate operation guidance for proper mooring of the vessel in line with the intent of design of deck fittings. (see A2.3) 5. To reflect the design conditions, especially for the vessel, of which deck fittings are designed based on the reduced breaking strength of mooring lines and the increased numbers of the mooring lines as permitted by the footnote of Table 5 of IACS Recommendation No. 10, the following information are to be clearly indicated on the plan: .1 the arrangement of mooring lines showing number of the lines (N), together with .2 the specified breaking strength of each mooring lines intended to be used (BS). (see A2.3.3) 3. Source/ derivation of proposed requirement Hull Panel 4. Decision by voting N.A.
Page 3 of 4
5. GPG Discussion The following issues were discussed at GPG and decided upon by vote: 1. T h e d r a f t U R w a s r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e H u l l P a n e l w i t h o u t a p r o p o s e d u n i f o r m a p p l i c a t i o n s t a t e me n t o r d a t e . A ma j o r i t y o f M e m b e r s a g r e e d t o t h e u n i f o r m a p p l i c a t i o n s t a t e me n t p r o p o s e d b y A B S ( c o n t r a c t e d f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n f r o m 1 January 2007, with RS preferring the uniform application statement proposed by GPG Chairman (contracted for construction after 1 July 2007). 2. LR pointed out that there would be a gap between the contract for construction date a s s o c ia te d w i t h t h e a me n d e d U R A 2 a n d t h e 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 0 7 k e e l - l a y i n g d a t e associated with the entry into force of -the revised SOLAS Reg. II-1/3-8. In order to bridge this gap, all Members agreed to task the Perm Sec to draft a simple UI of SOLAS Reg. II-1/3-8 stating that the requirements in UR A2 (Rev.2) are to b e applied for ships with a keel lay ing date on or after 1 January 2007. This will require Members to apply the requirements in UR A2 when acting on behalf of an Ad min istration, un le ss o th erwise in stru cted by the Ad min istra tion, bu t p rov id e Members additional time to implement the UR in their Rules. Permanent Secretariat Note [7 September 2006]: Following initial GPG approval, LR raised concerns that paragraph 2.2.3.1 of UR A2 refers to Recommendation 10, thus making it mandatory, and that Table 5 of Recommendation 10 specifies the number of mooring lines, whereas when it was copied into MSC/Circ.1175 the number of lines was omitted. This would mean that UR A2 could be considered as more restrictive than the Circular and thus an IACS member may be disadvantaged in comparison to a non-IACS member. Further discussion was held by GPG members and it was agreed by all members to add a new footnote to A2.2.3.1 (and A2.1.3(2) which also refers to Recommendation 10) to clarify that Recommendation 10 is not a mandatory requirement. In addition the GPG Chairman has opened a new subject number to discuss the method of making reference to the mandatory/non-mandatory IACS and IMO Instruments in IACS mandatory Resolutions, i.e. footnote and Annex (GPG Small Group on Reference to Mandatory Resolutions, 6158). LR was also concerned about a lack of harmonisation between UR A2 and CSR for both oil tankers and bulk carriers. Nine members (BV, KR, DNV, ABS, NK, RS, CCS, RINA and LR) agreed that this should be dealt with separately from the adoption of the draft UR A2 and that it should be considered and dealt with as rule change by PT1 and PT2 under the instruction of Hull Panel.
Page 4 of 4
IACS
July 2009
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Containers (UR C)
Res. No. UR C1 UR C2 UR C3 UR C4 UR C5 Title Prototype and production certificates General cargo containers: prototype test procedures and test measurements Quality Control arrangements at works engaged in series production of containers Tank containers: prototype test procedures and test measurements Thermal containers: prototype test procedures and test measurements Current Rev. Deleted (Mar 2000)
Downgraded to Rec.62
HF/TB ? TB TB TB TB TB
Deleted (Mar 2000)

Deleted (Mar 2000)

Deleted (Mar 2000)

Deleted (Mar 2000)

Technical Background for Recategorization of URs on Containers as Recommendations
1. Scope of objectives As a consequence of disbanding the CG/Containers, it was decided to downgrade the URs on Containers to RECs.
2. Points of discussions or possible discussions The initial discussion on the need to keep CG/Containers took place at GPG 46 in 1999. In the 1998 annual progress report, the Chairman of CG/C reported GPG that due to some lack of enthusiasm within the CG/C, GPG attention was requested to intensify the CG/C activities. At GPG 47 meeting, GPG noted slow progress in CG/C and asked he Chairman of CG/C to submit to GPG a reasoning for this fact. As a follow-up to GPG 47, GPG discussed the future of CG/C and decided to disband it, having noted that other organizations such as ISO have a similar rules. (Date: 18 January 2000) Ex-UR Cs UR C 1 UR C 2 UR C 3 UR C 4 UR C 5 New RECs REC 62 REC 63 REC 64 REC 65 REC 66
Prepared by the IACS Permanent Secretariat
IACS
Feb 2012
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (UR D)
Res. No. UR D1 UR D2 UR D3 UR D4 UR D5 UR D6 UR D7 UR D8 UR D9 UR D10 UR D11 UR D12 Title Requirement concerning offshore drilling units and other similar units Definitions General design parameters Self-elevating drilling units Column stabilized drilling units Surface type drilling units Watertight integrity Hazardous areas Machinery Electrical installations Safety features Surveys after construction
(re-located to UR Z15 in 1999)
Current Rev. Rev.4 July 2004 Rev. 2 1996 Rev.5 Jan 2012 Rev.3 Jan 2012 Rev. 3 1996 Rev.1 Jan 2012 Rev.3 Jan 2012 Rev. 2 1996 Rev. 3 1996 Rev. 2 1990 Rev.3 Jan 2012 Deleted 2002
HF/TB? No No HF HF No HF HF No No No HF TB
IACS History File + TB

UR D3 General design parameters
Part A. Revision History
Version no. Rev.5 (Jan 2012) Corr.2 (Oct 2007) Corr.1 (July 2001) Rev.4 (1996) Rev.3 (1990) Rev.2 (1989) Rev.1 (1987) NEW (1979) Approval date 13 January 2012 25 October 2007 13 July 2001 No Record No Record No Record No Record No Record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2013 -
Part A
Rev.5 (Jan 2012)
.1 Origin for Change: ; ; Based on IMO Regulation (2009 MODU CODE in the annex to IMO Resolution A.1023(26)) Other (in order to fit in with the development of offshore safety technology and practice, some current UR D related stability and safety feature requirements are updated and some new requirements are added.)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To revise UR D items related to safety feature requirementsin order to comply with 2009 MODU CODE in the annex to IMO Resolution A.1023(26) and meet the requirement of offshore technology development. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: Action to create task decided at 10th statutory panel meeting. Task No.30 was initially assigned by statutory panel to this undertaking. The task was postponed to 2011 due to the constraint of 2010 budget of the statutory panel, and the task number was changed to No.34. A dedicated project team was created to execute this task. Form A was approved by GPG on 26 May 2011. Preliminary versions of the proposed UR and technical background documents were circulated among the statutory members for review. Final version of the revised UR and technical background documents approved by the Statutory Panel on 29th September 2011.
Page 1 of 3
Part B
.5 Other Resolutions Changes UR D4, 6, 7 & 11 .6 Dates: Original proposal: February 2011 Made by: Statutory panel Panel Approval: 29 September 2011 GPG Approval: 13 January 2011 (Ref. 11083_IGi)
Corr. 2 (Oct 2007)
Para. D.3.5.3 re-instated at Hull Panel Request. Subject No: 7684. No TB document available.
Corr. 1 (July 2001)
Para. D.3.5.3 re-instated at Hull Panel Request. Subject No: 7684. No TB document available.
Rev.4 (1996)
No TB document available.
Rev.3 (1990)
Rev.2 (1989)
Rev.1 (1987)
New (1979)
Page 2 of 3
Part B
Part B. Technical Background

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR D3:
Annex 1.
TB for Rev.5 (Jan 2012)
See separate TB document in Annex 1.

Note: 1) There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for UR D3 New (1979), Rev.1 (1987), Rev.2 (1989), Rev.3 (1990), Rev.4 (1996), Corr.1 (July 2001) and Corr.2 (Oct 2007).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR D3 Rev.5, Jan 2012

1. Scope and objectives This revision involves current stability requirements of UR D3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.4, 6.4 & 7 and safety requirements of UR D11. All these works are done to make the safety requirements in accordance with IMO 2009 MODU CODE and to serve the needs of offshore technology development. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 2009 MODU CODE in annex of IMO Resolution A.1023(26) was adopted on 2 December 2009. The stability and safety requirements of UR D3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.4, 6.4, 7 & 11 should comply with the applicable provision in 2009 MODU CODE, and some current requirements are modified for this purpose. Some current requirements in UR D are no longer applicable, such as the requirements of intermediate fire water tanks which are seldom use in the units. Base on investigations of actual design, these requirements have been replaced by more suitable and precise ones. Many safety systems, such as, combustible gas detection and alarm system, hydrogen sulphide detection and alarm system, respiratory protection equipment for hydrogen sulphide, are very important for the unit safety. But there are no requirements for these systems in the current UR D. So the requirements for these systems have been added. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution The source of the information was obtained through work performed by the dedicated project team and additional input from the statutory panel. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1. UR D3.7.3 (1) With the damage region assumption set out in D4.4.1, D5.6.1 and D6.4.1, not only single compartment but also all the possible combinations of compartments should be considered damaged during the stability calculation and analysis. The force and moment caused by the wind to make the floating unit to incline should be called wind heeling force and wind heeling moment for consistency with MODU Code 2009 from the beginning to the end. 2. UR D3.7.3 (2)) with the assumption of no wind added here is to make a clear difference between the two damage stability requirements for column stabilized units specially, which are usually called light collision damage with wind and remote flooding without wind. 3. UR D3.8.3 (1) The modification is consistent with 3.4.1.2 of IMO MODU Code 2009. 4. UR D3.8.3 (2) (b)
The weathertight border should end with the smaller of the second intercept angle or the smallest downflooding angle of all openings without watertight or weathertight protection. 5. UR D3.8.3 (2) (c) The added is to be consistent with Fig 4. 6. UR D 3.8.3 (3) (b) The added is to emphasize that the range of positive stability should end with the smaller of the second intercept of the righting moment curve and the horizontal coordinate axis or the smallest downflooding angle of all openings without watertight or weathertight protection. 7. UR D 3.9.2 The modification is consistent with 3.7.9 & 3.7.15 of IMO MODU Code 2009. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The UR was developed by the project team (PT) for Task No.34 Discussion on the draft documents prepared by the PT were reviewed and discussed within the Statutory Panel at panel meetings and via email correspondence. One point that required additional discussion concerned the application of 3.6.5.1 and 3.6.5.2 of the MODU Code. Referring to the comparable text in the revised UR D, the Panel understands that D7.4.2(3)(i) applies to all doors that are used, regardless if they are (normally open or normally closed) as opposed to D7.4.2(3)(ii), which refers to doors or hatch covers in self-elevating units, or doors that are normally closed and located above the deepest draft in CSDU's which only need to be of the quick acting type. While the Panel noted that this revision to the MODU Code goes beyond that required in SOLAS for conventional ships engaged on international voyages which is understood to be cargo ships, all Members agreed that doors and hatch covers which are used during the operation of the unit while afloat, regardless if they are normally open or normally closed, are required to be remotely controlled. 6. Attachments if any None

UR D4 Self-elevating drilling units
Version no. Rev.3 (Jan 2012) Rev.2 (1996) Rev.1 (1990) NEW (1979) Approval date 13 January 2012 No Record No Record No Record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2013 -
Part A
Rev.3 (Jan 2012)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To revise UR D items related to safety feature requirementsin order to comply with 2009 MODU CODE in the annex to IMO Resolution A.1023(26) and meet the requirement of offshore technology development. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: Action to create task decided at 10th statutory panel meeting. Task No.30 was initially assigned by statutory panel to this undertaking. The task was postponed to 2011 due to the constraint of 2010 budget of the statutory panel, and the task number was changed to No.34. A dedicated project team was created to execute this task. Form A was approved by GPG on 26 May 2011. Preliminary versions of the proposed UR and technical background documents were circulated among the statutory members for review. Final version of the revised UR and technical background documents approved by the Statutory Panel on 29th September 2011. .5 Other Resolutions Changes UR D3, 6, 7 & 11
Page 1 of 3
Part B
.6 Dates: Original proposal: February 2011 Made by: Statutory panel Panel Approval: 29 September 2011 GPG Approval: 13 January 2011 (Ref. 11083_IGi)
Rev.2 (1996)
Rev.1 (1990)
New (1979)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

Annex 1.

Note: 1) There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for UR D4 New (1979), Rev.1 (1990) and Rev.2 (1996).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1

1. Scope and objectives This revision involves current stability requirements of UR D3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.4, 6.4 & 7 and safety requirements of UR D11. All these works are done to make the safety requirements in accordance with IMO 2009 MODU CODE and to serve the needs of offshore technology development. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 2009 MODU CODE in annex of IMO Resolution A.1023(26) was adopted on 2 December 2009. The stability and safety requirements of UR D3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.4, 6.4, 7 & 11 should comply with the applicable provision in 2009 MODU CODE, and some current requirements are modified for this purpose. Some current requirements in UR D are no longer applicable, such as the requirements of intermediate fire water tanks which are seldom use in the units. Base on investigations of actual design, these requirements have been replaced by more suitable and precise ones. Many safety systems, such as, combustible gas detection and alarm system, hydrogen sulphide detection and alarm system, respiratory protection equipment for hydrogen sulphide, are very important for the unit safety. But there are no requirements for these systems in the current UR D. So the requirements for these systems have been added. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution The source of the information was obtained through work performed by the dedicated project team and additional input from the statutory panel. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: UR D4.4.1 - The modification is consistent with 3.5.6 of IMO MODU Code 2009. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The UR was developed by the project team (PT) for Task No.34 Discussion on the draft documents prepared by the PT were reviewed and discussed within the Statutory Panel at panel meetings and via email correspondence. One point that required additional discussion concerned the application of 3.6.5.1 and 3.6.5.2 of the MODU Code. Referring to the comparable text in the revised UR D, the Panel understands that D7.4.2(3)(i) applies to all doors that are used, regardless if they are (normally open or normally closed) as opposed to D7.4.2(3)(ii), which refers to doors or hatch covers in self-elevating units, or doors that are normally closed and located above the deepest draft in CSDU's which only need to be of the quick acting type. While the Panel noted that this revision to the MODU Code goes beyond that required in SOLAS for conventional ships engaged on international voyages which is understood to be cargo ships, all Members agreed that doors and hatch covers which are used during the operation of the unit while afloat, regardless if they are normally open or normally closed, are required to be remotely controlled. 6. Attachments if any - None

UR D6 Surface type drilling units
Version no. Rev.1 (Jan 2012) NEW (1979) Approval date 13 January 2012 No Record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2013 -
Part A
Rev.1 (Jan 2012)
Page 1 of 3
Part B
New (1979)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR D6: Annex 1. TB for Rev.1 (Jan 2012)

Note: 1) There is no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for UR D6 New (1979).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1

1. Scope and objectives This revision involves current stability requirements of UR D3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.4, 6.4 & 7 and safety requirements of UR D11. All these works are done to make the safety requirements in accordance with IMO 2009 MODU CODE and to serve the needs of offshore technology development. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 2009 MODU CODE in annex of IMO Resolution A.1023(26) was adopted on 2 December 2009. The stability and safety requirements of UR D3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.4, 6.4, 7 & 11 should comply with the applicable provision in 2009 MODU CODE, and some current requirements are modified for this purpose. Some current requirements in UR D are no longer applicable, such as the requirements of intermediate fire water tanks which are seldom use in the units. Base on investigations of actual design, these requirements have been replaced by more suitable and precise ones. Many safety systems, such as, combustible gas detection and alarm system, hydrogen sulphide detection and alarm system, respiratory protection equipment for hydrogen sulphide, are very important for the unit safety. But there are no requirements for these systems in the current UR D. So the requirements for these systems have been added. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution The source of the information was obtained through work performed by the dedicated project team and additional input from the statutory panel. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: UR D 6.4.1- The modification is consistent with 3.5.2 of IMO MODU Code 2009. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The UR was developed by the project team (PT) for Task No.34 Discussion on the draft documents prepared by the PT were reviewed and discussed within the Statutory Panel at panel meetings and via email correspondence. One point that required additional discussion concerned the application of 3.6.5.1 and 3.6.5.2 of the MODU Code. Referring to the comparable text in the revised UR D, the Panel understands that D7.4.2(3)(i) applies to all doors that are used, regardless if they are (normally open or normally closed) as opposed to D7.4.2(3)(ii), which refers to doors or hatch covers in self-elevating units, or doors that are normally closed and located above the deepest draft in CSDU's which only need to be of the quick acting type. While the Panel noted that this revision to the MODU Code goes beyond that required in SOLAS for conventional ships engaged on international voyages which is understood to be cargo ships, all Members agreed that doors and hatch covers which are used during the operation of the unit while afloat, regardless if they are normally open or normally closed, are required to be remotely controlled. 6. Attachments if any - None

UR D7 Watertight integrity
Part A
Rev.3 (Jan 2012)
Page 1 of 3
Part B
Rev.2 (1996)
Rev.1 (1990)
New (1979)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

Annex 1.

Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1

1. Scope and objectives This revision involves current stability requirements of UR D3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.4, 6.4 & 7 and safety requirements of UR D11. All these works are done to make the safety requirements in accordance with IMO 2009 MODU CODE and to serve the needs of offshore technology development. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 2009 MODU CODE in annex of IMO Resolution A.1023(26) was adopted on 2 December 2009. The stability and safety requirements of UR D3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.4, 6.4, 7 & 11 should comply with the applicable provision in 2009 MODU CODE, and some current requirements are modified for this purpose. Some current requirements in UR D are no longer applicable, such as the requirements of intermediate fire water tanks which are seldom use in the units. Base on investigations of actual design, these requirements have been replaced by more suitable and precise ones. Many safety systems, such as, combustible gas detection and alarm system, hydrogen sulphide detection and alarm system, respiratory protection equipment for hydrogen sulphide, are very important for the unit safety. But there are no requirements for these systems in the current UR D. So the requirements for these systems have been added. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution The source of the information was obtained through work performed by the dedicated project team and additional input from the statutory panel. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1. UR D7.4.2 The modification is to eliminate the logical confusion and to be consistent with IMO MODU Code 2009. 2. UR D7.4.3 (1) The modification is to eliminate the logical confusion and make a clear presentation. 3. UR D7.4.3 (4) There is no D7.4.3(3), and whether it doesnt exist ever or there is something omitted should be clear. According to the content, the requirement of D7.4.2(3) (i) and (ii) should be complied with. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The UR was developed by the project team (PT) for Task No.34 Discussion on the draft documents prepared by the PT were reviewed and discussed within the Statutory Panel at panel meetings and via email correspondence. One point that required additional discussion concerned the application of 3.6.5.1 and 3.6.5.2 of the MODU Code. Referring to the comparable text in the revised UR D, the Panel understands that D7.4.2(3)(i) applies to all doors that are used, regardless if
they are (normally open or normally closed) as opposed to D7.4.2(3)(ii), which refers to doors or hatch covers in self-elevating units, or doors that are normally closed and located above the deepest draft in CSDU's which only need to be of the quick acting type. While the Panel noted that this revision to the MODU Code goes beyond that required in SOLAS for conventional ships engaged on international voyages which is understood to be cargo ships, all Members agreed that doors and hatch covers which are used during the operation of the unit while afloat, regardless if they are normally open or normally closed, are required to be remotely controlled. 6. Attachments if any None

UR D11 Safety features
Part A
Rev.3 (Jan 2012)
Page 1 of 3
Part B
Rev.2 (1996)
Rev.1 (1990)
New (1979)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

Annex 1.

Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1

1. Scope and objectives This revision involves current stability requirements of UR D3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.4, 6.4 & 7 and safety requirements of UR D11. All these works are done to make the safety requirements in accordance with IMO 2009 MODU CODE and to serve the needs of offshore technology development. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 2009 MODU CODE in annex of IMO Resolution A.1023(26) was adopted on 2 December 2009. The stability and safety requirements of UR D3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.4, 6.4, 7 & 11 should comply with the applicable provision in 2009 MODU CODE, and some current requirements are modified for this purpose. Some current requirements in UR D are no longer applicable, such as the requirements of intermediate fire water tanks which are seldom use in the units. Base on investigations of actual design, these requirements have been replaced by more suitable and precise ones. Many safety systems, such as, combustible gas detection and alarm system, hydrogen sulphide detection and alarm system, respiratory protection equipment for hydrogen sulphide, are very important for the unit safety. But there are no requirements for these systems in the current UR D. So the requirements for these systems have been added. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution The source of the information was obtained through work performed by the dedicated project team and additional input from the statutory panel. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1. UR D11.1.1 Because drilling units are different from ships, additional items, such as, gas detection, hydrogen sulphide detection, emergency shutdown, BOP control positions etc., have been added on the basis of ships fire control plan. SOLAS II-2/15.2.4. and IMO.A.952 (23) has been referenced for developing this requirement. 2. UR D11.2.4 In actual practice, the intermediate tank with replenishment pump is seldom installed in the MODU. For surface and column-stabilized and self-elevating units in floating conditions, the fire water normally come from more than one sea chest, and one sea chest supplying system failure can not put the other systems out of action. For self-elevating units in non-floating conditions, the fire water is supply through following ways: (a) While unit lifting or lowering, drilling water is normally supplied to fire fighting and engine cooling systems. This is a normal operation practice of some companies.
Alternatively, buffer tanks (or ballast tanks) also can supply water to fire fighting purpose. (b) During unit is in the elevating positions fire fighting water is supplied from sea water main charged by more than one submersible pumps. This new provision is developed based on above actual practice. Normally, the drilling water tank volume is far more than 40 m3. Water stored in tank of 40 m3 can maintain two 19mm nozzle jetting for one hour. If 10 m3 was specified it could be considered not enough. 3. UR D11.3.2 The new paragraph has been added because drilling and well test areas are really needed to protect. The existing units investigated by us are really protected with water spray system or fire monitors. ISO 13703, API RP 2030 and NFPA 15 have been referenced to make this new paragraph. Regarding the water application rate, 10 l/ minm2 is specified by ISO and DNV, and 20.4 l/minm2 is required by API RP 2030. Water spray is not only for cooling purpose but also for diluting gas concentration to avoid explosion. Also considering blowout fire is more powerful, so rate of 20.4 l/minm2 is required. 4. UR D11.3.3 Now, oil base mud is often used in drilling operations. Foam is the best medium to extinguish oil pool fire. So foam system is required to protect mud processing area. Regarding the delivering rate 6.5 and 4.1 l/minm2, the origin is from NFPA.11. 5. UR D 11.4.1 to 11.4.3 The revised requirements are applicable to helicopter facilities without considering with refuelling capabilities or with no refuelling capabilities. This revision is consistent with 2009 MODU Code. The delivering rate 6 l/min.m2 is maintained in order to be consistent with MODU CODE and ICAO requirement. 6. UR D11.5.1 This revision makes the requirements clearer and precise. MODU CODE, CFR 46 Part 113, IMO A.1021 (26) and MSC/ Circ.887 have been referenced for making this revision. 7. UR D11.5.4 The public address requirements are consistent with SOLAS, LSA CODE 7.2.2 and 2009 MODU CODE 5.7.3. 8. UR D11.6 This paragraph has been deleted. There are no special emergency control stations on the existing unit. General alarm actuating location requirement is moved to D11.5.1. Emergency shutdown requirement is covered in D10.5.1. 9. UR D11.7
Based on the existing text, general requirement and specific requirements for protection of galleys, electrical rooms, drilling areas, mud processing areas and well test areas have been added to enable the whole system requirements more completeness and easily operable. SOLAS, MODU Code and other materials have been referenced for making this revised paragraph. UR D11.8 (New section added) During the drilling operation, if hydrogen sulphide gas is present it could be very dangerous to personnel. So it is very necessary to optimizing the arrangement of hydrogen sulphide detectors and ensuring the availability of the Hydrogen sulphide detection and alarm system. In this paragraph, the provision of Ch.9.12 of MODU Code has been incorporated into this new URD. The requirement of two level alarms comes from API RP 49. UR D11.9 (New section added) To make the requirements for respiratory protection equipment for hydrogen sulphide more suitable for MODU, API RP 49 and 29 CFR 1910.134 have been referenced and actual conditions of MODU are considered for developing this new UR D. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The UR was developed by the project team (PT) for Task No.34 Discussion on the draft documents prepared by the PT were reviewed and discussed within the Statutory Panel at panel meetings and via email correspondence. One point that required additional discussion concerned the application of 3.6.5.1 and 3.6.5.2 of the MODU Code. Referring to the comparable text in the revised UR D, the Panel understands that D7.4.2(3)(i) applies to all doors that are used, regardless if they are (normally open or normally closed) as opposed to D7.4.2(3)(ii), which refers to doors or hatch covers in self-elevating units, or doors that are normally closed and located above the deepest draft in CSDU's which only need to be of the quick acting type. While the Panel noted that this revision to the MODU Code goes beyond that required in SOLAS for conventional ships engaged on international voyages which is understood to be cargo ships, all Members agreed that doors and hatch covers which are used during the operation of the unit while afloat, regardless if they are normally open or normally closed, are required to be remotely controlled. 6. Attachments if any None
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 1 UR Z 15 Proposed
Objective and Scope:

To review existing UR D 12 and relocate it as a UR under UR Z.
Source of Proposed Requirements:

WP/SRC members discussed and reviewed the requirements contained in UR D 12 through correspondence and their meeting. Reservations against UR D 12 were also dealt with at this time as contained in the proposed draft.
Points of Discussion:
WP/SRC unanimously agreed to the proposed draft UR Z 15.
Date of submission: 6 May 1999 By WP/SRC Chairmans e-mail
Technical Background Document New UR Z 15 and deletion of D12 (Survey after Construction, MODUs)

Re-locate the current MODU survey requirements from UR D12 to a new UR Z.

WP/SRC Chairman reported in his annual progress report(March 1999, GPG 46) that WP/SRC Members had discussed and reviewed the requirements contained in UR D 12 through correspondence and at their last meeting and had relocated the text of D 12 to a new UR Z15. The task was carried out as part of Annual review of Implementation of IACS Requirements.
WP/SRC unanimously agreed to the proposed draft UR Z 15. Council in May 1999 decided that the proposed draft paragraph 2.2.2 should be deleted since it would require Members to periodically check all CSDUs lightship characteristics as a condition of class in the event that it was not checked as a statutory requirement. Paragraph 2.2.2, which has now been deleted, read as follows:
2.2.2 For Column Stabilized Units, a deadweight survey is to be conducted as part of classification surveys at interval not exceeding 5 years or at time of Special Surveys, or as part of statutory surveys at interval specified by the Flag Administrations. Where the deadweight survey indicates a change from the calculated light ship displacement in excess of 1% of the operating displacement, an inclining test is to be conducted.
Note: Council Chairman announced approval of UR Z15(ex D12) on 15 May 1999 subject to the following conditions: Deletion of paragraph 2.2.2; Adoption of UR Z18(ex M20) for Z15.5.1 and Z15.6.1; Editorial corrections. UR Z18 was finally approved on 23 November 2001(9056aIAe, 29/01/2002): M20 was deleted; Z18 Periodical Survey of Machinery created excluding tail shaft survey requirements; Z21 created for the tail shaft survey requirements. ABS suggested to re-word Z15.5.1 to avoid the need for filing of reservations on Z15.5.1 simply because it invokes the requirements of Z21. Agreed.
***** Date of submission: 14 August 2002 By the Permanent Secretariat
IACS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES LTD. PERMANENT SECRETARIAT: 36 BROADWAY, LONDON, SW1H 0BH, UNITED KINGDOM TEL: +44(0)207 976 0660 FAX: +44(0)207 808 1100 INTERNET: permsec@iacs.org.uk Web Site: www.iacs.org.uk Oct 2012
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Electrical Installations (UR E)
Res. No. UR E1 UR E2 UR E3 UR E4 UR E5 UR E6 UR E7 UR E8 UR E9 UR E10 UR E11 UR E12 UR E13 UR E14 Cables Starting arrangements of internal combustion engines Earthing and bonding of cargo tanks/process plant/piping systems for the control of static electricity Test Specification for Type Approval Unified Requirements for systems with voltages above 1kV up to 15kV Electrical equipment allowed in paint stores and in the enclosed spaces leading to paint stores Test requirements for rotating machines Earthing of non-current-carrying parts Voltage and frequency variations Title Governing characteristics of generator prime movers Current Rev. 1975 Deleted (Dec 1996) Deleted (Dec 1996) Deleted (Jun 2000) Rev.1 Sept 2005 Deleted Rev.3 May 2006 Deleted (Dec 2003) Rev.1 Oct 2012 Rev.5 Dec 2006 Rev.2 July 2003 Rev. 1 May 2001 Corr.1 May 2004 Not adopted HF/TB? No No No TB TB No TB TB TB TB TB TB TB No
Res. No. UR E15 UR E16 UR E17
Title Electrical services required to be operable under fire conditions and fire resistant cables Cable trays/protective casings made of plastic materials Generators and Generator systems, having the ships propulsion machinery as their prime mover, not forming part of the ships main source of electical power Recording of the Type, Location and Maintenance Cycle of Batteries Ambient Temperatures for Electrical Equipment installed in environmentally controlled spaces Installation of electrical and electronic equipment in engine rooms protected by fixed water-based local application firefighting systems (FWBLAFFS) Requirements for uninterruptible power system (UPS) units as alternative and/or transitional power On board use and application of programmable electronic systems Selection of low voltage circuit breakers on the basis of their short circuit capacity and co-ordination in service
Current Rev. Rev.2 Feb 2006 June 2002 June 2002
HF/TB? TB TB No
UR E18 UR E19 UR E20
July 2003 Rev.1 Sept 2005 Rev.1 Jun 2009
TB TB HF
UR E21 UR E22 UR E23
Sept 2005 Rev.1 Sept 2010 Deleted Mar 2011
TB HF TB
Annex 2/Page 2
IACS UR E4 (1978) Earthing of non-current-carrying parts
Technical Background Document
Objective and Scope: The objective was to review of UR E4 taking into account the relevant standard IEC60092401. The scope was to delete or correct UR E4 in accordance with IEC standard.
Source of Proposed Requirements: The proposed requirements have been based on the present Rule requirements of the IACS members and standard IEC60092-401.
Points of Discussion: WP/EL unanimously agreed to delete UR E4. This UR does not reflect practice as exemplified in IEC60092-401 Electrical installation in ships. Part 401: Installation and test of completed installation and does not answer the present status of affairs.
Technical Background Document E5 (Rev.1, Sept. 2005)
IACS WP/EL Task No.67
To specify the voltage tolerance for DC distribution systems in the Unified Requirement E5 Voltage and frequency variations
Objective and Scope: The main aim of this Task is to add new requirement of the voltage variations for d.c. distribution system in UR E5 taking into consideration the relevant requirements and standards. Background for the Proposed Revision: The IEC60092-101 has been amended since 1995 and new paragraphs related with the characteristics of power supply systems have been added. It makes reference to the voltage and frequency variations for both a.c. and d.c. distribution systems. However, the existing UR E5 which was adopted in 1979 has not stated the voltage variations for d.c. distribution systems but also stated the voltage and frequency variations for a.c. distribution systems. It is timely that the allowable voltage variations for d.c. distribution systems are stated in E5 taking account of the currently increasing number of the d.c. control and instrumentation equipment in ships. Points of Discussion: First, since the combination systems of battery and its charger are common as d.c. distribution systems in ships, NK proposed the new requirement of d.c. voltage variations for such systems as a standard model in ships taking account of the following statutory regulations and international standards. It was + 12% to 22%, which overcomes the variation of 10% in the 3rd bullet. -SOLAS II-1/42.3.2.1, 42.4, 43.3.3.1 and 43.4: The allowable battery source quality is 12%. -IEC60092-352 (1997) Clause 10: The allowable voltage drop of the cable from a battery to a load is 10%. -IEC60092-101 amendment 1(1995-04) Clause 2.8.3: The allowable voltage variation for d.c. electrical equipment is 10%. After that, during the discussion, the following points were clarified. The requirement of E5 is intended for the voltage and frequency variations on the basis of designed rated value of the electrical equipment, i.e. the value is given at the consumer side. The new requirement should be developed based on the IEC60092-101 because the voltage variations specified in it are assumed to include the source quality and the voltage drop of the cable from a source to a consumer. Since the essential d.c. electrical equipment in ships are control and instrumentation equipment, the relevant requirement in UR E10 (Rev.4, May 2004), which are equivalent to IEC60092-504 (2001-03), should reflect to the new requirement. Consequently, it was decided to approve the new requirement as a revision of E5 on the following concepts:
(1) The d.c. distribution systems are divided into two categories. One of them is for components supplied by d.c. generators or converted by rectifiers, and the other is for components supplied by electrical batteries. (2) The allowable voltage variations are developed in each case of (1) above according to the value specified in IEC60092-101 amendment 1(1995-04) Clause 2.8.3 and IEC60092-504 (2001-03) Table1 item 4a.
Submitted by WP/EL Chairman 31 Jan 2005
Annex 2/Page 3
IACS UR E7 (1975, Rev. 1 1990) Cables and insulated wires
Objective and Scope: The objective was to review of UR E7 taking into account the present Rule requirements of the IACS members. The scope was to delete reference to insulated wires and amend reference to IEC92 series to read IEC60092.
Source of Proposed Requirements: The proposed requirements have been based on the present Rule requirements of the IACS members.
Points of Discussion: WP/EL unanimously agreed to delete reference to insulated wires, as insulated wires are not to be of a type approved by the Classification Society in accordance with Rule requirements of the IACS members.
UR E7 (Rev.3, May 2006)

IACS Machinery Panel Task No.PM5407 Objective and Scope: The aim of this Task is to revise UR E7 to ensure that valid and relevant standards are referred to. Background for the Proposed Revision: IEC has withdrawn the referenced standard IEC 60092-3. The standard was replaced with a number of other standards, this is duly marked in documents found in the IEC database under the technical committee SC 18A (attached) The same committee which is responsible for developing standards for ship cables has developed further standards for special cables used onboard. It is therefore opportune to add these standards to UR E7 in order to make the list of cable standards complete.
Permanent Secretariat Note:

1. 2.1 GPG agreed that no uniform implementation date was needed. LR proposed to modify para. 3 in order to give the UR its meaning. It was further improved by the GPG Chairman as follows: LRs proposed para.3 (further modified by the GPG Chairman, and 3/4 majority of GPG members agreed to)
3. Cables manufactured and tested to standards other than those specified in 2 will be accepted provided they are in accordance with an acceptable and relevant international or national standard. Reason: This is to take exception to the inclusion of "special consideration" in the UR and making the point, as has been made in the past, that the inclusion of "special consideration" within a UR, without specifying the requirements or criteria for how that "special consideration" is to be applied does not constitute a "unified requirement" since it leaves the determination of acceptability to each Society. LR therefore proposed a text it considered to constitute a "unified requirement" not relying on "special consideration."
MCH Panels proposed para 3

3. Cables manufactured to other standards than those specified in 2 are subject to special consideration by the Classification Society in each particular case."
2.2 It was then challenged by RS telling that:
Page 1 of 4
RS considers the phrase "acceptable and relevant international or national standard" too vague and reducing the responsibility of Class for this matter. Who knows whether "acceptable and relevant" national standards of one country will be applicable in other country? The phrase "subject to special consideration by the Classification Society in each particular case" is more versatile and covers all cases not mentioned in items 1 and 2 of E7. As a compromise we may add new item 4 to E7 (after item 3 proposed by IGb): "4. Cables manufactured to other standards than those specified in 2 and 3 are subject to special consideration by the Classification Society in each particular case." But the version of E7 proposed by the Machinery Panel seems better.
2.3
With detailed Reasons provided in the table above, 3/4 majority support of GPG remained unchanged. GPG approved.
3.
RS
3.1 RS stated (RSd, 3 May) that it was opposed to the revision. RS maintained the position that it is not sure that national standards acceptable to one Society would be acceptable to all other Societies, so it does not consider that the new UR E7 revision will work. RS advises that it prefers the text proposed by the Machinery Panel to GPG circulated with IGa, 10 March. 3.2 In that respect, Council Chairman pointed out that the text of item 3 of the UR:
leaves it to each Society to determine, for themselves, whether they consider a particular national or international standard to be acceptable and relevant or not. 3.3 RS maintained its position. After Council approval of the revised UR E7, submitted a Form 1 (6054_RSa, 17 May 2006) . See attachment 2.
Attached.
1. 2.
Comparison table RS Form 1, reservation.
Page 2 of 4
Attachment to UR E7 Technical Background Publications withdrawn EC 60092-3-am6 Ed.2.0 (1984) IEC 60092-3-am5 Ed.2.0 (1979) IEC 60092-3-am6 Ed.2.0 (1984) Year of withdrawal TC/SC Replaced by 1996 1996 1996 18 18 18 IEC 60092-350 Ed.2.0 (2001)* IEC 60092-351 Ed.3.0 (2004)* IEC 60092-351 Ed.3.0 (2004)* IEC 60092-352 Ed.2.0 (1997) IEC 60092-353 Ed.2.0 (1995)* IEC 60092-359 Ed.1.0 (1987) IEC 60092-376 Ed.2.0 (2003)* IEC 60092-352 Ed.2.0 (1997) IEC 60092-353 Ed.2.0 (1995)* IEC 60092-359 Ed.1.0 (1987) IEC 60092-376 Ed.2.0 (2003)* IEC 60092-350 Ed.2.0 (2001)* IEC 60092-353 Ed.2.0 (1995)* IEC 60092-359 Ed.1.0 (1987) IEC 60092-376 Ed.2.0 (2003)* IEC 60092-350 Ed.2.0 (2001)* IEC 60092-351 Ed.3.0 (2004)* IEC 60092-353 Ed.2.0 (1995)* IEC 60092-359 Ed.1.0 (1987) IEC 60092-376 Ed.2.0 (2003)* IEC 60092-350 Ed.2.0 (2001)* IEC 60092-351 Ed.3.0 (2004)* IEC 60092-376 Ed.2.0 (2003)* IEC 60092-350 Ed.2.0 (2001)* IEC 60092-351 Ed.3.0 (2004)* IEC 60092-353 Ed.2.0 (1995)* IEC 60092-359 Ed.1.0 (1987) IEC 60092-376 Ed.2.0 (2003)* IEC 60092-350 Ed.2.0 (2001)* IEC 60092-351 Ed.3.0 (2004)* IEC 60092-352 Ed.2.0 (1997) IEC 60092-353 Ed.2.0 (1995)*
IEC 60092-3-am5 Ed.2.0 (1979)
1996
18
IEC 60092-3-am4 Ed.2.0 (1974)
1996
18
IEC 60092-3-am3 Ed.2.0 (1973)
1996
18
IEC 60092-3-am2 Ed.2.0 (1971)
1996
18
IEC 60092-3-am1 Ed.2.0 (1969)
1996
18
IEC 60092-3-am2 Ed.2.0 (1971)
1996
18
Page 3 of 4
IEC 60092-3-am1 Ed.2.0 (1969) IEC 60092-3 Ed.2.0 (1965)
1996 1996
18 18
IEC 60092-3-am4 Ed.2.0 (1974) IEC 60092-3-am3 Ed.2.0 (1973) IEC/TR 60092-390 Ed.1.0 (1997) IEC 60092-505 Ed.3.0 (1984)
1996 1996 2005 2002
18 18 18A 18
IEC 60092-359 Ed.1.0 (1987) IEC 60092-352 Ed.2.0 (1997) IEC 60092-352 Ed.2.0 (1997) IEC 60092-353 Ed.2.0 (1995)* IEC 60092-359 Ed.1.0 (1987) IEC 60092-376 Ed.2.0 (2003)* IEC 60092-350 Ed.2.0 (2001)* IEC 60092-351 Ed.3.0 (2004)* IEC 60092-352 Ed.2.0 (1997) IEC 60092-352 Ed.2.0 (1997) withdrawn IEC 61892-5 Ed.1.0 (2000)
Page 4 of 4
FORM 1 NOTICE OF RESERVATIONS FILED FOR IACS UNIFIED REQUIREMENTS

A Full Complete Listing UR Number and Title: E7, Cables Version Clause UR E7 Rev.3, May 2006 3
Society RS
Reservation RS reserves its position on acceptance of cables others than those specified in item 2 of UR E7. These cables will be subject to special consideration by RS in each particular case. Rationale: RS Rules requires that cables should have RS type approval.
UR Number and Title: Version UR
Clause
Society
Reservation
Date:___17.05.2006__________ Signature:_______________________ (GPG Member)
(New) UR M61 Starting arrangements of internal combustion engines deletion of UR M49 Availability of machinery and UR E8 Starting arrangements of internal combustion engines 1. General
There had been a long discussion in 1998-1999 with respect to the definitions of deadship and blackout. The main reason was that the SOLAS definitions of blackout and deadship condition were quite different from those given in UR M49 (Rev.1, 1996). 2. UR M 49
At present, Rev.1 of M49 (1996) is effective. In 1998, WP/MCH suggested that a footnote be added to UR M49.1 in order to make reference to SOLAS II-1/42.3.4 and 43.3.4. GPG 44 (1998) also considered that the existing UR M49.1 was to be isolated from M49.2, the latter together with UR E8 being relocated as new UR M61. At the same time, GPG 44 decided that approval of Rev.2 of UR M49 be put in abeyance until the development of UI SC 124 was finalized. UR M49 (Rev.2) and M61(New), so prepared by the Permanent Secretariat, were passed to WP/MCH for review. In particular, WP/MCH was to clarify the scope of application of M49 and M61 to non-SOLAS ships (part of WP/MCH Task 41). WP/MCH reported to GPG 52 (March 2002) that M49 should apply to all ships subject to further debate. WP/MCH consequently suggested in March 2003 (GPG 54) that an application note should be added to UR M49 to the extent that M 49 applies to non-SOLAS vessels. The draft footnote read: These requirements (M49) apply only to ships required to comply with SOLAS [and ships above 200 GRT]. WP/MCH Chairman later confirmed in consultation with experts that the square bracket be removed. However, Council did not approve it (June 2003). 3. UI SC 124
GPG 44 (1998) found that the draft text of SC 124 did not clarify the definition of deadship and blackout. UI SC 124 was then withdrawn and WP/MCH was tasked to develop an interpretation of the two terms with a view to elaborating a definition to be used in UR M49 and SC 124 and if necessary other resolutions. However, WP/MCH failed to reach a common understanding of the term deadship condition in 1998. Hence, GPG 46 (1999) attempted to develop a generally agreeable definition. With assistance from the WP/MCH, GPG/Council finally approved UI SC 124 in
May 1999. It was submitted to IMO DE (DE 43/Inf.5). Revised in June 2002 and submitted to IMO MSC 76. Status at this point
4.
Tasking of WP/MCH
In August 2003 GPG tasked WP/MCH to consider M49: a. whether the text of UR M49.1(draft Rev.2, xxxx) should be amended in light of UI SC 124(Rev.1, June 2002) ; b. whether the wording [and ships above 200GRT] should be deleted from the note to UR M49(draft Rev.2, xxxx) or retained; M61: c. whether the text of new draft UR M61 is appropriate, taking into account 7225_NVc of 26 May 98 from the then GPG Chairman. 5 WP/MCH submission
The WP concluded that text of UR M 61 is not adequate and changes suggested previously by GPG need to be introduced. However with the introduction of these changes M61.3 would become a word by word copy of SOLAS regulation II-1/44. Therefore WP did not see any need for this requirement as a class one and proposed to GPG to delete M61.3.
IMO has adopted MSC/Circ.736 (which is recommendatory) that interpreted SOLAS regulation II-1/44.1. There was a need to draft a UI that would simply reference the relevant paragraphs of this circular with respect to the regulation in question. This arrangement will create uniform application on behalf of the Flags in cases where a particular Flag is silent on circular application. With the publication of the revised SC124 the need for UR M49 as it stands were now be brought into question. The origins of the UR M49 stem from SOLAS II-1/26.4 with the need to define what "dead ship" conditions entailed. In view of the latest SC124 it would now seem sensible to make a new UIs for SOLAS II-1/26.4 and HSC 9.1.5 and delete M49. In doing this it would make it clear that the requirements are only applicable to SOLAS/HSC vessels and obviate the discussions regarding the notes to M49. The definition of "dead ship" in the new UIs would be consistent with SC124. With the above in mind WP/MCH: i) proposed to delete M61.3, ii) suggested to draft a UI that would reference relevant paragraphs of SOLAS Reg. II-1/44.1 and MSC/Circ.736, iii) sought approval for the deletion of UR M49 and drafting of UI for SOLAS II1/26.4 and HSC 9.1.5. GPG concurred and approved the subsequent drafts and deletion of UR M49 and UR E8 (as per 3097cIGf of 12 November 2003; tacit 19 November) . *********
Permanent Secretariat 21 November 2003.
Part A
UR E9 Earthing and bonding of cargo tanks/ process plant/piping systems for the control of static electricity
Version no. Rev.1 (October 2012) NEW (1988) Approval date 29 October 2012 No record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2014 -
Rev.1 (October 2012)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Other (OCIMF)
.2 Main Reason for Change: OCIMF highlighted cases of valve installations on board product carriers that were improperly bonded to the hull, and as a consequence, the resistance between the valve and the hull of the ship was higher than required by E9.1 It resulted that wafer-type valves were involved, and due to their design, the connecting bolts, unlike for other type of valves, did not provide a proper means of bonding the valve to the hull. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: Form A approved 11th April 2011. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 30th June 2011 Made by: Machinery Panel Panel Approval: 07 September 2011 GPG Approval: 29 October 2012 (Ref. 11075_IGd)
NEW (1986)
Page 1 of 2
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR E9: Annex 1. TB for Rev.1 (October 2012)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) document for the original resolution (1988).
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR E9 Rev.1, Oct 2012

1. Scope and objectives OCIMF highlighted cases of valve installations on board product carriers that were improperly bonded to the hull, and as a consequence, the resistance between the valves and the hull of the ship was higher than required by E9.1. The UR is to be modified to improve its clarity and avoid re-occurrence of the highlighted cases. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Normally valves are connected to the piping system by bolts; unless the valve or piping are applied with a heavy layer of paint before fitting the bolts, the bolts also electrically bond the valve to the piping, and the piping system is properly bonded to the hull structure, therefore it is not normally needed to have separate bonding straps connected to the valves. An analysis of the case however revealed that wafer-type valves were involved; wafer type valves are not attached by bolts to the piping flange, but just squeezed in between two flanges, often with the additional use of a gasket and the bolts connect the two flanges without even touching the valve. Therefore, unless the gaskets are electrically conductive, the valve body will be electrically isolated from the piping. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution SOLAS Reg. II-2/4.5.3 Cargo Tank Venting SOLAS Reg. II-2/11.6 Protection of cargo tank structure against pressure or vacuum in tankers. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: - In order to better identify the cases which require a bonding strap and call the surveyor attention to wafer-style valve with non-conductive (e.g. PTFE) gaskets or seals. - Instead of earth use the term the hull of the ship. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The term wafer-style valve was subject to discussions, but it was agreed to keep this term in the document. 6. Attachments if any None
Technical Background Document WP/EL Task 38 To Review UR E10, Rev.2.1
1. Objective and Scope: Correct an editorial nature error to test item 14 : Radiated Radio Frequency , i.e. replacing 80 kHz to 1 GHz with 80 MHz to 1 GHz.
2. Source of Proposed Requirements: The proposed correction was submitted by GPG correspondence (Mr.Kaji of NK message of 29 July 1998). IEC 1000-4-3 (1995) Standard.
3. Points of Discussion: WP/EL unanimously agreed to correct test item 14 : Radiated Radio Frequency , i.e. replacing 80 kHz to 1 GHz with 80 MHz to 1 GHz.
----------
Date of submission: 13 May 1999 By WP/EL Chairman
E 10 (Rev.3)
Technical Background Document WP/EL Task 39 Revision of IACS UR E10 Testing procedure for electrical, control and instrumentation equipment, computers and peripherals covered by classification Objective and Scope: To revise UR E10 in order to investigate the difference between IEC 60945, IEC60533 and to align with IEC Standards. Source of Proposed Requirements: IACS WP/EL 28th Progress Report IEC 60945, IEC 60533, IEC 60092-504 Standards Points of Discussion: The existing UR E10 had undergone an extensive review during the meeting. Test requirements are harmonized with IEC 60092-504 Electrical Installations in Ships Part 504: Special features Control and instrumentation, IEC 60533 Electrical and electronic installations in ships Electromagnetic compatibility and IEC 60945 Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems. General requirements-Methods of testing and required test results. DNV proposed to add a new test concerning influence of mobile phones on electrical equipment. With some other changes the corrected draft of the UR agreed by WG was forwarded to GPG for consideration attached to the 30th WP/EL Progress Report
Submitted by WP/EL Chairman in January 2001
UR E10 (Rev.4)
IACS WP/EL Task No.49 To clarify the equipment to be covered by UR E10 Type Test Specification and to investigate the adequacy of the DC power supply tests in item 4 Power supply variations of the table in UR E10. Objective and Scope: 1. To redefine more closely the equipment to which E10 is required to be applied. 2. To investigate if the test procedure for DC power supply voltage variation in item 4 a) of the Table Type testing condition for equipment covered by E10.1 is adequate. Source of Proposed Requirements: IACS UR E10 (Rev. 3, May 2001) Draft of AHG/COMP Onboard Use and Application of Computers. IEC Pub. 60092-504 Points of Discussion: There appears to exist different interpretations among IACS member societies for the scope of applications of E10 for onboard equipment and systems, especially for onboard computer based systems and peripherals. At least, further breakdown of the listed equipment in E10.1 is necessary for uniform implementation of E10 among IACS member societies. The existing UR E10 had undergone an extensive review during the meeting. ABS proposed to postpone this objective due to several reasons taking into account of the currently undergoing Tasks in IACS, e.g., L[5], AHG/COMP, AHG/EMC, etc. However, during the discussion, it was decided that the scope of application in E10.1 was slimmed and the application of E10 was limited for Type Approval. NK submitted the investigation of the test procedure for DC power supply voltage variation in item 4 of the Table of E10. It appears that the duration time and the cycle period for voltage cyclic variation and voltage ripple are not specified for the test conditions of DC supply variation. However having considered all pro et contra after discussion it was decided to stay tests without change as it is. Additionally it was proposed to investigate some suppositions in EMC/AHG. It was decided to approve new Draft of UR E10 on following conditions: To change Type Test Specification in title and para.E10.1 of UR E10 to Test Specification for Type Approval. To retain monitoring, control protection and safety and interior communication services and to delete all other services in the current E10.1. To stay voltage cycling variation and voltage ripple (para.4 of E10 Table) without change as it is.
With some other changes the corrected draft of the UR agreed by WG was forwarded to GPG for consideration attached to the 33rd WP/EL Progress Report.
Technical Background Document UR E10 (Rev.5, Dec. 2006) IACS Machinery Panel Task No. PM5603
Objective and Scope: The aim of this Task was to: 1) To align UR E10 with test requirements found in IEC 60068-2-6 test Fc 2) To examine UR E10 requirements on RMC/RFI in the light of the new edition of IEC 60945 and amend as found necessary 3) To unify low temperature test conditions between UR E10, UR M40 and other relevant industry standards (e.g. IEC 60945). In addition minor alterations was introduced to enhance the quality of the test standard and to make it more up-to-date. Background for the Proposed Revision: Test number 3, External power supply failure, special conditions for the test has been added if the equipment under test needs a longer time for start up, e.g. booting sequence and for equipment which requires booting. Points of Discussion: This has been added in order to ensure a uniform implementation of the test requirement. Test number 7, Vibration, last bullet in the comment field does not specify the limitations given in the IEC standard. A request from Siemens revealed the flaw in E10. The limitations are of importance to ensure adequate stress level of the equipment under endurance test. Points of Discussion: When a resonance frequency is detected during vibration test, we have to ensure that no damage to the equipment is likely to occur at this frequency. This is done by performing an endurance test. In case several frequencies are detected the endurance test may be carried out as swipe test, but only within frequency limits specified. This is agreed to be technically correct and introduced in E10. Test number 15, Conducted low Frequency, IEC 60945 has deleted the test Immunity to conducted low frequency interference. Points of Discussion: The test referred to in E10 was on the basis of IEC 60533, but the origin for IEC 60533 was IEC 60945. We have therefore investigated whether this test is of relevance to ship installations. We have had confirmation from test laboratories performing the testing of equipment that it is, but that the test standard referred to is incorrect. We have therefore added a drawing to show an adequate test set-up which is suitable for performing this test. This is agreed to be technically correct and introduced in E10. Test number 21, flame retardant test where an alternative has been added. Points of Discussion: The test piece required for the test specified in IEC 60092-101 is very large and in many cases it is not available such large pieces for testing. IEC 60695-11-5 being a newer standard does fulfil the intention of the IEC 60092-101 and may be used as an alternative. The evidence of flame retardation for cables is described sufficiently in IEC 60092-101.
Task number 3 was to unify low temperature test conditions between UR E10, UR M40 and other relevant industry standards (e.g. IEC 60945). This did not have any effect on the standard and is only enclosed as a reminder of the work being carried out. Points of Discussion: In order to examine low temperature test standard an investigation of environmental conditions has been conducted. Environmental conditions elaboration of requirements in different standards: M40 (1981) Ambient conditions Temperatures M40.1 The ambient conditions specified under M40.2 are to be applied to the layout, selection and arrangement of all shipboard machinery, equipment and appliances as to ensure proper operation. M40.2 Temperatures Air Installations, Location, arrangement Temperature range (C) components In enclosed spaces 0 to +45 On machinery components, boilers Machinery and electrical According to specific local In spaces subject 1 installations conditions to higher and lower temperatures On the open deck 25 to +45 Water Coolant Seawater Charge air coolant inlet to charge air cooler Temperature (C) 32 see UR M28
NOTES 1. Electronic appliances are to be suitable for proper operation even with an air temperature of +55C. 2. The Classification Society may approve other temperatures in the case of ships not intended for unrestricted service. Conclusion: Lower temperature in enclosed spaces is 0C Low temperature test IEC 60945 (protected equipment) 15 C 3 C IEC 60945 states (Equipment protected from the weather should not experience such low temperatures, and IEC 60721-3-6 gives +5 C as the minimum temperature. However, since this standard deals with vital navigation and radiocommunication equipment which will be required to start operating in a dead ship, clause 8 calls for 15 C for protected equipment and 20 C for portable (life saving) equipment.) IEC 60721-3-6 states: (IEC 60721-3-6 Classification of environmental conditions. Part 3: Classification of groups of environmental parameters and their severities. Ship environment, abstract: Classifies groups of environmental parameters and their severities to which a product is subjected when installed aboard a ship. Ships where products may be permanently or temporarily installed include ships propelled by mechanical means and ships not propelled by mechanical means.)
As we read IEC 60721-3-6 +5C covers products installed in totally weather protected, heated and ventilated locations after warm-up, otherwise -25C applies. This has been adopted by IEC 60945, but modified. E10 IEC Publication 60068-2-1 +5C 3C Overall conclusion: +5C 3C is correct for products installed in totally weather protected, heated and ventilated locations after warm-up. There may be equipment required to start operating in a dead ship condition which may need a lower temperature. Effect on E10. To keep the 5C for the moment, but to return to the task when doing a total upgrade of the URs with respect to temperature limitations.
Submitted by Machinery Panel Chair 23 November 2006
Permanent Secretariat Note (December 2006):

Rev. 5 of UR E10 approved by GPG and Council, 13 December 2006 (6206_IGc). Machinery Panel proposed implementation date of 1 January 2008 and this was agreed by GPG/Council.
E 11 (Rev.1)
Technical Background Document WP/EL Task 1A Annual Review UR- Review UR E11 Objective and Scope: To correct UR E11 in order to eliminate existing reservations and to align with IEC Standards. Source of Proposed Requirements: The proposed requirements have been based on the present Rule requirements of IACS members and IEC Standards. Points of Discussion: During the XXI WP/EL Meeting it was decided that maximum application voltage should be increased to 15 kV to be in line with IEC 60092-503 and IEC 60092-508 new proposals but where necessary for special application, higher voltages may be accepted by the Society. The table 1.2 nominal voltages/frequencies was deleted because it was not a requirement. During discussion several paragraphs were deleted because they were not specific for HV systems. Added requirement for directly earthed neutral or other neutral earthed systems. Added a higher protection against tool penetration inside the enclosure. Included requirements for the acceptance of liquid cooled transformers. Added installation requirements where high voltage cables of different voltage ratings are installed on the same cable tray. Number of other comments including editorial changes was made which are incorporated in the final draft. The corrected draft of the UR agreed by WP was forwarded to GPG for consideration attached to the 30th WP/EL Progress Report.
Submitted by WP/EL Chairman in January 2001
32 Progress Report WP/EL 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annex 3.1
Technical Background Document UR E11 1991 (Rev.1 May 2001) [Rev.2] Unified requirements for systems with voltages above 1 kV up to 15 kV
WP/EL Task 1A Annual Review UR- Review UR E11 (Rev.1, May 2001) Objective and Scope: GPG at its 52nd meeting reviewed 31 Progress Report WP/EL and decided to ask WP/EL to consider ABS comments on UR E11 and RINA reply with a view to clarifying requirements in para. 6.3.2, which pertains to the number of power sources for operating switches and circuit breakers. Source of Proposed Requirements: The proposed requirements have been based on the present Rule requirements of IACS members and IEC Standards. Points of Discussion: During the XXIV WP/EL Meeting it was decided that two external supply sources are necessary for auxiliary circuits. Auxiliary circuits circuits, which are necessary in the switchgear and control gear assemblies to ensure the safe operation of the HV power circuits. Such circuits include control, protection, measuring circuits and so on. In addition they are not derived from their power circuits but from external source(s) with external supply(ies).
Auxiliary circuits are not opposed to normal supply because normal supply is not used for HV installation: each consumer is not provided with its own auxiliary transformer. Only external supplies are used for control and protection purposes. In case of failure of external supply, the power system is not more protected (e.g. short circuit protection, overload protection, and all the other safety protections are not working) and the power supply is to be tripped.
Where the main switchboard is divided in two parts, having only one source of supply for each section, it means that half of the power is not more available due to a single failure of this source (half of the power in all the cases for HV installation is more than one generator). This is not acceptable. Taking into account all above mentioned, two external supply sources are necessary for auxiliary circuits. The corrected draft of the UR agreed by WG was forwarded to GPG for consideration attached to the 32nd WP/EL Progress Report.
E 12 (Rev.1) Technical Background Document WP/EL Task 1A Annual Review UR- Review UR E12 Objective and Scope: To correct UR E12 in order to align with IEC Standard. Source of Proposed Requirements: The proposed requirements have been based on the revised IEC 60092-502 Standard. Points of Discussion: The text has been revised taking into account the IEC 60092-502. We have deleted the reference to IACS Recommendation No.22 and insert in lieu the IEC 60092502. The corrected draft of the UR agreed by WP was forwarded to GPG for consideration attached to the 30th WP/EL Progress Report.
Submitted by WP/EL Chairman
E 13 (Rev.1)
Technical Background Document WP/EL Task 1A Annual Review UR- Review UR E13 Objective and Scope: To correct UR E13 in order to eliminate existing reservations and to align with IEC Standards. Source of Proposed Requirements: During XIX WP/EL Meeting it was claimed that in UR E13 there are editorial mistakes concerning overload/overcurrent and overspeed tests. Points of Discussion: It was discussed whether there is a practically justified need to carry out overload/overcurrent tests as a Routine tests for a.c. generators and motors? After much discussion most members expressed the opinion that overload/overcurrent tests as a Routine tests are applicable for machines of essential services rated above 100 kW/kVA. The question of 50 or 100 kW was raised. It was decided that all machines of 100kW and over, intended for essential services, are to be surveyed by the Society during testing and, if appropriate, during manufacturing. As regards to overspeed test WP/EL members decided that one is not applicable for squirrel cage motors. The new requirement regarding the shaft material for electric propulsion motors and for main engine driven generators where the shaft is part of the propulsion shafting is included to current UR. The corrected draft of the UR agreed by WP was forwarded to GPG for consideration attached to the 30th Progress Report WP/EL.
Submitted by WP/EL Chairman in January 2001.
Technical Background Document WP/EL Task 30 Use of Fire Resisting Type Electrical Cables and for Electrical Services Required to be Operated under the Fire Conditions UR E15 (New)
1. Objective and Scope: To identify constructional standards for fire resistant type electric cables and to develop unified requirements on their use for electrical services which are required to be operated under fire conditions.
2. Source of Proposed Requirements: The proposed requirements were developed by WP/EL members through their experience in surveying of electrical services which are required to be operated under fire conditions. SOLAS-74 and IMO Code on Alarms and Indicators {A.686 (17)}, UI SC10 (Rev.1 1997), Class Rules, International and National Standards and Specifications for Cables.
3. Points of Discussion: WP/EL unanimously agreed to the draft UR
---------
Date of submission: 13 May 1999 By WP/EL Chairman
Technical Background E 15(Rev.1, 2004)
IACS WP/EL Task No.60 To revisit the Unified Requirements E15 to facilitate uniform implementation, by further clarification of the intent of the requirements including development of the definition of fire zone and deck. Objective and Scope: To revisit the requirements and notes in UR E15 Electrical Services Required to be Operable Under Fire Conditions and Fire Resistant Cables taking into consideration the various arrangements and possibilities for maintaining electrical services under fire conditions. Particularly, to develop definitions, practicability of maintaining the functionality, etc., as may be necessary to further clarify the intent and improve the uniform application of E15 in the area as indicated under Work Specification. Background for the Proposed Revision: Since the adoption of UR E15 in May 1999, various shipbuilders sought (and are still seeking) clarifications as to the interpretation of UR E15 including the following issues: (a) A fire zone can mean anything between main vertical/horizontal zones in SOLAS Reg. II-2/2.2.1 and any single space listed in SOLAS Reg. II-2/2.3.3 or 2.4.2. Reference to high fire risk area earlier in E15.2.1 suggests the latter approach may be closer to the intent, which needs to be clarified. Reference to decks could be superfluous when fire zone is properly defined. It could be even misleading without reference to bulkhead, another element consisting the boundary of zone or area. (b) E15.3.1 suggests that services in E15.2.2 may not be supplied under local fire at an apparatus. This could contradict E15.2.2 when read literally. (c) There is room for further refinements, including but not limited to duplicated system in the second paragraph of E15.2.1 (PA system is a single system with duplicated elements so as to maintain functionality see LSA Code 7.2.2.1, a system with supply from main and emergency sources is another example.), apparatus in E15.3.1 (undefined), etc. Points of Discussion: It is considered that the confusion has been caused by the terminologies of deck and the undefined fire zone in E15 since there are various arrangements of cables for electrical services to be operable under fire conditions. Re-investigation was mainly made for the following points: (a) Correction to follow the latest IEC Standards for fire resistant cables in E15.1, (b) Requirement for distinguishing the fire resistant cable from flame retardant cables or other non-fire resistant cables in E15.1, (c) Clarification of the original intent in E15.2.1 taking into account of the practicable application, (d) Development of the definition for high fire risk areas in E15.2.1, (e) Revisiting the list of services in E15.2.2, (f) Refining E15.3.1 for further clarification of the original intent, and
(g) Several editorial corrections. It was also investigated if Section 1 subclause 4 of IEC 60092-352 (1997) should be incorporated in E15, which states In circuits used for fire alarm, detection, extinguishing services, remote stopping and similar control circuits, fire resistant cables shall be considered unless the systems are self-monitoring type or failing to safety or the systems are duplicated. However, it was concluded that the above statement is not included in E15 revision since it is not the intent of E15.2.1. The wording provided their functionality can be maintained in the second paragraph of E15.2.1 was deleted since it is not considered practicable to maintain the functionality after the cables to these services are damaged. However, if the system failure is detected and alarmed under self-monitoring functions, the crew can recognize the failure and would establish the compensating routines or procedure. Further, the system fails to a safe mode and duplicated with cable runs are also compensating such failure.
Note: DNV GPG Member suggested that E15.1 should also refer to IEC 60331-21 for cables with diameter of less than 20 mm. E15.1 was so amended.
Technical Background UR E15 (Rev. 2, Feb 2006)

IACS Machinery Panel Task PM5402: To modify the IACS UR E15 Electrical Services Required to be Operable Under Fire Conditions and Fire Resistant Cables
Scope and objectives Revisit E15 in order to clarify some requirements which are ambiguous and may cause misunderstandings. At the same time, make E15 more to the point, i.e. shorter, and restructure it to make it more readable and to separate guidance information from requirements, and present it accordingly.
Points of discussion Rev. 2 is agreed unanimously by Machinery Panel Members.
Submitted by MCH Panel Chairman 27 Dec 2005
Permsecs Note: GPG Discussion (s/n 6003, 24 Jan 2006) 1. RINA GPG commented that in Figure 1 of the UR, the style of the lines connecting ESB with DB, DB with DB, and DB with "Electrical consumers" should be changed into the dashed line indicating "Flame retardant cable". MCH Panel Chairman confirmed that was what the Machinery Panel had intended. Hence, this proposal was accepted. 2. RS also commented on the same cables mentioned by RINA GPG, but recommended that these cables should be "Fire resistant cables". MCH Panel Chairman confirmed that it would be meaningless to use the fire resistant type for these cables since any equipment located inside a high fire risk area should be considered not operable under fire conditions. Hence, this proposal was not accepted.
Implementation (6003_ICa, 6 Feb 2006):

The revised UR E15 was adopted on 6 Feb. 06. In accordance with IACS Procedures, IACS Societies are to incorporate the revised UR into their Rules and/or procedures within one year of adoption by IACS Council.
Page 1 of 1
Technical Background UR E16 (June 2002, February 2007)

Objective and Scope: Original scope: To develop a Unified Requirement for the use of GRP material in cable trays and protective casings onboard ships that will constitute equivalent level of safety as steel trays. Additional scope 2006 (PM6401): To explain the reason for the requirement of using electrically conductive trays/protective casings in gas dangerous zones. Background: The reason for the development of UR E16 in 2002 was an increase in the application of Cable trays/protective casings made of plastics materials, and the challenges this created. The UR addressed challenges related to blocking of escape routes, load on the trays, and degree of filling of protective casings. In addition it was required that the cable trays/protective casings made of plastics materials should be type tested according to the type test procedure. The type test procedure was developed as well and issued as a recommendation. Points of Discussion: The technical requirements in the UR were established based upon the experience gathered by the societies having been requested to approve cable trays/protective casings made of plastics materials in addition to the following: USCG requirements to Fibre Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Cable Trays. IEC 61537 draft standard. Resolution MSC.61(67) adoption of the international code for application of fire test procedures. In addition the following caused serious technical concerns: No adequate test for UV light influence on plastic material. Are vibration tests required? Are the tests from IMO Fire Test Procedures Code (FTPC), Resolution MSC.61(67), Part 2 Smoke and Toxicity Test, and meeting the criteria established for plastic pipes and electric cables sufficient on passenger vessels in the passenger area. When developing the type test procedure all of the above documents were used to encompass all technical requirements of relevance. Additional scope 2006 (PM6401): Postulate from client: Item 4.1 of the standard REC 73 is not able to validate the requirements of resistivity according to the standard IACS E16 or even other international technical standards such as the IEC standards. Thus, that item must be disregarded, because it shows big conceptual errors. It is up to IACS provide the revision of the Standard REC 73. Problem definition: In order to avoid the accumulation of static electricity which when discharged in an explosive atmosphere may give rise to an explosion; the tray made of plastics materials is required to be electrically conductive in hazardous areas and is to be earthed. Some background information on this is described below:
Materials for controlling the generation and the safe dissipation of static electricity In many cases, the choice of material and its electrical properties is a key factor in controlling the generation and the safe dissipation of static electricity. Conductive polymers are available which have properties suitable for a wide range of applications. Sometimes the use of more traditional materials may be the most suitable choice to avoid static problems. The electrical properties of materials, such as resistivity and charge decay properties, are very important in the specification of materials when considering electrostatic probabilities. Often these must be measured according to recognised industry or national standards. A good material will have electrical property measurement capability such as; material resistivity and resistance up to 1015 ohms electric field and potential (Voltage) measurements from <100V to greater than 20kV charge decay time measurements from 30ms to 102 seconds or greater triboelectrification (charge generation) measurements dielectric permittivity and loss measurements breakdown voltage measurements Avoiding electrostatic spark explosion hazards Most people are aware from their own experience that static electricity can cause sparks to occur unexpectedly. In some industries such sparks could cause the risk of fire or explosion, and it is important to avoid this by reducing static electricity build-up to safe levels. The Minimum Ignition Energy (ESD) is used as an indicator of the possible spark ignition sensitivity of the fuel under a given set of test conditions. The risk of ignition of a flammable mixture is a complex function of the fuel ignition sensitivity and the igniting ability (incendivity) of the spark. Electrostatic discharges occur in many forms, and this incendivity factor in itself is highly complex. The most hazardous type of ESD is one which occurs between metal objects. This has the highest incendivity. A discharge from an insulating surface is less incendive, but can easily ignite some sensitive fuel mixtures. Another type of discharge, the corona discharge, tends to occur from sharp edges of metals at high voltages. This is generally accepted as being not incendive under most circumstances. However, ignition is a possible risk if; a fuel is present and a potentially flammable atmosphere could arise (many dust clouds, solvent vapours and fuel mists commonly form sensitive flammable mixtures with air) there is air or another oxidising material which could react with the fuel there is the possibility of static electric build-up leading to an incendive spark A good general guidance is given in BS5958-1:1991 Code of practice for control of undesirable static electricity. General considerations and BS5958-2:1991 Code of practice for control of undesirable static electricity. Recommendations for particular industrial situations are key UK standards dealing with electrostatic hazards, but no standard can adequately cover all possible situations. Typical measures aimed at preventing ignition include preventing the occurrence of a flammable atmosphere, e.g. inerting with nitrogen preventing dangerous build-up of static charges by grounding metallic objects, and replacing insulating materials with static dissipating materials.
Review the reference documents a) IEC 60093-0; Methods of test for volume resistivity and surface resistivity of solid electrical insulating materials is a reference document which provides test procedures and calculations for the determination of volume and surface resistivity. It establishes recommendations for values of voltage and time of application, nature and geometry of
electrodes temperature and humidity of atmosphere and test specimens and conditioning of test specimens b) IEC 60079 series states in 6.4 Static electricity In the design of electrical installations, steps shall be taken to reduce to a safe level the effects of static electricity. NOTE In the absence of IEC standards on protection against static electricity, national or other standards should be followed. Identify the background for the requirement All problems related to static electricity derive from the: generation of electric charges accumulation of these charges on insulators or insulated conductors electric field produced by these charges, which in turn results in a force or a disruptive discharge. Preventive measures seek to avoid the accumulation of electrostatic charges, and the strategy of choice is to avoid generating the electric charges in the first place. If this is not possible, measures designed to ground the charges should be implemented. Finally, if discharges are unavoidable, sensitive objects should be protected from the effects of the discharges. Analyse the requirements in terms of technical soundness identifying hazards using the proposed solution. The first point to be reviewed is whether static electrical charges are likely to be created on a passive cable tray. How can an electrical charge build-up? The generation of electrostatic charge is intrinsic to many industrial operations. The rate of charge generation is notoriously difficult to predict, however, operations involving rapid and energetic movement and the contact and separation of surfaces will produce increased charging. Milling of powder, for example, will generate more charge than pouring. In industry charge generation mechanisms are as follows: contact and separation of solid surfaces such as moving webs over rollers. movement of personnel. flow/movement of liquids. production of mist or aerosols. flow or movement of powders. charging by induction in an electric field. (This implies that a cable tray may be charged by induction as it will be within an electrical field) Conclusions: 1. The suggestion that there are no requirements relating to the use of plastic materials in hazardous areas "in any technical literature about electrical plants in explosive atmospheres" made in the first part of the postulate is incorrect. 2. In at least two parts of the standard referred to (IEC 60079) address electrostatic charges on non-metallic materials e.g. Part 0 and Part 14. Several other national standards resulting out of the ATEX directive require the risks from electrostatic discharge to be addressed. 3. Based upon the forgoing, IACS does not recognise a technical reason for altering the requirements as formulated in E16 and Rec.73. Submitted by Machinery Panel chairman 11 December 2007
(Permanent Secretariat note: approved by GPG 15 January 2008, ref. 6097aIGf)
Annex 1.1
Technical Background Document E 18 Recording of the type, location and maintenance cycle of batteries (New, July 2003)
WP/EL Task 50 To develop requirements for the recording of the type, location and maintenance cycle of batteries
1. Objective and scope: To formulate an IACS requirements for the recording of the type, location and maintenance cycle of batteries. 2. Source of proposed requirements. WP/EL XXIII meeting, St.Petersburg 2001 3. Resume In view of the increasing use of electronic and computer based systems and electrical equipment that operate at low voltage, e.g. 12 or 24 volts d.c, there has been the associated increasing use of locally installed batteries around the ship. Examples of such batteries include those fitted within equipment for memory power supply back up, in the event of the failure of the normal electrical power supply and those for the transitional emergency supply for low location lighting systems and other emergency services. Failure of such batteries as the result of poor maintenance or ageing may cause the loss of essential or emergency services. Because of the quantity of such batteries and the variety of equipment and locations in which they may be installed it is considered necessary to require that a schedule of such batteries be compiled and kept.
4. Points of discussion An increasing number of items of SCADA (supervisory control and acquisition) equipment are now low power and voltage as the result of advanced technology. Because of the difficulty of providing such equipment with an alternative/emergency source of power, where required, at low voltage from a central source without prohibitive voltage loss, the use of UPS (uninterruptible power source) units has increased dramatically. The batteries in the UPS units require maintenance and also replacement after a specified lifetime. Failure of such batteries as the result of poor maintenance or ageing may cause the loss of essential or emergency services. Most of the modern batteries fitted are of the valve- regulated sealed type1 requiring reduced ventilation. Where vented type2 batteries replace valve- regulated sealed types, it is to be ensured that there is adequate ventilation and that Societys requirements relevant to the location and installation of vented types batteries are complied with. During discussion it was noted that developing a listing of batteries and keeping it on board each ship is supported, provided it is used during the subsequent class surveys. This task is to ensure the location of batteries are known and that they are safe and maintained in a correct manner. The full text of the UR agreed by WG was forwarded to GPG for consideration attached to the 32nd WP/EL Progress Report.
32 Progress Report WP/EL 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
A valve-regulated battery is one in which cells are closed but have an arrangement (valve) that allows the escape of gas if the internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value.
A vented battery is one in which the cells have a cover provided with an opening through which products of electrolysis and evaporation are allowed to escape freely from the cells to atmosphere.
Annex 2.1
Technical Background Document E 19 (New, July 2003) Ambient temperatures for electrical equipment in areas other than machinery spaces.
IACS WP/EL Task 54 Ambient temperatures for electrical equipment in areas other than machinery spaces 1. Objective and scope: To formulate an IACS requirements for ambient temperatures for electrical equipment in areas other than machinery spaces 2. Source of proposed requirements. WP/EL XXIII meeting, St.Petersburg 2001
3.
Rsum:
The current ambient temperatures specified for electrical equipment is the same as that for mechanical equipment as exemplified in UR M28, i.e. 45C. Whilst this acceptable for electrical equipment located in machinery spaces and on open deck there is a considerable amount of electrical equipment, including cables, that is fitted in locations which never experience these elevated temperatures. Examples of these areas are machinery control rooms and switchboard rooms that are generally fitted with air conditioning units and passenger accommodation on passenger ships, which again have air conditioning. Along with the increased generating capacity now installed is the associated increase in the capacity and size of the main switchboard and, for high voltage systems, the associated sectionboard(s). Switchboard manufacturers advise that for a 5C reduction in ambient temperature can result in smaller frame sizes of circuit breakers and a reduction in the size of the switchboard(s)/section-board(s). Electrical systems in passenger accommodation are now being designed using industrial practices except that heat producing equipment, such as fluorescent lights, are currently required to specially built for a 45C ambient temperature which they are very unlikely to experience.
5.
Points of discussion
The current ambient temperatures specified for electrical equipment is the same as that for mechanical equipment as exemplified in UR M 28, i.e. 45C. Whilst this acceptable for electrical equipment located in machinery spaces and on open deck there is a considerable amount of electrical equipment, including cables, that is fitted in locations which never experience these elevated temperatures. Examples of these areas are machinery control rooms and switchboard rooms that are generally fitted with air conditioning units and passenger accommodation on passenger ships, which again have air conditioning. Along with the increased generating capacity now installed is the associated increase in the capacity and size of the main switchboard and, for high voltage systems, the associated section-
32 Progress Report WP/EL 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------board(s). Switchboard manufacturers advise that for a 5C reduction in ambient temperature can result in smaller frame sizes of circuit breakers and a reduction in the size of the switchboard(s)/ section-board(s). Electrical systems in passenger accommodation are now being designed using industrial practices except that heat producing equipment, such as fluorescent lights, are currently required to specially built for a 45C ambient temperature which they are very unlikely to experience. The full text of the UR agreed by WG was forwarded to GPG for consideration attached to the 32nd WP/EL Progress Report.

UR E19(Rev.1, August 2005)
IACS WP/EL AOB 5.8 To modify the UR E19 Ambient Temperatures for Electrical Equipment in Areas other than Machinery Spaces with regard to definition of machinery spaces. Objective and scope: To modify the UR E19 Ambient Temperatures for Electrical Equipment in Areas other than Machinery Spaces with regard to definition of machinery spaces. Source of proposed requirements. UR E19 background.
Points of discussion According to SOLAS, Machinery Control Rooms are categorized as Machinery Spaces. Thus, the current UR E19 seems not to be applicable to the equipment installed in Machinery Control Rooms because of its title; however, the Technical Background of UR E19 allows such application. Since the UR E19 and its technical background are discrepant each other the modifications of title of the UR E19 and para.1 of UR E19 were made.
Submitted by WP/EL Chairman 31 Jan 2005
IACS History File + TB,
Part A
UR E20 Installation of electrical and electronic equipment in engine rooms protected by fixed waterbased local application fire-fighting systems (FWBLAFFS)
Version no. Rev.1 (June 2009) NEW (May 2004) Approval date 22 June 2009 31 May 2004 Implementation date when applicable -
Rev.1 (June 2009)
See TB in Part B.
NEW (May 2004)
See TB in Part B.
Page 1 of 2
Part B Part B. Technical Background

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR E20: Annex 1. TB for Original Resolution(May 2004)

Annex 2. TB for Rev.1(June 2009)
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background UR E 20 (New, 2004)
IACS WP/EL Task 52 Influence of fixed water-based local application fire-fighting systems (FWBLAFFS) in engine rooms to electrical equipment Objective and scope: To develop UR for the electrical safety of electrical and electronic equipment within engine rooms, in areas protected by FWBLAFFS, and adjacent areas where water may extend. Source of proposed requirements. SOLAS Ch. II-2 / 10.5.6.2 MSC Circ. 913 MSC Circ. 1082 Points of discussion Increasingly, water-based fire-fighting systems are being used in engine rooms, control rooms and other spaces, as well as for local application, which when activated may have an extremely destructive effect on electrical equipment. In this context an essential requirements contained in IMO document MSC Circ. 913, clause 3.2, should be noted: The activation of the fire-fighting systems should not result in loss of electrical power or reduction of the maneuverability of the ship. WG considered the possibility of damage to some electrical equipment due to the operation of FWBLAFFS. The potential for damage depends upon a number of factors, which include: 1. Various types of available FWBLAFFS and their potential effects on electrical equipment within their vicinity. 2. Requirements for the installation of FWBLAFFS in machinery spaces in respect to adjacent electrical equipment. 3. Degree of ingress protection for electrical equipment in these areas with regard to the type of FWBLAFFS used. (e.g. low and/or high pressure systems etc.) 4. Voltage at which the equipment operates (low voltage vs. high voltage systems). 5. Location of the electrical equipment and enclosure inlets relative to the water mist nozzles. 6. Mist droplet size and droplet density (which can vary substantially from manufacturer to manufacturer depending upon their particular nozzle design). Each of the above items directly impact the potential for damage to electrical equipment, and it would therefore appear that all such items must be adequately quantified before establishing any reasonable conclusions regarding the potential damage to electrical equipment. Beyond the potential damage to electrical equipment, it would appear that the potential danger of shock would also be of significant concern. During the XXV WP/EL Meeting it was decided to make some definitions concerning with areas protected by FWBLAFFS where electrical equipment are installed. Taking into account the aforesaid WP/EL developed this Unified Requirement, which was agreed by WG and forwarded to GPG for consideration attached to the 33rd WP/EL Progress Report.
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background UR E20, Rev.1 (June 2009)

Machinery Panel Task PM5403 Develop an alternative text for the Interpretation to Paragraph 3.2 in MSC/Circ. 1082 and review the need for the IP44 requirement in UR E20
1. Clause 3.2 of the Annex to the MSC/Circ. 913 Guidelines for the Approval of Fixed Water Based Local Application Fire-Fighting Systems for Use in Category-A Machinery Spaces reads as follows. The activation of the fire-fighting systems should not result in the loss of electrical power or the reduction of maneuverability of the ship. 2. MSC/Circ.1082 gives an interpretation for the paragraph 3.2 of the MSC/Circ. 913 as follows.
The activation of the system should not require engine shutdown, closing fuel oil tank outlet valves, evacuation of personnel and sealing of the space. Any of these actions would lead to loss of electrical power or reduction of maneuverability. Paragraph 3.2 is not intended to place requirements on electrical equipment.
3. While noting the above interpretation, the Machinery Panel concluded that the classification requirements of URE20 are necessary and appropriate to address the safety of ships and personnel in the event of FWBLAFFS activation. 4. Based on service experience since the introduction of SOLAS Ch II-2/C, Reg.10.5.6 and cases where the appropriateness of the UR E20 requirement for electrical and electronic equipment enclosures in protected or adjacent areas exposed to direct spray to have a degree of protection of at least IP44 has been challenged, Rev. 1 introduces the possibility of evidence of suitability for lower degrees of protection to be submitted for consideration by the Society. 5. This may involve adequate testing or submission of satisfactory test evidence and/or analysis that is relevant to the particular installation of FWBLAFFS (including nozzle type), equipment and machinery that is found on board a given ship. The use of enclosures with a lower degree of protection than IP 44 will be subject to the approval of the Society in each case. 6. Updating of the requirements of IEC 60092-201, Electrical installations in ships System design General, Section 7: Degree of protection will be considered when issued to assess whether there is any impact on UR E20.
Submitted by Machinery Panel Chairman 27 May 2009
Permanent Secretariat note (June 2009): Rev.1 of UR E20 was approved by GPG on 22 June 2009 (ref. 6014_IGi).
Technical Background Document UR E21 (New, August 2005) IACS WP/EL Task 53 Unified requirements for the use of Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) units as alternative and/or transitional sources of electrical power in lieu of centralized arrangements. Objective and scope: To formulate an IACS requirement for the acceptance of the use of uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) units as alternative and/or transitional sources of electrical power in lieu of centralized arrangements. Source of proposed requirements. SOLAS Ch. II-1 / 42 and 43 SOLAS Ch. II-1 / 42.2.3 or 43.2.4. IEC 62040 Points of discussion A increasing number of items of SCADA equipment and alike, are now low power and voltage as the result of advanced technology. Because of the difficulty of providing such equipment with an alternative/emergency source of power, where required, at low voltage from a central source without prohibitive voltage loss and because of the convenience and design advantages of using a UPS unit, the use UPS units has increased dramatically. UPS units are also now being proposed, fitted and being accepted as an alternative to supplying emergency electrical equipment from the transitional source of electrical power as required by SOLAS. Whilst such arrangements do not meet the wording of SOLAS they meet and in some cases exceed the intent. The purpose of the UR is to clarify the acceptable arrangements and to propose to IMO amendments considered necessary to the applicable SOLAS requirements During the XXVI WP/EL Meeting it was decided to make some definitions concerning with UPS type and also: To specify a minimum UPS capacity subjected to survey To specify a battery charger capacity To place the definitions given in the footnote up into beginning of the document Taking into account the aforesaid WP/EL developed this Unified Requirement, which was agreed by WG and forwarded to GPG for consideration attached to the 34rd WP/EL Progress Report. Submitted by WP/EL Chair 31/01/2005

UR E22 On Board Use and Application of Programmable Electronic Systems
Version no. Rev.1 (Sept 2010) Corr.1 (Oct 2007) New (Dec 2006) Approval date 02 Sept 2010 05 Oct 2007 17 Dec 2006 Implementation date when applicable 1 Jan 2012 1 Jan 2008
Part A
Rev.1 (Sept 2010)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Suggestion by an IACS member
.2 Main Reason for Change: Suppliers are proposing wireless communication links in safety related class installations, including that for propulsion and steering arrangements. There is a need to address the possible development of requirements for short range wireless communications, for example using Bluetooth, and IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) protocols. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The project team attempted to follow a holistic approach to the development of requirements by conducting a safety assessment of potential wireless technologies used in classed safety related application. Relevant best practices applied by Member Societies and related industries and existing standards were considered. A variety of industry stakeholders were consulted to provide feedback that was acted upon. UR E22 defines system categories for programmable electronic systems that have been used to differentiate wireless technology in different applications. .5 Other Resolutions Changes UR E10 (Rev.5 Dec 2006) Test Specification for Type Approval is under revision.
Page 1 of 3
This revision will introduce additional requirements for the assessment of: 1. Electromagnetic field for equipment within the transmission range of the wireless data communication devices. 2. Radiated Emission of wireless data communication devices above 1GHz. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: October 2008 Made by the Machinery Panel Panel Approval: June 2010 GPG Approval: 02 September 2010 (Ref: 8672_IGe)
Corr.1 (Oct 2007)
Standard footnote for the explanation of the contracted for construction date added. (ref. 7546a) No TB document available.
New (Dec 2006)
Task No.31 of WP/EL. See TB in Part B.
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents: Annex 1 TB for New (Dec 2006) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Annex 2 TB for Rev.1 (Sept 2010) See separate TB document in Annex 2. Note: There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document for Corr.1 (Oct 2007).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
UR E22 UNIFIED RQUIREMENTS FOR THE ON BOARD USE AND APPLICATION OF PROGRAMMABLE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
Technical Background (internal)
In the WP/EL Progress Report No. 26 WP/EL proposed to develop new UR for the onboard use and application of computers which was further approved by GPG 42 (18-20 March 1997) Task No. 31 UR for the on board use and application of computers was given to WP/EL. Prepared by PRS the first draft was mainly concerned with hardware, system configuration and basic functions. The draft was a verbatim copy of the proposed IEC 60092-504 text for computer based systems. Reliable operation of computers and consequently of the systems functionality and safety to be monitored and controlled requires suitable software. Requirements for the assessment of software had not been elaborated. It was noted that relevant procedures and evidence required in this context should be laid down. Therefore the new UR should close the lack between the UR E10 hardware test standards and the missing software requirements. WP/EL also decided that new draft UR should be short and precise taking into consideration the result of the MSC/Circ. 891. The next draft of requirements for the on board use and application of computers submitted to XXI WP/EL Meeting (15-17 June 1999) was short but did not yet clearly reflect the software evaluation and assessment. WP/EL also decided the establishment of an AHG that would include specialists in the area of use and application of on board computers. GPG established an AHG/Comp chaired by GL to address the WP/EL Task No. 31, reference to GPG FUA 42-2, 9051elGb. AHG/Comp TASK 99-1 was defined with reference to the letter from WP/EL Chairman (Ref.004-2.440-478im dated 29.09.1999) and the target date 4Q 2000. The new UR should reflect to the GUIDELINES FOR THE ONBOARD APPLICATION AND USE OF COMPUTERS as prepared by IACS and NMD at request of IMO. At IMOs 39 session in January 1996, the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and equipment invited Norway and IACS to prepare GUIDELINES FOR THE ONBOARD APPLICATION AND USE OF COMPUTERS. IACS/NMD proposal was adopted as a MSC/Circ. 891 dated 21.12.1998. These Guidelines have been developed to provide an international standard for design, approval and testing of such systems and are additional to the regulation of the SOLAS Convention. The following steps have been carried out: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The first draft was finished in week 5 in February 2000. The draft UR has been developed from IEC 61508. Comments were requested latest until week 13 in March 2000. The initial meeting was hold in Hamburg in April 2000. The results of the AHG/Comp. were documented in the paper UNIFIED RQUIREMENTS FOR THE ON BOARD USE AND APPLICATION OF COMPUTERS dated 22.05.2000. The final draft was presented in St. Petersburg in June 2000 at the WP/EL meeting. During the XXII IACS WP/EL meeting in St. Petersburg at the end of June the members of WP/EL have agreed the final draft of the UNIFIED RQUIREMENTS FOR THE ON BOARD USE AND APPLICATION OF COMPUTERS prepared by AHG/WP-EL as the Task No. 99-1 in substance with editorial changes. After the WP/EL meeting the editorial changes worked into the paper and transferred to WP/SSLL for comments. Corrected draft was submitted to GPG for approval in September 2000. Comments given by WP/SSLL were discussed with the chairperson of WP/SSLL and added to the UR in November 2000. GPG comments were given in 2001 (substantial by ABS). The comments were given to the members of the AHG by email. No response was received after a long time and some reminder. GPG 52 had tasked to converting the existing draft UR on the subject into an Int Inf. GPG confirmed to reactivate the work of the AHG/Comp in 2003. GPG comments added after AHG/Comp meeting (participation of LR, DnV, GL, ABS, BV, RINA) in Hamburg August 2003. WP EL was requested by GPG to transform the Int. Inf. to a Recommendation in 2004; WP/EL Task 73 added according to GPG 56 FUA 36.2.; WP/EL decided that Int. Inf. Status is not acceptable and applied to GPG for changing outcome status of the document from Int. Inf. Into UR. Presentation to GPG in Paris October 2004 with the conclusion to change the draft into rule language, GPG had no major objection to the technical content.
16. Last revision based on the remarks given by GPG e-mail dated 19. November 2004 created from 24.02. to 25.02.2005 by LR, DnV and GL in Hamburg. 17. Handed to the Machinery Panel in September 2005. 18. Review by Machinery Panel by correspondence. 19. DNV and GL point out that they use different system categories, however see no conflict to the categories in the UR. 20. Agreement on final text for UR at 4th Panel meeting 19-21 September 2006. Implementation statement The Panel suggested that the implementation date be 1 January 2008. While ABS GPG member proposed in ABc to reword the implementation statement in order to avoid any vague and problematic interpretation, with two options, one is that the UR is to be applied only to such systems on new ships contracted for construction from a particular date (e.g. 1 Jan 08), the other is that the UR is to be applied to such systems installed on new ships contracted for construction from a particular date (e.g. 1 Jan 08) and such systems installed on existing ships after another date (e.g. 1 Jan 09). As the first implementation statement,i.e.Note: This UR is to be applied only to such systems on new ships contracted for construction on and after 1 January 2008 by IACS Societies., is more appropriate and realistic, GPG Chairman inserted it into the new UR E22 accordingly. Hamburg, 14 November 2006 Chairperson AHG/Comp and IACS Machinery Panel Chairman
UR E22 UNIFIED RQUIREMENTS FOR THE ON BOARD USE AND APPLICATION OF PROGRAMMABLE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
Technical Background (external)
Scope and objectives UR E22 complements the existing UR E10 for hardware test standards with requirements for software. Reliable operation of programmable electronic systems and consequently of the systems functionality and safety requires suitable software. The new requirements for the assessment of software relate to quality assurance, testing at module and system level, and to integration and failure simulation. UR E22 relates to the GUIDELINES FOR THE ONBOARD APPLICATION AND USE OF COMPUTERS as prepared by IACS and the NMD at the request of IMO. At the 39th session of the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment Norway and IACS were invited to prepare GUIDELINES FOR THE ONBOARD APPLICATION AND USE OF COMPUTERS. The IACS/NMD proposal was adopted as a MSC/Circ. 891 dated 21.12.1998. These Guidelines have been developed to provide an international standard for design, approval and testing of such systems and are additional to the regulation of the SOLAS Convention. Source/ derivation of requirements Related international standard: IEC 60092-504
Hamburg, 20 December 2006 IACS Machinery Panel Chairman
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for UR E22 Rev.1, Sept 2010

1. Scope and objectives To consider the suitability of wireless technologies in Classed installations and to introduce suitable Unified Requirements that support an effective unified approach to the assessment of wireless technologies where permitted by Member Societies. To assess where wireless technologies are suitable for use in classed installations. To development a Unified Requirement that will allow a unified assessment approach to the use of wireless technology onboard ships that: o If necessary, states clearly any restriction of use for safety related applications with reasoning for restriction; o covers both performance, testing and assessment requirements; o addresses relevant hazards to contribute to overall safety; o reflects current technologies and best practice; o allows for application to future technology by considering the services affected; and o ensures consistency with UR E10, Test Specification for Type Approval.
2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale There is a need to address the possible development of requirements for short range wireless communications typically using Bluetooth, and IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) protocols. This is becoming an issue as suppliers are providing such communication links as part of their products in classed installations. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution Developed by IACS Project Team. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: The following section of UR E22 has been updated to give consideration of wireless technologies. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Appendix 1, Requirements applicable to programmable electronic systems Documents to be submitted Tests and Evidence Section 7. On-board tests
The following text has either been changed or added. Rationale for new 2.1.2: To provide for consideration of alternative design arrangements, potentially including the use of wireless data communications links, in safety critical applications which do not conventionally comply with the requirements of UR E22. Rationale for new 2.3.6:
To make clear that data link communications are to be arranged to cause systems to fail to safe upon loss of data communications. Rationale for new 2.3.7: To make clear that data link communications capacity should avoid the possible effects of data link congestion and provide adequate data transmission times as required by the application. This requirement aligns with IEC 60092-504, sub-Clause 10.6.3. Rationale for new Subsection 2.4 Additional requirements for wireless data links: Additional requirements governing the use of wireless data links in applications covered by Classification are grouped together to assist users. Rationale for new 2.4.1: Through application of a holistic approach to the development of requirements, and use of the existing UR E22 categorising of programmable electronic systems based on the application, it was observed that: the likelihood of failure of a category III system leading to an accident with catastrophic severity needs to be minimised. As such, the use of unconventional technology for such applications will only be permitted exceptionally in cases where evidence can be presented that demonstrates acceptable system performance to the satisfaction of the Society; failure of a category II system may lead to accidents and Classification requirements are to be provided to assist in reducing the likelihood of failure as a consequence of design, construction or installation; the failure of category I systems may be tolerated by mitigation other than classification requirements. The requirements may optionally be used for category 1 systems. Rationale for new 2.4.2: Recognising that wireless technology may be subject to denial of service, either intentionally or unintentionally, an alternative means of control for essential services independent of a wireless data communication link is to be provided so that systems are designed and arranged such that essential services provision is not dependant on a wireless data communication link. Rationale for new 2.4.3: Requirements are introduced to address attributes considered to be specifically required for wireless data communication links in Category II system applications. It is considered appropriate to apply proven internationally recognised protocols to achieve compliance under most circumstances and it is recognised that application of alternative protocols will likely necessitate closer scrutiny of evidence provided to the Society to verify compliance. Rationale for new 2.4.3(a): Data integrity is considered essential for the reliability of Category II system applications. Rationale for new 2.4.3(b): To address security, systems designs are to be defined and limited in terms of the total planned devices (including planned devices that are not always present and/or connected, e.g. planned arrangements for manufacturer representative access). Device
authentication is to be utilised to prevent connection of devices that that are not part of the system design. Rationale for new 2.4.3(c) and (d): Measures considered necessary to address security. Rationale for new 2.4.4: It is recognised that frequency spectrum usage and power levels should be restricted to that permitted internationally and, where such exist, the requirements of the Flag State to ensure the wireless data communication link operation will be allowed. The note recognises that the actual operation and control of systems and the areas visited globally by a ship are not addressed by Classification, noting that different local restrictions globally could potentially prove difficult for ship operators in practice in cases. In such cases, ship operators are responsible for assessment in advance so that safe system operation is achieved, noting the requirements of 2.4.2. Rationale for new 3.4: Provision of evidence of compliance with UR E22 for systems incorporating wireless data communication. Rationale for new Table III entry: On board testing under operational conditions to demonstrate system operation as planned is considered necessary to verify compliance and safe operation. Rationale for new Appendix I, 7.3: Specification of testing to be conducted. This includes the need to consider different expected operating conditions onboard. It should be recognised that testing may need to be conducted to demonstrate that systems coexist without mutual interference under expected operating conditions 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions Short-range wireless data communication technologies for systems covered by Classification are not yet considered to have a significant record of service experience for reference. Specifying of wired back-ups for wireless data communication links is not considered a pragmatic option. Wireless technology should be as safe as a wired equivalent so far as is reasonable and practicable. The introduction of wireless technology to applications covered by Classification introduces a number of concerns including the possibility of unauthorised access and manipulation of systems and jamming as a deliberate act or as a consequence of EM interference Category III applications dependant on wireless data communication to operate should only be considered at this time if a body of evidence demonstrating acceptable performance to the satisfaction of the Society is prepared. This may exclude the use of wireless technology in an application due to cost and availability of technology.
Some countries and locations (e.g. ports) have different restrictions from those internationally agreed on frequency spectrum usage and transmission power levels. Some states may also enforce legislation related to accessibility of transmitted data for state security purposes. Ship operators should consider and adapt to these effects. Classification approval will be based upon the whole system, including wireless technology, operating as presented. It is recognised that the use of wireless systems in non-classed and category I systems may cause interference with other classed systems, immunity requirements have been introduced accordingly. Mitigation of Safety, health and environmental risks is provided for with the use of internationally accepted power levels and frequencies. 6. Attachments if any None
Technical Background (internal) UR E23 (NEW Feb 2007)

UR for the choice of circuit breakers (PM5405) Objective and scope:
To develop unified requirements for selection of low voltage circuit breakers with relation to point of installation, services fed, and short circuit conditions.
Source of proposed requirements:

The proposed requirements have been based on the present Rule requirements of IACS members and IEC Standard 60947 Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear.
Background:
As a consequence of feedback from switchboard makers indicating confusion about selection of circuit breakers due to different practise from the different societies, IACS established a project team with the aim to establish unified requirements for selection of low voltage circuit breakers restricted to consideration of short-circuit capacity and co-ordination in service. Other factors, i.e. environmental testing, location and construction of enclosures, are not covered here.
Content:
Based on definitions and test methods for breaker data laid down in IEC 60947, the UR establish requirement for choice of low voltage circuit breakers short-circuit capacity and co-ordination in service ensuring the safety and reliability of the electrical installation with a clear description of how breaker data should be evaluated for specific distribution systems on board ships.
Points of discussion:
The Project Team proposed to base requirements to breaking capacity on the short circuit currents value at the instant of contact separation, in line with IEC 61363 section 9.2 b). However, after discussions in the Machinery Panel, it has been decided to base the requirements to breaking capacity on the short circuit currents value after the first half cycle (t = T/2) in order to keep todays practise, and in order to make the societies verification more simple. No decisions have been based on voting. Submitted by Machinery Panel Chair 20 December 2006 Discussion at GPG level: RINA in 6214_RIa suggested to replace the word 'after' with 'at', although only one member (DNV) supported this proposal at the first round discussion, considering the importance and it being a specific technical comment, GPG Chairman tasked the Machinery Panel to consider it. The Machinery Panel reported that they had no objections to replacing the word 'after' with 'at' in sections 3 and 4 of the new UR. CCS and RS only agreed this proposal to be taken in section 3 (excluding section 4). Further CCS and RINA provided more detailed technical comments to back their views respectively. As those
messages were received at late stage, unfortunately no other members' comments were available before the deadline. Since those discussions between RINA and CCS are related to specific technical matter which is not appropriated to be discussed at GPG level, and CCS suggested to seek the opinions of the major circuit breakers manufacturers about the proposed changes to the draft UR (section 4) by RINA to make sure that there is no difficulty in the implementation of the UR, while RINA had no objection on this suggestion and RS supported it, in addition, RS suggested that Machinery Panel should be tasked to seek the opinions of manufacturers. In order to implement this new UR E23 unanimously, GPG Chairman suggested that Machinery Panel be tasked to select the major circuit breakers manufacturers to seek their opinions on this matter, and feedback the result as early as possible, so further rectified action may be taken if necessary. All members agreed to extend the implementation date on 1st of July 2008 suggested by LR.
--------------------
Appendix A:
Supporting guidance for the application of IACS UR E23 1. For definition of terms used in this UR, refer to IEC 60092 and IEC 60947. 2. Figure 1 below shows an example of the application of Clause 3 of UR E23 to a power distribution system. 3. Figure 2 below shows continuity of supply and continuity of service as referred to in Clauses 5 and 6 of UR E23.
Figure 1 Example of Power Distribution System and Requirements for Icu or Ics
G
HV (> 1 KV) System
To be all Ics regardless of services. (See 3.2.1)
G
HV (> 1 KV) System is not within the scope of this UR
To be Ics due to no physical barrier. (See 3.2.2) Switchboard breaker
G
LV (=< 1 kV) System
Where Physical Barrier and switchboard breaker are fitted, see Note. (See 3.2.3)
Physical Barrier
MCC See also SC136
MCC fed through switchboard breaker
Main Bus Bar in Primary Switchboard

N-ES ES
N-ES Switchboard breaker
ES
Icu since services in down-stream side are all N-ES. Secondary Distribution Board
To be Ics since services in downstream side contain ES.
See Note for circuit breakers
To be all Ics regardless of services (See 3.2.1)
Secondary Distribution Board
Emergency Switchboard
N-ES N-ES N-ES N-ES ES
ES
N-EM
EM
Icu
See Note
3rd Level Distribution Board See Note
3rd Level Distribution Board
To be Ics since services in downstream side contain EM.
Secondary Emergency Distribution Board
Fuses are not within the scope of this UR N-ES N-ES Icu N-ES ES N-EM EM See Note for circuit breakers
Symbol & Abbreviation

: Circuit Breaker : Disconnecting Switch : Transformer : Fuse
Battery Charging & Discharging Board
: Generator : Battery ES: N-ES: EM: N-EM: MCC:
EM
EM
N-EM
See Note
Essential Service Non-Essential Service Emergency Service Non-Emergency Service Motor Control Center
Note: - To be Ics for ES or EM and secondary side of transformer where circuit breaker is fitted. - Icu is acceptable for N-ES or N-EM
Figure 2: Continuity of Supply & Continuity of Service

Before a fault During a fault After a fault
Continuity of Supply
Continuity of Service
Definition for the above figures: (a) The continuity of supply is the condition for which during and after fault in a circuit, the supply to the healthy circuits (see circuit 3 the above figure) is permanently ensured. (b) The continuity of service is the condition for which after a fault circuit has been cleared, the supply to the healthy circuits (see circuit 3 in the above figure) is automatically re-established.
Technical Background (external) UR E23 (NEW Feb 2007)

UR for the choice of circuit breakers (PM5405)
Objective and scope:

To develop unified requirements for selection of low voltage circuit breakers with relation to point of installation, services fed, and short circuit conditions.
Source of proposed requirements:

The proposed requirements have been based on the present Rule requirements of IACS members and IEC Standard 60947 Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear.
Background:
As a consequence of feedback from switchboard makers indicating confusion about selection of circuit breakers due to different practise from the different societies, IACS established a project team with the aim to establish unified requirements for selection of low voltage circuit breakers restricted to consideration of short-circuit capacity and co-ordination in service. Other factors, i.e. environmental testing, location and construction of enclosures, are not covered here.
Content:
Based on definitions and test methods for breaker data laid down in IEC 60947, the UR establish requirement for choice of low voltage circuit breakers short-circuit capacity and co-ordination in service ensuring the safety and reliability of the electrical installation with a clear description of how breaker data should be evaluated for specific distribution systems on board ships. Submitted by Machinery Panel Chair 20 December 2006 --------------------
Appendix A:
Supporting guidance for the application of IACS UR E23 1. For definition of terms used in this UR, refer to IEC 60092 and IEC 60947. 2. Figure 1 below shows an example of the application of Clause 3 of UR E23 to a power distribution system. 3. Figure 2 below shows continuity of supply and continuity of service as referred to in Clauses 5 and 6 of UR E23.
Figure 1 Example of Power Distribution System and Requirements for Icu or Ics
G
HV (> 1 KV) System
To be all Ics regardless of services. (See 3.2.1)
G
HV (> 1 KV) System is not within the scope of this UR
To be Ics due to no physical barrier. (See 3.2.2) Switchboard breaker
G
LV (=< 1 kV) System
Where Physical Barrier and switchboard breaker are fitted, see Note. (See 3.2.3)
Physical Barrier
MCC See also SC136
MCC fed through switchboard breaker
Main Bus Bar in Primary Switchboard

N-ES ES
N-ES Switchboard breaker
ES
Icu since services in down-stream side are all N-ES. Secondary Distribution Board
To be Ics since services in downstream side contain ES.
See Note for circuit breakers
To be all Ics regardless of services (See 3.2.1)
Emergency Switchboard
N-ES N-ES N-ES N-ES ES
ES
N-EM
EM
Icu
See Note
3rd Level Distribution Board See Note
3rd Level Distribution Board
To be Ics since services in downstream side contain EM.
Secondary Emergency Distribution Board
Fuses are not within the scope of this UR N-ES N-ES Icu N-ES ES N-EM EM See Note for circuit breakers
Symbol & Abbreviation

: Circuit Breaker : Disconnecting Switch : Transformer : Fuse
Battery Charging & Discharging Board
: Generator : Battery ES: N-ES: EM: N-EM: MCC:
EM
EM
N-EM
See Note
Essential Service Non-Essential Service Emergency Service Non-Emergency Service Motor Control Center
Note: - To be Ics for ES or EM and secondary side of transformer where circuit breaker is fitted. - Icu is acceptable for N-ES or N-EM
Figure 2: Continuity of Supply & Continuity of Service

Before a fault During a fault After a fault
Continuity of Supply
Continuity of Service
Definition for the above figures: (a) The continuity of supply is the condition for which during and after fault in a circuit, the supply to the healthy circuits (see circuit 3 the above figure) is permanently ensured. (b) The continuity of service is the condition for which after a fault circuit has been cleared, the supply to the healthy circuits (see circuit 3 in the above figure) is automatically re-established.
Technical Background for UR E23 Delete, Mar 2011
Machinery panel reported to GPG70 that: Panel had been tasked to review the UR E23 (Subject Number: PM5405 (6214a)) which had been withdrawn by IACS following the negative feedback from the industry. The Panel has since been trying to gather evidence from members experience, which will help in justifying the need to review the UR further or may be for re-issuing it. However gathering evidence was proving difficult because once the fire had been extinguished, it was too difficult to find out whether the fire was initiated by the circuit breakers or not. Due to the lack of evidence the Panel decided to permanently delete UR E23. After agreement in GPG the Permanent Secretariat is kindly requested to publish/update the UR E23 from withdrawn to deleted. On receiving the machinery panel report (10158bPMa), PermSec updated the status of UR E23 to Deleted. IACS PermSec 19 May 2011
IACS
Nov 2012
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Fire Protection (UR F)
Res. No. UR F1 UR F2 UR F3 UR F4 UR F5 UR F6 UR F7 UR F8 UR F9 UR F10 UR F11 UR F12 UR F13 UR F14 UR F15 Piping passing through dangerous zones Gland seals in pump room bulkheads Pump room alarms Standardization of Flash Points Portable instruments for measuring oxygen and flammable vapour concentrations Pressurisation of cargo tanks Lighting and sighting ports in pump room/engine room bulkheads Title Cathodic protection on oil tanker Aluminium coating on board oil tankers and chemical tankers Tank cleaning openings Current Rev. Rev.1 Jun 2002 Rev.2 Nov 2012 1971 Deleted (1987) Rev.1 1973 Rev.1 1996 Rev.2 May 1999 Rev.1 1989 1971 Deleted (1986) Deleted (1986) Deleted Rev.1 1977 Deleted (1996) Rev.5 1996 HF/TB? No HF No No No No TB No No No No No No No No
Res. No. UR F16 UR F17 UR F18 UR F19 UR F20 UR F21 UR F22 UR F23 UR F24 UR F25 UR F26 UR F27 UR F28 UR F29 UR F30 UR F31 UR F32 UR F33 UR F34 UR F35 UR F36 UR F37 UR F38 UR F39 Non-sparking fans Inert gas system
Title Bow and stern loading and unloading arrangements on oil tankers
Current Rev. Rev.1 Jun 2000 Deleted (1996) Deleted (1997) Deleted (1998) Rev.6 May 2012 1974 1974 Deleted (1996)
HF/TB? TB No No No HF No No No No No TB No No TB TB No No No No TB No No No TB
Pump room ventilation Direct loading pipes to oil tanker cargo tanks
Temperature of Steam and Heating Media within the Cargo Area
Rev.2 May 1998 Deleted
Safety aspects of double bottoms and duct keels under cargo oil tanks Cargo openings in the bottoms of topside tanks of ships carrying alternatively oil and grain
Rev.3 May 2004 1978 Deleted (1987) Rev.6 Jun 2005 Deleted (Feb 2002) Deleted 1976 1981 Deleted July 2010
Emergency fire pumps in cargo ships Fire prevention for unattended machinery spaces Fire detecting system for unattended machinery spaces Prohibition of carriage in fore peak tanks of oil or other liquid substances which are flammable
Fire protection of machinery spaces
Rev.8 Jun 2005 Deleted (1989)
CO2 and halon containers - testing and survey Survey and testing of foam concentrates Measures to prevent explosions in cargo pump rooms on oil tankers
Deleted (May 1998)

Re-categorised to Rec 53.1
Deleted (May 1998)

Re-categorised to Rec 53.2
Deleted (Jul 2002)
Res. No. UR F40 UR F41 UR F42 UR F43 UR F44
Title Combined use of pumps for essential services of non-continuous nature in ships of 500 GRT and above Sea intakes for fire pumps on ships with ICE class Fire testing of flexible pipes Installation Requirements for analysing units for continuous monitoring of flammable vapours Fore peak ballast system on oil tankers
Current Rev. Deleted (1997) 1993 1995 Rev.2 Jun 2002 Rev.2 Oct 2010
HF/TB? No No No TB HF
Part A
UR F2 Aluminium Coatings on Board Oil Tanker and Chemical Tankers

Version no. Rev.2 (Nov 2012) Corr.1 (March 1999) Rev.1 (May 1998) NEW (May 1971) Approval date 21 November 2012 04 March 2012 28 May 1998 No records Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2014 -
Rev.2 (Nov 2012)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by IACS Member/ CSR PT2
.2 Main Reason for Change: To align UR F2 with CSR-DHOT, per KC695.
.3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: At 12th Hull Panel Meeting, it was agreed by the Hull Panel to amend UR F2 to align it with CSR-DHOT. For Technical Background, see Annex 1. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: 20 September 2011 Made by: Hull Panel Chair Panel Approval: 01 October 2012 by: Hull Panel GPG Approval: 21 November 2012 (12172_IGc)
Corr.1 (March 1999)
It was found that the text of UR F2 Rev.1 in clean version was not the same of the underlined version. As the UL version of UR F2 Rev.1 was adopted by Council the clean
Page 1 of 4
version must have the same text. Therefore the clean version was corrected accordingly.
Rev.1 (May 1998)
Addressed a use of aluminium pipes in hazardous areas on open deck, inerted cargo tanks and ballast tanks. Adopted by C37.
NEW (1971)
No history available.
Page 2 of 4
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR F2: Annex 1. TB for Rev.2 (Nov 2012) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Note: There are no Technical Background (TB) documents available for the original resolution (1971), Rev.1 (May 1998), or Corr.1 (March 1999).
Page 3 of 4
Part B, Annex 1 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT IACS UR F2 (REV.2, Nov 2012) 1. Scope and objective To align UR F2 with CSR-DHOT. 2. Background Knowledge Center Item 695 was created to clarify the differences between CSRDHOT and UR F2 regarding aluminum coatings. In June 2008, an answer was approved for KC 695, indicating that there was in fact inconsistency between the documents and that one or the other would be updated to ensure consistency. At the suggestion of the CSR PT2 at the 12th Hull Panel Meeting, the Hull Panel agreed that UR F2 should be amended to align with CSR-DHOT. 3. Points of discussions or possible discussions Aluminum limit and testing procedure o CSR-H DHOT allows for coatings with greater than 10% Al, if it has been shown by appropriate tests that the paint to be used does not increase the incendiary sparking hazard. o However, this clause was not included in this revision of UR F2 because the Hull Panel Members had limited experience with coatings with greater than 10% Al and the testing procedures for such coatings. In the absence of an Industry Standard test procedures, the Hull Panel preferred to set a strict upper limit of 10% Al limit.
4. Source/derivation of proposed requirements CSR-DHOT, Section 6 2.1.3.1 Submitted by Hull Panel Chairman [01 Oct 2012]
Page 4 of 4
UR F7 Rev. 2
_
Objective and scope
Upgrade this UR to adequately cover oil tankers with IGS. Take into account SOLAS 1996 amendments to Reg. II-2/59. Sources of proposed requirements UR F7 Reg. II-2/59
_ _
Unanimous agreement achieved.
Date of submission: 21 May 1999 By BV
IACS WP/FP & S 30

GPG 48/5.2/WP.1
33rd Progress Report IACS Working Party on Fire Protection and Safety (WP/FP & S)
__________________________________________________________________________
Annex 1 : Technical background documents
UR F 16 - Bow and stern loading and unloading arrangements on oil tankers
- Scope and objectives To take into account MSC/Circ. 474 which also deals with this subject.
- Points of discussion The title has been changed to be in line with the circular and be restricted to oil tankers, as chemical and gas tankers have detailed requirements in the codes. The acceptable segregation requirements have been extended to include those of the circular. The location of the segregation device has been harmonized with the circular. To be noted : the UR deals with segregation, while the circular recommendations deal with many other aspects.
UR F 26 - Safety aspects of double bottoms and duct keels under cargo oil tanks - Scope and objectives To link the UR with SOLAS Reg. II-2/56.9 which also deals with duct keels.

UR F20 Inert Gas Systems
Version no. Rev.6 (May 2012) Rev.5 (Nov 2005) Rev.4 (May 2004) Corr.1 (Sept 2001) Rev.3 (May 1998) Rev.2 (1987) Rev.1 (1983) New (1974) Approval date 12 May 2012 21 November 2005 31 May 2004 03 September 2001 28 May 1998 No records No records No records
Part A
Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2013 -
Rev.6 (May 2012)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Request by non-IACS entity (Wilhelmsen Technical Solutions) .2 Main Reason for Change: To clarify the term "safe location" in F20.4.10. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: IACS Statutory Panel considered the query on IACS UR F20 forwarded by the IACS PermSec under the long-standing Task 8 Maintenance of IACS Resolutions and developed an IACS common understanding on the term "safe location" in F20.4.10. It was unanimously decided to revise IACS UR F20 as per the agreed IACS common understanding. Final version of the revised UR and technical background documents were approved by the Statutory Panel on 25th February 2012. Rev.6 proposed by the Statutory Panel was supported by the Machinery Panel. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: 25 August 2011 made by: Statutory Panel Panel Approval: 15 April 2012 by: Statutory panel GPG Approval: 12 May 2012 (Ref. 12064_IGb)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.5 (Nov 2005)

Ref: 5030e See TB document in Annex 1.
Rev.4 (May 2004)

Outcome of (WP/FP&S) Task 1. Submitted to GPG 56. Ref: 3002d No TB document available.
Corr.1 (Sept 2001)

A member suggested correcting F 20.4.2. In F20.4.2, there is a string of references under 19. The last entry should have been 21meaning II-2/62.21. No TB document available.
Rev.3 (May 1998)

Extended to cover N2 generators. Adopted at C37. No TB document available.
Rev.2 (1987)
Rev.1 (1983)
New (1974)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR F20: Annex 1. TB for Rev.5 (November 2005)

Annex 2. TB for Rev.6 (May 2012)

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for Original resolution (1974), Rev.1 (1983), Rev.2 (1987), Rev.3 (May 1998), Corr.1 (Sept 2001) and Rev.4 (May 2004).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical background UR F20 (Rev.5, Nov 2005)

The text of the existing paragraph F20.4.15, applicable to Nitrogen Generation Systems (NGS), contains a requirement for the number of oxygen recording devices that is more stringent than the correspondent requirement applicable to other kind of Inert Gas System (IGS) as explained in the following: 1. The requirements set out in both the Fire Safety System Code and UR F20 regarding the display and recording of the oxygen content of inert gas are equivalent for IGS based on boiler flue gas and oil fired inert gas generators, i.e. display in the Cargo Control Room (CCR) and Machinery Control Room (MCR) or Machinery Space (MS) while recording is only required in the CCR, where provided, or in a position easily accessible for the officer in charge of cargo operations; 2. Paragraph F20.4.15 requires display and recording of the oxygen content of the inert gas downstream of the NGS to be placed in the CCR and MCR or MS. This requirement implies that two records on paper are maintained onboard in two different locations. 3. It should be noted that the recording device mentioned in the above is fitted with the purpose of continuously recording the oxygen content in the Nitrogen flow. This is aimed to provide with an evidence for compliance with the requirements (maximum content of Oxygen: 5% as per paragraph F20.4.6) during the operation. The purpose to indicate continuously the Oxygen content in the Nitrogen flow to the crew is assured by the display devices, placed in both the CCR and MCR or MS. 4. There is no reason for such requiring the duplication of the recording of oxygen content for the NGS only; and, therefore, it was proposed that the text of paragraph F20.4.15 should be changed and put in line with the requirement of FSS Code Chapter 15, paragraph 2.4.2.2. Submitted by Statutory Panel 7 Nov 2005 (s/n 5030e) Note by Permsec: GPG/Council agreed that no implementation date was needed for this revision.
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for UR F20 Rev.6, May 2012

1. Scope and objectives This revision of UR F20 is done to clarify the term "safe location" in F20.4.10 for its uniform application as per the agreed IACS common understanding. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Keeping in mind that the understanding/interpretation proposed by Wilhelmsen Technical Solutions has received no strong support from the Statutory Panel Member, it was decided to develop an IACS common understanding to clarify the term safe location in F20.4.10 based on Members practical experience on application of UR F20. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IACS Common understanding prepared in reply to Wilhelmsen Technical Solutions query on IACS UR F20 forwarded by the IACS PermSec. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: The following footnote was added to clarify the term safe location in F20.4.10: *) safe location needs to address the two types of discharges separately: 1. oxygen-enriched air from the nitrogen generator - safe locations on the open deck are: - outside of hazardous area; - not within 3m of areas traversed by personnel; and - not within 6m of air intakes for machinery (engines and boilers) and all ventilation inlets. 2. nitrogen-product enriched gas from the protective devices of the nitrogen receiver safe locations on the open deck are: - not within 3m of areas traversed by personnel; and - not within 6m of air intakes for machinery (engines and boilers) and all ventilation inlets/outlets. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The UR was reviewed and discussed within IACS Statutory and Machinery Panels via email correspondence. 6. Attachments if any None
IACS WP/FP & S 30

GPG 48/5.2/WP.1
__________________________________________________________________________
Annex 1 : Technical background documents
UR F 16 - Bow and stern loading and unloading arrangements on oil tankers
- Scope and objectives To take into account MSC/Circ. 474 which also deals with this subject.
- Points of discussion The title has been changed to be in line with the circular and be restricted to oil tankers, as chemical and gas tankers have detailed requirements in the codes. The acceptable segregation requirements have been extended to include those of the circular. The location of the segregation device has been harmonized with the circular. To be noted : the UR deals with segregation, while the circular recommendations deal with many other aspects.
UR F 26 - Safety aspects of double bottoms and duct keels under cargo oil tanks - Scope and objectives To link the UR with SOLAS Reg. II-2/56.9 which also deals with duct keels.
Technical Background Document UR F29 (Rev.6 June 2005) Non sparking fans Protection screens are required to prevent the entrance of foreign objects into the fan housings. The largest probabilities of origin for these foreign objects are from the open areas and the UR is amended to reflect this. Submitted by WP/FP&S Chair 14/01/2005
Technical Background To DELETION OF F 30

&
NEW UR M 62 (Feb. 2002)

In the WP/FP+S Progress Report No.34 (March 2001), the WP/FP+S proposed to transfer three parts of F30 as interpretations (three UI SCs) and to drop the rest, as they were adequately covered by SOLAS and other interpretations. (Task No.31: To re-formulate F30, F34 and F35 into UIs or RECs as appropriate) The following steps have been taken: 1. GPG agreed to completely delete F30 from the Blue Book at its 50th meeting (Tokyo, March 2001); 2. GPG approved the three UI SCs 162, 163, and 164, as proposed by WP/FP+S, which were not covered by the Convention; 3. After GPG 50, LR confirmed that the WP/MCHs proposed amendment to F30.2.7 (The rooms where the pump mover) was not contained in the Convention, however, it was already contained in LR Rules. LR had no objection to it being a UR on Machinery. Finally, GPG agreed that the proposed amendment to F30.2.7 should be classified as UR M 62 Rooms for emcy fire pumps in cargo ships.
Outcome 1. Deletion of F30. 2. Creation of new UR M62. 3. Creation of three UI SCs 162, 163, and 164.
Information GPG agreed that F30.4.1 should be formulated as a UI if it is not dealt with in the SOLAS text. The text was prepared by WP/MCH with due consideration to practical difficulty for larger ships in meeting M 46 inclination requirements. However, having identified a need to define lightest seagoing condition in the draft UI SC zzz, GPG tasked WP/FP+S to consider Members experience of plan approval work and performance test after installation of emcy fire pump systems in consultation with CG/LSA (Refer to the outcome of WP/FP+S Task 39).
Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat
(submitted on 30 August 2001)
UR F35 Rev. 6
_
Solve reservations on various paragraphs. Take into account SOLAS 1994 amendments to Reg. II-2/15.
_
Objective and scope
UR F35 Reg. II-2/15

_
Sources of proposed requirements
Technical Background F 35 (Rev.7, July 2003)
1.
Background WP/FP&S undertook Task 31 to reformulate F35 into a UI or REC as appropriate
2.
Points of discussion WP/FP+S submitted a draft UI for SOLAS II-2 concerning fire protection of machinery spaces. At the same time, WP submitted a revised Recommendation No.58 Fire Protection of Machinery Spaces. GPG noted that the draft UI together with the revised REC 58 resulted in deletion of UR F35. However, GPG further noted that IMO has just adopted temporary measures pending adoption of SOLAS amendments at a later stage, referring directly to UR F35 and deletion of F35 from the IACS Blue Book would cause confusion. Finally, the proposed UI was provisionally adopted as UR F35 (Rev.7) and retained as such IMO amends SOLAS. ABS proposal to retain in F35 only reg.II-2/4.2.2.4 and issue all the remaining interpretations as UIs was not supported.
*****
Technical Background Document UR F35 (Rev.8 June 2005) Fire protection of machinery spaces To make it clear that item 3 of this UR is applicable to level switches only but can be used on passenger ships and cargo ships, and that level switches should not be used in lieu of gauges, it was agreed to amend the reference to Reg. II-2/4.2.2.3.
Submitted by WP/FP&S Chair 14/01/2005
UR F39 Rev. 3
_
Objective and scope
Solve reservations. Take into account WP/EL work.

_
WP/EL Unanimous agreement achieved Footnote concerning item 2, which reads "the individual Society may introduce into their Rules only one of these two options, instead of both", to be noted.
_
F 39
Measures to prevent explosion in cargo pump rooms on oil tankers

(Rev.4 May 2001 + Deletion on 30 June 2002)
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to have F39 aligned with the SOLAS II-2/Reg.4.5.10.1 (Res MSC.99(73)).
b)
History 1) AHG/FSA submitted the results of FSA case study for evaluation and effectiveness of F 39 to GPG 46 (March 1999). This study did not suggest any amendment to F 39 and indicated that there would be little improvement of safety to be gained by interlocking the pump room lighting with the ventilation. However, WP/EL proposed an alternative approach for F 39.2, by adding "an alarm is given ...". This was further elaborated by WP/FP+S. Draft of Rev.3 F 39 was modified by GPG during GPG 46 with addition of the Note. Council approved it in July 1999. 2) After adoption of F 39(Rev.3), IACS communicated with OCIMF, Intertanko and ICS to explain them about the content of F 39.2(ii). 3) Having taken actions under GPG 47 FUA 40 & 41 (October 1999), GPG finally submitted a document to MSC 72 (MSC 72/8/1) on 1 February 2000, proposing an alternative to the draft amendment to SOLAS II-2/63.3, which will stand from 1 July 2002 as II-2/Reg.4.5.10.1. 4) MSC 72 Report (MSC 72/23, para. 8.3): The Committee noted IACS document MSC 72/8/1........ did not agree to the proposal by IACS. IACS Observer's Recommendation No.8 was to amend UR F 39 accordingly. The revised SOLAS Ch.II-2 was adopted at MSC 73 (5 December 2000) as Res. MSC.99(73). It will brought into force from 1 July 2002.
c) Points of Discussion
GPG noted that F 39 would be covered by the SOLAS II-2/Reg.4.5.10.1, however, F39.2.(ii) would be contradictory to the aforesaid SOLAS II-2 requirement and the two sentences in F39.3 were not covered by SOLAS II-2. To overcome this discrepancy between F39 and SOLAS, GPG decided that F39 be deleted from Blue Book as of 1 July 2002 and WP/FP&S consider transforming the 3rd and 4th sentences in F39.3 into UIs, as appropriate. See UI SC 172(August 2002). Decision/action were taken on 18 May 2001.
*****
Page 1 of 1 Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat (9 May 2001)
UR F43 Rev. 1
_
Objective and cope
Remove the undefined expression "gas tight".

_
F43 Members' proposals.

_
Part A
UR F44 Fore peak ballast system on oil tankers

Version no. Rev.2 (Oct 2010) Rev.1 (Aug 2008) New (June 2000) Approval date 28 Oct 2010 11 Aug 2008 15 June 2000 Implementation date when applicable 1 Jan 2012 -
Rev.2 (Oct 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To establish unified interpretations taking into the zoning concept of hazardous areas and eliminating vague expressions in the governing documents. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The Form A was agreed in the Machinery Panel and approved by the GPG. It was agreed to carry out the task by correspondence. .5 Other Resolutions Changes IACS UI SC70 .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 16 January 2007 Made by the Machinery Panel Panel Approval: 23 August 2010 GPG Approval: 28 October 2010 (Ref: 7518_IGe)
Rev.1 (Aug 2008)
Aim of the revision was to align UR F44 with SOLAS Reg. II-1/3.1. (ref. 8628_)
New (June 2000)
WP/FP&S submitted a new draft F 44 with its 1999 annual progress report.
Page 1 of 2
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents: Annex 1 TB for New (June 2000) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Annex 2 TB for Rev.1 (Aug 2008) See separate TB document in Annex 2. Annex 3 TB for Rev.2 (Oct 2010) See separate TB document in Annex 3.
Part B, Annex 1
IACS WP/FP & S 30

GPG 48/5.2/WP.1
__________________________________________________________________________
UR F44 (New) Fore peak ballast system on oil tankers - Scope and objectives To harmonize the practices of IACS Societies with respect to : connection of fore peak tanks to the ballast system of the cargo area access to fore peak tanks
- Points of discussion SOLAS does not deal with ballast systems of tankers nor with hazardous areas. It only deals with access to ballast tanks adjacent to cargo tanks. It was then agreed to draft a UR rather than a UI. The WP also agreed to make this UR applicable only to oil tankers for the time being but agreed as a second step to advise the group MP-BC-GT to further consider it. The main discussion was on the location of the access manhole in an enclosed space. The UR as is proposed take into account the fact that, for fore peaks separated by a cofferdam from the cargo tanks, the risk to have it hazardous is remote and the opening of a bolted manhole is unfrequent. However that risk is there and means to take measurements and to gas free the peak through this manhole are included in the UR.
----------
Annex 1 - 2/2
Part B, Annex 2
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF UR F44 Fore peak ballast system on oil tankers - Scope and objectives To harmonize the practices of IACS Societies with respect to : connection of fore peak tanks to the ballast system of the cargo area access to fore peak tanks
- Points of discussion Rev.0 (June 2000) 1. SOLAS does not deal with ballast systems of tankers nor with hazardous areas. It only deals with access to ballast tanks adjacent to cargo tanks. It was then agreed to draft a UR rather than a UI. 2. The WP also agreed to make this UR applicable only to oil tankers for the time being but agreed as a second step to advise the group MP-BC-GT to further consider it. 3. The main discussion was on the location of the access manhole in an enclosed space. 4. The UR as is proposed take into account the fact that, for fore peaks separated by a cofferdam from the cargo tanks, the risk to have it hazardous is remote and the opening of a bolted manhole is unfrequent. However that risk is there and means to take measurements and to gas free the peak through this manhole are included in the UR. - Points of discussion Rev.1 (Aug 2008) 1. This revision takes into account the two scenarios where the FPT is adjacent to, or separated from, the cargo tanks as per the opening statement of Rev.0 which already qualifies the FPT as being hazardous since the ballast system serving other tanks within the cargo area is connected to the FPT. 2. The essential aspect of F44 is the entry to the FPT (which is hazardous regardless of its location relative to the cargo tanks) from an enclosed space which can be hazardous (if adjacent to the cargo tanks) or non-hazardous (if separated from the cargo tanks by a cofferdam). 3. "Other" has been introduced in the opening text to take into account that a FPT which is adjacent to a cargo tank is by definition part of the cargo area. Submitted by Statutory Panel Chair 22 July 2008
Permanent Secretariat note (August 2008): GPG approved UR F44 Rev.1 on 11 August 2008 (ref. 8628_IGb).
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background for UR F44 Rev.2, Oct 2010

1. Scope and objectives To establish unified interpretations taking into the zoning concept for hazardous areas and eliminating vague expressions in the governing documents. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale IACS has agreed to accept the IEC standard 60092-502 with regard to the installation of electrical equipment in tankers. The standard introduces a zoning concept for hazardous areas and has new requirements to the electrical installations in line with generic principles laid down in the IEC 60079-series of standards for electrical installations in hazardous areas. It has been identified that there exists several differences between SOLAS and the IEC requirements especially with the introduction of hazardous area zoning and the location of vent pipes. The intention of Revision 2 was to align both the terminology and requirements between the two documents. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution SOLAS IEC 60092-502 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: The term hazardous was replaced with hazardous area to align with the terminology used within the IEC document. The distance between vent pipe openings and sources of ignition have now been referenced to the IEC 60092-502 standard so that the hazardous area zoning classification is completed as specified within this document. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions There was discussion on removing the requirement altogether based on one members consideration of the likelihood of significant fuel oil leakage from an adjacent tank. However, it was observed that the same piping may be used for a ballast tank within the cargo tank area and the fore peak tank and could contain significant quantities of oil and high levels of hazardous vapour and therefore the area around the vent outlet shall be considered hazardous for a distance specified within the IEC 60092-502. 6. Attachments if any None
IACS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES LTD. PERMANENT SECRETARIAT: 36 BROADWAY, LONDON, SW1H 0BH, UNITED KINGDOM TEL: +44(0)207 976 0660 FAX: +44(0)207 808 1100 INTERNET: permsec@iacs.org.uk Web Site: www.iacs.org.uk Mar 2011
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Gas Tankers (UR G)
Res. No. UR G1 UR G2 UR G3 UR G4 Title Cargo containment of gas tankers Liquified gas cargo tanks and process pressure vessels Liquified gas cargo and process piping Periodical surveys of cargo installations on ships carrying on liquefied gases in bulk Current Rev. Rev.2 1997, Corr. Sept 2003 Rev.1 1979 Rev.4 Mar 2011 Deleted (Jun 1999)
Re-categorised as Z16
HF/TB? No No HF TB

Version no. Rev.4 (Mar 2011) Withdrawal of Rev.3 and Rev.3, Corr.1 (Jun 2010) Rev.3, Corr.1 (Dec 2009) Rev.3 (Dec 2008) Rev.2 (1997) Rev.1 (1979) NEW (1974) Approval date 20 March 2011 14 June 2010 11 December 2009 19 December 2008 12 May 1997 No record No record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2012 1 July 2010 1 January 2010 -
Part A
UR G3 Liquefied gas cargo and process piping
Rev.4 (Mar 2011)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Request by non-IACS entity (Hamworthy)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To reflect the common survey practices of the Members on testing of cargo pumps and adding in test requirements for pumps intended to be used at a working temperature not lower than -55C and for new LNG and LPG pumps. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: 8 February 2010 Form 1 approved by GPG authorizing Survey Panel Project Team 17 February 2010 Survey Panel Project Team Meeting 4 March 2010 Project Team Manager presents recommendations to Survey Panel .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: June 2009 Made by: Survey Panel PT for Task 57 Panel Approval: 15 October 2010 Made By: Survey Panel GPG Approval: 20 March 2011 (Ref. 8508bIGo)
Page 1 of 3
Withdrawal of Rev.3 and Rev.3, Corr.1 (Jun 2010)
On 14 June 2010 GPG agreed to the withdrawal of UR G3 Rev.3 and Rev.3 Corr.1 pending further review by the Survey Panel (ref. 8508bIGj).
Rev.3, Corr.1 (Dec 2009)
Postponement of implementation date for Rev.3 from 1 January 2010 to 1 July 2010. Approved by GPG 11 December 2009 (ref. 8508bIGc). No TB document available.
Rev.3 (Dec 2008)
Changes to section G3.6 - see TB document in Part B.
Rev.2 (1997)
Consequential change further to adoption at MSC67 of MSC.58(67) for IBC Code and MSC.59(67) for IGC Code concerning avoidance of vague expressions in the IBC and IGC codes. No TB document available.
Rev.1 (1979)
NEW (1974)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR G3: Annex 1. TB for Rev.3 (Dec 2008)

Annex 2. TB for Rev.4 (Mar 2011)

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1974), Rev.1 (1979), Rev.2 (1997) and Rev.3, Corr.1 (Dec 2009).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background UR G3 (Rev.3, Dec 2008)

Survey Panel Task 57: Consider amending UR G 3 Liquefied gas cargo and process piping to reflect the common survey practices of the Members on testing of cryogenic valves and adding in test requirements for valves intended to be used at a working temperature not lower than -55C and for new LNG and LPG pumps. 1. Objective Consider amending the present survey tightness test requirements contained in UR G3, section 3.6.1, which is only each size and each type of valve intended to be used at a working temperature below -55C to take into account the present best practices of the members. Also consider adding in new sections containing survey test requirements based on best practices of Members for valves intended to be used at a working temperature not lower than -55C and new LNG and LPG cargo pumps as presently there are no requirements.
2. Background
ABS Panel member initially requested clarification on testing of cryogenic valves and requirements for testing of new LNG pumps based on email correspondence dated 28 Nov 2007. NK Panel member requested that survey requirements for valves intended to be used at a working temperature not lower than -55C be considered based on email dated 14 Dec 2007.
3. Methodology of Work
The Survey Panel has progressed its work through meetings as well as a Survey Panel Project Team consisting of ABS (Chair), BV, DNV, KR and NK. The proposed scope of work as well as the draft recommendation by the Project Team was circulated to all Members for comment and agreement.
4. Discussion
Valves The Project Team first discussed the survey practices of the members on testing of cryogenic valves for temperatures lower than -55C. The use of the term type testing caused considerable confusion due to current type approval programs offered by the societies. After lengthy discussion, in order to eliminate confusion, the members decided to use the terms prototype testing and unit production testing. All members stated that prototype testing was carried out for each type and size of valve and that surveyor attendance was required during these tests. However, for unit certification, the practices differed. The members also reported that it was common practice to carry out cryogenic testing of 10 percent of the valves. For prototype testing, all members agreed that the required minimum tests in the presence of a surveyor include hydrostatic test of the valve body at a pressure equal to 1.5 times the design pressure, seat and stem leakage test at a pressure equal to 1.1 times the design pressure, and cryogenic testing consisting of valve operation and leakage verification. They also agreed that testing is to be carried out at the minimum
Page 1 of 3
design temperature or lower and to a pressure not lower than the maximum design pressure foreseen for the valves. For unit production testing, the members agreed there should be two options for testing of the valves based on current practices. The first option required surveyor attendance for all valve testing. The second option allowed the manufacturer to carry out the testing if they had a recognized quality system which had been assessed by the society and is subject to periodic audits. All members agreed that the required minimum tests for both options include hydrostatic test of the valve body at a pressure equal to 1.5 times the design pressure, seat and stem leakage test at a pressure equal to 1.1 times the design pressure. It was also decided to include the industry standard of requiring cryogenic testing consisting of valve operation and leakage verification for a minimum of 10% of each type and size of valve for valves intended to be used at a working temperature below -55C. The cryogenic tests are to be carried out in the presence of a surveyor for both of the above options. The members then discussed the requirements for valves intended to be used at a working temperatures above -55C. Based upon service experience, and that there is no testing medium for -55C, it was decided that prototype testing was not required for these valves. Cargo Pumps
The members decided to use the same methodology for cargo pumps as was used for valves. All members reported their procedures followed the prototype and unit production testing similar to valves. Again, the members decided that surveyor attendance was required for prototype testing and that two options be available for unit production testing. The first option required surveyor attendance for all pump testing. The second option allowed the manufacturer to carry out the testing if they had a recognized quality system which had been assessed by the society and is subject to periodic audits. For prototype and unit production testing, all members agreed the required minimum tests include hydrostatic test of the pump body equal to 1.5 times the design pressure and a capacity test. For pumps intended to be used at a working temperature below 55C, the capacity test is to be carried out at the minimum working temperature. After completion of tests, the pump is to be opened out for examination. Based upon service experience, and that there is no testing medium for -55C, it was decided pumps intended to be used at temperatures above -55C, could be tested at ambient temperature. IACS UR G3
The members also decided to change the title of G3.6 to indicate these tests were to be carried out prior to installation onboard and differentiate it from G3.8. It was also decided to revise the title of G3.8 to Test onboard. In order to differentiate between prototype testing and type testing, the members also recommend the proposed change to G3.6.2. It is further recommended that this section be revised to incorporate the same methodology used for the valves and pumps. Since this was not included in the task, the project team took no action at this time. During the discussions on the task, the team noted that UR G3 may require updating to reflect current practices. This is probably due to the fact that UR G3 was written in 1974 and revised in 1979 and 1997. Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 12 November 2008
Page 2 of 3
Permanent Secretariat note (January 2009): UR G3 (Rev.3) was approved by GPG on 19 December 2008 (ref. 8508aIGd) with the following implementation statement: The requirements of G3.6 Rev.3 are to be uniformly implemented by IACS Societies for piping components and pumps: i) when an application for testing is dated on or after 1 January 2010; or ii) which are installed in new ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 January 2010.
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for UR G3, Rev.4 (Mar 2011)
1. Scope and objectives Consider amending the present prototype test and unit production test requirements contained in UR G3, section G.3.6.3.1 and G.3.6.3.2, for pumps intended to be used at a working temperature below -55C to take into account the present best practices of the members and the comments from the Industry. Also consider adding in new sections containing survey test requirements based on best practices of Members for pumps intended to be used at a working temperature not lower than -55C and new LNG and LPG cargo pumps as presently there are no requirements. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale For prototype testing, all members agreed the required minimum tests include hydrostatic test of the pump body equal to 1.5 times the design pressure and a capacity test. Although capacity tests are not safety related, this test demonstrates the overall performance of the pump prior to being installed onboard. Since this is a new requirement and there are pumps currently in service which have years of satisfactory service, an option was provided to allow the manufacturer to submit data proving the in-service experience rather than requiring them to carry out the prototype test which would be required for a new design of pump. For submerged electric motor driven pumps the capacity test is to be carried out in the design medium or below minimum working temperature. The reason two conditions was added is that some manufacturers may test with LNG and others may use liquid nitrogen which has a temperature of -196 C. When testing with the design medium, LNG, it is difficult to keep the temperature constant and there is a possibility that air may be introduced. Therefore, the test is usually carried out between -160 and -150 C in order to keep the suction line a little above atmospheric pressure. The shaft driven deep well pumps are now being used on gas vessels that are capable of pumping LPG, Ethylene and LNG. Since it is not practical and could be dangerous to perform a capacity test of shaft driven deep well pumps at the minimum working temperature, this test may be carried out with water. However, in order to prove the pump will be able to operate at the minimum working temperature, a spin test to demonstrate satisfactory operation of bearing clearances, wear rings and sealing arrangements should be carried out prior to the pump being installed onboard. This test would most likely be done using liquid nitrogen so the pump would have to be designed for the lower temperature. After completion of tests, the pump is to be opened out for examination. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution Current industry practice.
4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution:

G3.6.3 Cargo Pumps G3.6.3.1 Prototype Testing
Each size and type of pump is to be approved through design assessment and prototype testing. Prototype testing is to be witnessed in the presence of the Societys representative. In lieu of prototype testing, satisfactory in-service experience, of an existing pump design approved by a Society, submitted by the manufacturer may be considered. Prototype testing is to include a hydrostatic test of the pump body equal to 1.5 times the design pressure and a capacity test. For submerged electric motor driven pumps, the capacity test is to be carried out with the design medium or with a medium below the minimum working temperature. For shaft driven deep well pumps, the capacity test may be carried out with water. In addition, for shaft driven deep well pumps, a spin test to demonstrate satisfactory operation of bearing clearances, wear rings and sealing arrangements is to be carried out at the minimum design temperature. The full length of shafting is not required for the spin test, but must be of sufficient length to include at least one bearing and sealing arrangements. After completion of tests, the pump is to be opened out for examination. G3.6.3.2 Unit Production Testing All pumps are to be tested at the plant of manufacturer in the presence of the Societys representative. Testing is to include hydrostatic test of the pump body equal to 1.5 times the design pressure and a capacity test. For submerged electric motor driven pumps, the capacity test is to be carried out with the design medium or with a medium below the minimum working temperature. For shaft driven deep well pumps, the capacity test may be carried out with water. As an alternative to the above, if so requested by the relevant Manufacturer, the certification of a pump may be issued subject to the following: The pump has been prototype tested approved as required by 3.6.3.1, and The manufacturer has a recognized quality system that has been assessed and certified by the Society subject to periodic audits, and The quality control plan contains a provision to subject each pump to a hydrostatic test of the pump body equal to 1.5 times the design pressure and a capacity test. The manufacturer is to maintain records of such tests.
5. Points of discussions or possible discussions G3.6.3.1 Prototype Testing In lieu of prototype testing, satisfactory in-service experience, of an existing pump design approved by a Society, submitted by the manufacturer may be considered.
Since this is a new requirement and there are pumps currently in service which have years of satisfactory service, an option was provided to allow the manufacturer to submit data proving the in-service experience rather than requiring them to carry out the prototype test which would be required for a new design of pump. For submerged electric motor driven pumps, the capacity test is to be carried out with the design medium or with a medium below the minimum working temperature. For shaft driven deep well pumps, the capacity test may be carried out with water. In addition, for shaft driven deep well pumps, a spin test to demonstrate satisfactory operation of bearing clearances, wear rings and sealing arrangements is to be carried out at the minimum design temperature. The full length of shafting is not required for the spin test, but must be of sufficient length to include at least one bearing and sealing arrangements. For submerged electric motor driven pumps the capacity test is to be carried out in the design medium or below minimum working temperature. The reason two conditions was added is that some manufacturers may test with LNG and others may use liquid nitrogen which has a temperature of -196 C. When testing with the design medium, LNG, it is difficult to keep the temperature constant and there is a possibility that air may be introduced. Therefore, the test is usually carried out between -160 and -150 C in order to keep the suction line a little above atmospheric pressure. The shaft driven deep well pumps are now being used on gas vessels that are capable of pumping LPG, Ethylene and LNG. Since it is not practical and could be dangerous to perform a capacity test of shaft driven deep well pumps at the minimum working temperature, this test may be carried out with water. However, in order to prove the pump will be able to operate at the minimum working temperature, a spin test to demonstrate satisfactory operation of bearing clearances, wear rings and sealing arrangements should be carried out prior to the pump being installed onboard. This test would most likely be done using liquid nitrogen so the pump would have to be designed for the lower temperature. G3.6.3.2 Unit Production Testing . For submerged electric motor driven pumps, the capacity test is to be carried out with the design medium or with a medium below the minimum working temperature. For shaft driven deep well pumps, the capacity test may be carried out with water. Same reasoning as prototype testing.
The pump has been prototype tested approved as required by 3.6.3.1, and
To clarify that all the requirements of 3.6.3.1 must be completed and not just the testing. 6. Attachments if any None
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 1 Z16

To review the existing UR G4, Periodical surveys of cargo installations on ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk and relocate it as a UR under UR Z.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC members through their experience in the survey of cargo installations on ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk. The existing UR G4 was reviewed and re-organized to follow formats consistent with other UR Z.
WP/SRC unanimously agreed to the draft UR.
Date of submission: 26 May 1999 By WP/SRC Chairman
IACS
Mar 2011
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Polar Class (UR I)
Res. No. UR I1 UR I2 UR I3 Title Polar Class Descriptions and Application Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships Machinery Requirements for Polar Class Ships Current Rev. Rev.1 Jan 2007, Corr.1 Oct 2007 Rev.2 Nov 2010 Rev.1 Jan 2007, Corr.1 Oct 2007 HF/TB? TB HF TB
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I1 - Polar Class Descriptions and Application - Technical Background 1.0 Historical Development An international effort has been made in the development of a uniquely integrated package of measures aimed at protecting life, property and the environment in polar waters. This so-called harmonisation process began when several nations recognised the benefits of aligning existing safety and pollution control standards for marine operations in polar waters, and of giving these more general applicability. Germany and Russia made proposals to IMO in the early 1990s, and these resulted in discussions amongst various interested governments who formed a working group to develop an appropriate approach. This Outside Working Group (OWG) reported its formation and aims to IMO in 1993, and was subsequently expanded to include members from industry, academic and research communities and representatives from classification societies. The efforts of the OWG culminated in the development of the IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic IceCovered Waters, which was promulgated in December 2002 as a joint MSC/MEPC circular (MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ.399). The structure and format of the IMO Guidelines are divided into construction, equipment, operational and environmental protection sections, although the Guidelines themselves include only a minimal set of direct technical requirements for construction. Instead, they outline performance standards and reference compliance with IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships as demonstrating adequate performance. Accordingly, in May of 1996, IACS GPG established a nonpermanent Ad-Hoc Group to establish Unified Requirements for Polar Ships (AHG/PSR), with one working group for structural requirements and one for machinery requirements. Notably, the AHG/PSR also includes non-IACS working members who have expertise and knowledge to assist in the development of requirements for this specialised subject. The efforts of AHG/PSR have resulted in three sets of unified requirements for Polar Ships; UR I1 (Polar Class Descriptions and Application); UR I2 (Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships); UR I3 (Machinery Requirements for Polar Class Ships). 2.0 Scope and Objectives The scope of UR I1 includes neither structural nor machinery requirements. The objective of UR I1 is simply to specify the application of the structural and machinery requirements for polar ships (UR I2 and UR I3), and to provide descriptions of the various polar classes used throughout these requirements to convey differences with respect to operational capability and strength. 3.0 Points of Discussions or Possible Discussions 3.1 Application The unified requirements for polar ships are to be applied to any ships constructed of steel and navigating in ice-infested polar waters, except for icebreakers. Icebreakers are defined as any ship (1) having an operational profile that includes escort or ice management functions, (2) having powering and dimensions that allow it to undertake aggressive operations in ice-covered waters, and (3) having a class certificate endorsed with this notation. 3.2 Polar Classes A total of seven polar classes are described in UR I1 in terms of nominal ice conditions based on WMO sea ice nomenclature. It should be noted that these descriptions are very general, due to the
IACS UR I1 Page 1 of 3 June 2005
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I1 - Polar Class Descriptions and Application - Technical Background considerable variability of ice conditions in polar waters. The overall intent in defining the technical requirements for each class has been to provide a relatively smooth increase in requirements (and cost) to assist owners in matching the requirements for the ship with its intended voyage or service. It will still be possible to damage any polar class ship by careless operation, accounting for the emphasis placed on operational issues in the IMO Guidelines which, of course, have the same polar class descriptions. One possible point of future discussion concerns the two lowest IACS polar classes PC6 and PC7. These classes are recognised in the IMO Guidelines as nominally equivalent to the Finnish-Swedish ice classes 1AS and 1A. To minimise the cost and design efforts required for ships that are to operate in the Baltic Sea during the winter season and in Arctic waters during the summer season, official recognition of these equivalencies by the Finnish and Swedish Maritime Administrations has been obtained (with considerable effort). Due to future rule development on both sides, coordination between IACS and the Baltic Administrations are required to maintain these equivalencies. 4.0 Source/Derivation of Proposed Requirements As noted in the foregoing, UR I1 is a consequence of the international effort to harmonise standards for marine operations in polar waters, and is directly connected with the IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters (MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ.399). 5.0 Decision by Voting None required. 6.0 Appendices For further background information concerning UR I1, reference is made to: IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters (MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ.399). Kendrick, A. (2003). IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background to Definition of Polar Classes. Prepared for IACS Ad-Hoc Group for Polar Ship Rules and Transport Canada.
IACS UR I1
Page 2 of 3
June 2005
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I1 - Polar Class Descriptions and Application - Technical Background -
Permanent Secretariat Note: AHG/PSR Chairman submitted draft amendments to UR I1.3.2, as a result of the IACS Expert Group(EG) meeting on 11 Feb 2005 re Finland-Swedish Ice Class Rules (LWL vs Summer Load Line). 1.3.2 The upper ice waterline draught at amidships is to be the vessels summer load line draught. If the vessel has timber load lines, the upper ice waterline draught at amidships is to be the vessels summer timber load line draught. The lower ice waterline is to be determined with due regard to the vessels ice-going capability in the ballast loading conditions (e.g. propeller submergence). For vessels requiring equivalence with Finnish-Swedish ice classes, fresh water allowances, as well as fore and aft lower ice waterline restrictions, may need to be additionally considered. The motivation for removing the first two sentences comes from the fact that the extent of ice-strengthening for some ships may be based on a draught below that of the summer (or timber) load line. For such ships, the EG has proposed a Unified Procedure to make the actual extent of ice-strengthening transparent, both in the ice class notation and by means of ice markings on the sides of the ship. The motivation for removing the last sentence comes from the EGs proposed Unified Interpretation to interpret the term LWL as the Summer Load Line.
The 13 March 2005s IACS letter to FMA on the ice-strengthened ships is attached hereto. Attached. (Also attached is a message from RS informing IACS that RS approves URs without reservation)
IACS UR I1
Page 3 of 3
June 2005
! permsec@iacs.org.uk
" " www.iacs.org.uk
! !! ! $ $ ( %& * + ' /0$ 1 " " # # % %& ' , - . .
' )
# (" ' #
&' ( ) *+ ' , +. / )%
0 ,
. ' 1 2"345 ! 7 , ' , ' ( ! .' '# % 6 #
( .
9 / ); $
;*$2*& /0 # ($ ' )
!
$ / % 4 1
!( 1
1% , 3"
0 ,+ ,
' 1 # ' # % 6 % # # # %# . 7 5 6 ' ## . < / ); 2 7 7) %# % /# -; 7 = >? % 2"345 ! - , . , ( ! @' ' # ' 1 % # 7 ' %% # # 6 % 7 ' # # 7 ' 5 ' % ( 1# 5 ( % ' 17 7 ;6 # -# 1 6 . / ); 5 # 1 5 #1 (' 7 % # & ' ' % ' 1 . 6 6 7 7 ' '' 5 ( ( % & ' ) # 1 % 6 ( 7 . 5 # # 5 ( / ); 5 # ' 7 # & # # 1 5 ( / ); 5 (' # # % ( % # # 7 7# 0 " 6 %< 3A3>? 6 3 3 .6 A 3 #6 7 71 3A3 3 7 (' # # # ' @ 7 /# ) 2 # # % -;6 /# # % ' % ## % # 6 & 1 6 # # # 1 5 ' % 5 ( %
$ $ &
0 %+ 3 4 % ; ; 1
56 7
% 3A3 # # ) 2
-;6 %%
TF F T S W WNA TF
LWL
T S W WNA
* 5
(' # #
;6
/# )
7 & ( 7 5 ' ## 6 (
% " %% ;
# 2
3# 3 3 - #7
% 3A3 % ' & ( %
7 3A3 6 #7
' ## 2 7
5 7)
# %#
< / ); % /# -; 7
>
! ( ( * $ & ' .$ # ' " ) 4 ( ( + 5 ) +, /0
"
# $% ('!
& ' ' #
") $ 1 2 3 .
( $ 1 2 3 1 ' 6 " ) ! 4
* (
&
7 . / ); ' '
2 #
( , 7 / ! ") / 5 1 % 7 # % 7 % 17 # / # ' # % 6 6 # % # % 7 @ 61 . 3 3 $ # # % 7 ?@ 7 " 7 0 %+ 3 % 7 0 " 6 # -;6 -;6 % ' 5 7 6 % ' 5 % #% % #5 6( 5 # 1 7 # % % 7 1 ' ( 5 1 3A3? 7 % ; .
7 . / ); ' ' % B % / ' 7 #. % C 3A3C # 7 6 7 ' ## 0 6 7 D ' ## 5 # # 5 ( % # 6 ; 7 3 7 3 % ? ' 6 3A3. 6 # 7 E @
/# 2 /# 2
. .
? 5 @ 3 % 6 & # '
' 3 % ' . 7 ' 6
5 3E 5 ; % / ); B %
7 A A / ' 3
#; ' 3 3 3 '
5 5 %
; 7 6 6 6 #
A #;
% !
6 # $ % ) & % * & ( ( + & ! & & % %' $ %% * 0 & % * , "
% %' ( , ,( % ,. ! ( ' & + & %, %$ % * & 2 % % & ' 5 # 5
& % !
& ! & , " 2 , / 0 % %' ' 1%
0 < / ); 2 7 7 ) %# % /# ; 7 = ># 7 # ' ## % '' % # 7 7 % ; 3 3 5 ' 1 %% # ' ## & 5 # % 5 ( / ); 5 # 5 ( # # ' '' 5 ( $ 1 1 7 # & # 5 # F # < / 2 ' >? 5 ( ! @ < 2 ' >? ; ' 5 ! @ # # 7( .% % ( 1# 5 (' % 1 6. # # % '' # 5 / ); B2 / % ) ), ) . # 6 7 5 ( ;6 G 1 ;6 /# ) ; ' . ' ' #' $ $ & 0 %+ 3 4 1 %< % ## 2 7 (1 0 % > 7) 5 %# # % /# -; ") . ( 9 ( 9$ 1 1 4 ( ! ( ( . ( 9 : < / ); 7 = 18 " # 0 %
% / ); 2 #
>
! (
# # ' ( 7 # 3 ; ") ! ) ) , / 9 (
/ 7 . / ); 5 # # 6 # % # ( 5 '' 7 6 # ' 6 # % ( % # 7 # $ # # & " 0 %+ 3 7 . / ); %
#7 % 1 % #
7 # 7 . 7
' #-
1 ' 7 7 0 ' 1 1 # # # ' 7# #
7 % 7 % / ); # "
% 6
' #
'
##
( $ ( ( 2 % , & ! + & & , 0 % % % + ( % % * % & & ( & , % $ "& 0 ( ( 2 $ % & , 4 + & ( & , & % * 4 , & $ % * 0 ' ! $ & , ' , % ! + & ! % ! & ! ' # 1 7 2 + + 5 7) %# . ( ( " ( ( . " ) 4 1 # % /# -; " ) & , % ! $ % % 0 % $ % % (
& + & ' % % $ ' (
! ,2 & , ' 5 ' %
/ ); 5 ' 6 # # 7 9 $ 9 $ & 4 " 1
# 7 # -;6 # # -;6 /# ) :; 0 + :; 7 > 2 7 1
6 ' 1 7 #
% <G 1
< / ); 7 = 4
>
( , ( < ( ( < !/
" . ( " ) , 4 ( / !
! ( < * /5 ( ( , ( ") ") ( + , "
4 ) ' 7 %
= / 7 7 . / ); ' ' 5; ( 2 # 0 ,
>$ . $ @ < & -$ $& ' ' & /
" )
$ !
9 $ / #7 H < &
1 % G 1 7 # ' 7% 7 ' / 9 %I > ' '5 7 % 7 ' G # #' # # 6 # 6# 7 # 6 % ' # 6 # 5 7 . / ); 6
5 (/ ); % 1 $ 1 % # 6 % 6 # # # 5 # % / ); ( % 7 % # '' # % # 6 %
5 # #5 #% % '' # & '' # ( % 1 # ( % (5 1 1 7 ' # 5 ( #
; ' # % #
1( ! ' # -# 1 6 @
* A . < ") ( ( ( " ) 4 +
5 1 . / ); 5 # ' 17 7 ;6 1 5 ( / ); 5 # '6 ;6 0 % % / );
6 ;
5 ' 6
% ( & ' ' ?
1# 5 ( % 6 # # 5 1 ' # 6 7 / ); 2 #
& #
% # 6 -;6 /# ) %# #
7 2
' %
% # # %
% #
'' # % ' 5 6
Attached to TB: RS Message (no reservation).

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sergey Tolmachev [tolmachev@rs-head.spb.ru] 28 August 2006 14:11 AIACS@eagle.org; classnkiacs@classnk.or.jp; iacs@bureauveritas.com; iacs@ccs.org.cn; iacs@dnv.com; iacs@gl-group.com; iacs@lr.org; iacs@rina.org; iacs@rs-head.spb.ru; krsiacs@krs.co.kr colinwright@iacs.org.uk; efs@iacs.org.uk; gilyonghan@iacs.org.uk; HelenButcher@iacs.org.uk; johnderose@iacs.org.uk; richardleslie@iacs.org.uk; terryperkins@iacs.org.uk; zoewright@iacs.org.uk 4082cRSf, GPG 60 FUA 27: Development of IACS UR 13(4082a)
Date: 28 August 2006 To: Mr. Li Kejun, IACS Council Chairman CC: IACS Council Members CC: Permanent Secretariat Subject: 4082cRSf, GPG 60 FUA 27: Development of IACS UR 13(4082a)
Ref. is made to ICa of 22 August 2006 First of all please accept my sincere apologies for missing the deadline since RS has not received the Chairman's message 4082cICa in due time and has learned about that message only after receiving 4082cIAb today. I would like to remind Members that its almost 2 months passed from C53 to the submission of the URs for the Council approval. For that period RS has carried out consultations on the detailed review of the draft URs and after these consultations RS has decided that there is no need to reserve our position on the URs. Hense RS hereby approves the draft UR I1, I2 and I3, circulated with IAa. RS proposes to exclude from the TBs all references to RS reservation. Also reference is made to the message of Machinery panel Chairman Mr. Ulf Petersen ref. PM6906_IMa and work specification item 7 of the draft Form A attached thereto, quote: Comparison of blade loads and propulsion train components calculated according to UR I3 and RS Rules with experimental data from reference ships. Unquote. Considering RS approval of UR I1, I2, I3 without reservation I consider it worthwhile to exclude RS Rules from the comparison. This proposal has been submitted by RS MCH Panel Member Mr. Mikhail Ivanov in his message PM6906_RSb of 23 August 2006. Best Regards, Dr. S. Koshchy RS IACS Council Member email protected and scanned by BIS Advanced Spam & Virus Checking - powered by AdvascanTM - keeping email useful
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I1 - Polar Class Descriptions and Application - Technical Background 1.0 Historical Development An international effort has been made in the development of a uniquely integrated package of measures aimed at protecting life, property and the environment in polar waters. This so-called harmonisation process began when several nations recognised the benefits of aligning existing safety and pollution control standards for marine operations in polar waters, and of giving these more general applicability. Germany and Russia made proposals to IMO in the early 1990s, and these resulted in discussions amongst various interested governments who formed a working group to develop an appropriate approach. This Outside Working Group (OWG) reported its formation and aims to IMO in 1993, and was subsequently expanded to include members from industry, academic and research communities and representatives from classification societies. The efforts of the OWG culminated in the development of the IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic IceCovered Waters, which was promulgated in December 2002 as a joint MSC/MEPC circular (MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ.399). The structure and format of the IMO Guidelines are divided into construction, equipment, operational and environmental protection sections, although the Guidelines themselves include only a minimal set of direct technical requirements for construction. Instead, they outline performance standards and reference compliance with IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships as demonstrating adequate performance. Accordingly, in May of 1996, IACS GPG established a nonpermanent Ad-Hoc Group to establish Unified Requirements for Polar Ships (AHG/PSR), with one working group for structural requirements and one for machinery requirements. Notably, the AHG/PSR also includes non-IACS working members who have expertise and knowledge to assist in the development of requirements for this specialised subject. The efforts of AHG/PSR have resulted in three sets of unified requirements for Polar Ships; UR I1 (Polar Class Descriptions and Application); UR I2 (Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships); UR I3 (Machinery Requirements for Polar Class Ships). 2.0 Scope and Objectives The scope of UR I1 includes neither structural nor machinery requirements. The objective of UR I1 is simply to specify the application of the structural and machinery requirements for polar ships (UR I2 and UR I3), and to provide descriptions of the various polar classes used throughout these requirements to convey differences with respect to operational capability and strength. 3.0 Points of Discussions or Possible Discussions 3.1 Application The unified requirements for polar ships are to be applied to any ships constructed of steel and navigating in ice-infested polar waters, except for icebreakers. Icebreakers are defined as any ship (1) having an operational profile that includes escort or ice management functions, (2) having powering and dimensions that allow it to undertake aggressive operations in ice-covered waters, and (3) having a class certificate endorsed with this notation. 3.2 Polar Classes A total of seven polar classes are described in UR I1 in terms of nominal ice conditions based on WMO sea ice nomenclature. It should be noted that these descriptions are very general, due to the
IACS UR I1 Page 1 of 2 August 2006
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I1 - Polar Class Descriptions and Application - Technical Background considerable variability of ice conditions in polar waters. The overall intent in defining the technical requirements for each class has been to provide a relatively smooth increase in requirements (and cost) to assist owners in matching the requirements for the ship with its intended voyage or service. It will still be possible to damage any polar class ship by careless operation, accounting for the emphasis placed on operational issues in the IMO Guidelines which, of course, have the same polar class descriptions. One possible point of future discussion concerns the two lowest IACS polar classes PC6 and PC7. These classes are recognised in the IMO Guidelines as nominally equivalent to the Finnish-Swedish ice classes 1AS and 1A. To minimise the cost and design efforts required for ships that are to operate in the Baltic Sea during the winter season and in Arctic waters during the summer season, official recognition of these equivalencies by the Finnish and Swedish Maritime Administrations has been obtained. Due to future rule development on both sides, co-ordination between IACS and the Baltic Administrations are required to maintain these equivalencies. 4.0 Source/Derivation of Proposed Requirements As noted in the foregoing, UR I1 is a consequence of the international effort to harmonise standards for marine operations in polar waters, and is directly connected with the IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters (MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ.399). 5.0 Appendices For further background information concerning UR I1, reference is made to: IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters (MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ.399).
IACS UR I1
Page 2 of 2
August 2006
Page 1 of 1
URs I1, I2 and I3 Revision 1, Technical Background (Jan 2007).

From: Sent: To: AIACS@eagle.org 22 December 2006 17:40 iacs@bureauveritas.com; iacs@ccs.org.cn; iacs@dnv.com; iacs@gl-group.com; krsiacs@krs.co.kr; iacs@lr.org; classnkiacs@classnk.or.jp; iacs@rina.org; iacs@rshead.spb.ru; johnderose@iacs.org.uk; colinwright@iacs.org.uk; gilyonghan@iacs.org.uk; terryperkins@iacs.org.uk; efs@iacs.org.uk; richardleslie@iacs.org.uk; helenbutcher@iacs.org.uk; zoewright@iacs.org.uk
Subject: 4082cABf: GPG 59 FUA 24: Development of IACS UR I3 (4082a)
Date: 22 Dec 06 TO: Mr. Li Kejun, IACS Council Chairman CC: IACS Council Members CC: IACS Permanent Secretary: Mr. R. Leslie FROM: K. Tikka File Ref: T-12-2 Subject:4082cABf: GPG 59 FUA 24: Development of IACS UR I3 (4082a) 1. When Council adopted new URs I1, I2 and I3, it was our understanding that it was Council's intention that these URs be uniformly implemented by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction from 1 July 2007.
1.1 We are aware that RS intends to maintain its current requirements as being more stringent than the URs and that the application statements for the URs simply say "UR IX applies to ships contracted for construction on or after 1 July 2007". 2. We now note that: 2.1 GL (in GLe) has advised that GL will will not implement the UR's "I" until 1 March 2008; 2.2 DNV (in NVe) has advised that DNV will not implement the URs until 1 Jan 08. 3. In light of these developments, and of our understanding that Council's agreeing a uniform application date in the first place was for the purpose of achieving uniform and simultaneous application of the URs by IACS Members, we propose that Members consider revising the application statement for these URs to be: "This UR is to be uniformly applied by IACS Societies on ships contracted for construction on and after 1 March 2008." 4. Members views on this proposal are requested. Regards, Dr. Kirsi Tikka ABS IACS Council Member
email protected and scanned by BIS Advanced Spam & Virus Checking - powered by AdvascanTM - keeping email useful
19/01/2007
Part A
UR I2 Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships

Version no. Rev.2 (Nov 2010) Corr.1 (Oct 2007) Rev.1 (Jan 2007) New (August 2006) Approval date 07 November 2010 Implementation date when applicable 1 Jan 2012 1 March 2008
Rev.2 (Jan 2011)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Request by Hull panel (PT49)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To correct the known errors and ambiguities as well as to correct minor format issues in UR I2. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The Hull Panel PT49 created the proposed modifications to correct the known errors and ambiguities as well as to correct minor format issues in UR I2. The Hull Panel approved these changes during the Hull Panel meeting in October 2010. GPG decided to treat the modifications as a revision rather than a correction and the effective date of implementation of the revised UR as 1 January 2012. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 13 October 2010 Made by Hull Panel Panel Approval: October 2010 GPG Approval: 07 November 2010 (Ref: 7592_IGd)
Page 1 of 3
Corr.1 (Oct 2007)
Rev.1 (Jan 2007)
See TB in Part B.
New (August 2006)
See TB in Part B.
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents: Annex 1 TB for New (August 2006) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Annex 2 TB for Rev.1 (Jan 2007) See separate TB document in Annex 2. Annex 3 TB for Rev. 2 (Jan 2011) See separate TB document in Annex 3. Note: There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document for Corr.1 (Oct 2007).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I2 Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships - Technical Background 1.0 Historical Development An international effort has been made in the development of a uniquely integrated package of measures aimed at protecting life, property and the environment in polar waters. This so-called harmonisation process began when several nations recognised the benefits of aligning existing safety and pollution control standards for marine operations in polar waters, and of giving these more general applicability. Germany and Russia made proposals to IMO in the early 1990s, and these resulted in discussions amongst various interested governments who formed a working group to develop an appropriate approach. This Outside Working Group (OWG) reported its formation and aims to IMO in 1993, and was subsequently expanded to include members from industry, academic and research communities and representatives from classification societies. The efforts of the OWG culminated in the development of the IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic IceCovered Waters, which was promulgated in December 2002 as a joint MSC/MEPC circular (MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ.399). The structure and format of the IMO Guidelines are divided into construction, equipment, operational and environmental protection sections, although the Guidelines themselves include only a minimal set of direct technical requirements for construction. Instead, they outline performance standards and reference compliance with IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships as demonstrating adequate performance. Accordingly, in May of 1996, IACS GPG established a nonpermanent Ad-Hoc Group to establish Unified Requirements for Polar Ships (AHG/PSR), with one working group for structural requirements and one for machinery requirements. Notably, the AHG/PSR also includes non-IACS working members who have expertise and knowledge to assist in the development of requirements for this specialised subject. The efforts of AHG/PSR have resulted in three sets of unified requirements for Polar Ships; UR I1 (Polar Class Descriptions and Application); UR I2 (Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships); UR I3 (Machinery Requirements for Polar Class Ships). 2.0 Scope and Objectives The scope of UR I2 includes ice load definition as well as specific strength requirements for plating, framing (including web frames and load-carrying stringers), plated structures (such as decks and bulkheads), and the hull girder. The scope of UR I2 also includes material requirements, as well as corrosion/abrasion allowances. General strength requirements for hull appendages, stem and stern frames, as well as some provisions for local details, direct calculations and welding, are also included. The objective of UR I2 is to provide a unified set of structural requirements to enable polar class ships to withstand the effects of global and local ice loads, as well as temperatures, characteristic of their polar class. 3.0 Points of Discussions or Possible Discussions 3.1 Application The unified requirements for polar ships are to be applied to any ships constructed of steel and navigating in ice-infested polar waters, except for icebreakers, as specified in UR I1.1.
IACS UR I2 - TB
Page 1 of 4
Aug 2006
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I2 Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships - Technical Background 3.2 Hull Areas In all existing polar class rule systems, hull area factors are used to relate the calculated bow area loads to the anticipated loads on other parts of the ship. Although it is envisioned that future rule formulations will be based on an envelope of loads derived from various interaction scenarios, the first edition of the IACS unified requirements for polar ships will only provide explicit calculations of bow glancing and ramming loads. Loads are applied to other areas of the ship by means of a hull area factor system. Because the net effect of bow form on loads elsewhere is unclear and controversial, the hull area factors used in the unified requirement are independent of hull angles and based on a nominal load for a ship of given size and class. 3.3 Design Ice Loads The design ice load has been developed to enable each member of the hull structure to resist a single ship/ice interaction event that, although rare, has a nominal expectation of occurring once per year in polar water operations. Although any polar class ship will experience a complex mix of ship-ice interactions during its operational life, the glancing impact scenario has been selected as the basis for the scantling requirements, due to the availability of a relatively mature model describing this type of interaction. Accordingly, the maximum expected bow load associated with a glancing impact is calculated within the accuracy required to yield a sufficiently safe and robust vessel. Loads on areas of the hull other than the bow are estimated by assuming them to be a percentage of the bow load, corrected to remove bow form dependencies (see 3.2 above). Having established the magnitude of the loads for the different hull areas, the average pressure is obtained by transforming the apparent contact area into a reduced rectangular load patch. 3.4 Shell Plating and Framing Requirements The requirements proposed for the scantlings of plating and framing are based on a loading event that begins with ship/ice edge contact over a small area, and continues with growing contact area until the entire structural grillage is loaded to its design condition. Under the design load condition, and with the selected structural response criteria, a certain level of permanent set in the plating and framing should be expected. The scantlings of all framing members are, in general, based on plastic collapse limit state formulae. To calculate the dimensions of the plating and framing, it is first necessary to determine the pressure to be used in the scantling formulae. Since it is generally acknowledged that ice loads are not uniformly distributed over the instantaneous contact area, a load concentration factor (linked to the horizontal dimension of the load patch) is applied to the average pressure. Having calculated the design pressures for the plating and main frames, it is possible to directly calculate, in conjunction with stability checks, the required scantlings of each. The design of load-carrying stringers and web frames are to be based on an analysis of the entire grillage and are to be dimensioned such that the combined effects of shear and bending do not exceed the limit state(s) defined by each member society. 3.5 Corrosion/Abrasion Additions and Steel Renewal The proposed structural design criteria for polar class ships result in the minimum scantlings, tnet, required to resist the design ice loads according to various response criteria. Accordingly, abrasion/corrosion allowances, ts, are needed to ensure that the structure can deliver the expected performance at all times between surveys. These margins are linked to anticipated wastage rates,
IACS UR I2 - TB Page 2 of 4 Aug 2006
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I2 Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships - Technical Background which in turn are related to three factors; hull area, polar class, and the presence/absence of an effective coating system. 3.6 Material Requirements In the proposed requirements for longitudinal strength, plating and framing, there is an implicit assumption that brittle fracture of structural members will not occur. To ensure that this is the case, minimum grades of steel to be used for various structural members are specified. The basic criteria for steel grade selection includes four factors; polar class, material class, thickness of the structural member, and location above or below the waterline. One point of future discussion, given the proposed material requirements for polar ships in UR I2, concerns the future application of existing material requirements in UR S6 for ships engaged in low temperature service. This matter is to be addressed by Hull Panel Task No. 12. 3.7 Longitudinal Strength Requirements The longitudinal strength requirements assume that ice loads resulting from head-on ramming are not occurring simultaneously with substantial wave loads. The equation to determine the ice force due to ramming is based on an analytical solution, which has been modified on the basis of energy methods and numerical results, and validated against available full-scale data. Substituting ship and class-based design values into this equation yields the maximum ice force. The maximum ice bending moment is subsequently calculated. Distributions of the shear forces and bending moments along the ship have been produced from the analytical model. Bending and shear strength requirements are then evaluated using existing longitudinal strength requirements S5, S7 and S11, with slightly revised permissible stresses because of the relative infrequency of ice loads compared with those arising from waves. Since these permissible stresses are independent of longitudinal position, buckling strength is to be verified over the entire length of the ship. 4.0 Source/Derivation of Proposed Requirements As noted in the foregoing, UR I2 is a consequence of the international effort to harmonise standards for marine operations in polar waters, and is directly connected with the IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters (MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ.399). 5.0 Decision by Voting None required. 6.0 Appendices For further background information concerning UR I2, reference is made to: Appolonov, E. (2003). IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background to Shell Plating Requirements. Prepared for IACS Ad-Hoc Group for Polar Ship Rules and Transport Canada. Bond, J. (2003). IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background to Hull Area Extents and Factors. Prepared for IACS Ad-Hoc Group for Polar Ship Rules.
IACS UR I2 - TB
Page 3 of 4
Aug 2006
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I2 Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships - Technical Background Daley, C. (2003). IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background to Design Ice Loads. Prepared for IACS Ad-Hoc Group for Polar Ship Rules and Transport Canada. Daley, C. (2003). IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background to Framing Requirements. Prepared for IACS Ad-Hoc Group for Polar Ship Rules and Transport Canada. Daley, C. (2003). IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background to Longitudinal Strength Requirements. Prepared for IACS Ad-Hoc Group for Polar Ship Rules and Transport Canada. Tunik, A. (2003). IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background to Abrasion/Corrosion Additions. Prepared for IACS Ad-Hoc Group for Polar Ship Rules. Tunik, A. (2003). IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background to Material Requirements. Prepared for IACS Ad-Hoc Group for Polar Ship Rules.
Permsec Note: 1. GPG agreed that I2.2.6 be amended to read: If a ship is intended to operate in astern in ice regions, the aft section of the ship is to be designed using the Bow and Bow Intermediate hull area requirements. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that while the URs are not a comprehensive standard applicable to icebreakers, they do apply to cargo ships intended for continuous icebreaking astern, for which the structural requirements applicable forward are to also to be applied aft (4082dIGd, 9 Nov 2005). 2. I2.3.2.1 was editorially improved as per BV suggestions. 3. Hull Panel Task 38 Review of modifications to UR I2 completed. Outcome was incorporated into the final text of UR I2. Hull Panel Chairman advised that the Hull Panels refinement was intended to be clarifications and not changes to the UR itself (4082aPHb, 15 May 06). GPG approved. 4. Re UR I2.13.5.1 Longitudinal Strength Criteria, GL Council Member informed as follows: (4082cGLd, 17 Aug 2006) Quote
2. With regard to para 13.5, stating that critical buckling stresses are to be calculated according to UR S11.5, GL would like to mention our reservation on UR S11. 3. In the Technical Background for UR I2 (Section 3.6), reference to WP/S Task No. 66 should be changed to Hull Panel Task No. 12. 4.GL Council Member approves I1, I2 and I3 subject to the above.
Unquote 5. RS approved UR I1, I2 and I3 without reservation on 28 Aug 06. See the attached. END
IACS UR I2 - TB Page 4 of 4 Aug 2006
Attached. RS no reservation
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I2 Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships - Technical Background 1.0 Historical Development An international effort has been made in the development of a uniquely integrated package of measures aimed at protecting life, property and the environment in polar waters. This so-called harmonisation process began when several nations recognised the benefits of aligning existing safety and pollution control standards for marine operations in polar waters, and of giving these more general applicability. Germany and Russia made proposals to IMO in the early 1990s, and these resulted in discussions amongst various interested governments who formed a working group to develop an appropriate approach. This Outside Working Group (OWG) reported its formation and aims to IMO in 1993, and was subsequently expanded to include members from industry, academic and research communities and representatives from classification societies. The efforts of the OWG culminated in the development of the IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic IceCovered Waters, which was promulgated in December 2002 as a joint MSC/MEPC circular (MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ.399). The structure and format of the IMO Guidelines are divided into construction, equipment, operational and environmental protection sections, although the Guidelines themselves include only a minimal set of direct technical requirements for construction. Instead, they outline performance standards and reference compliance with IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships as demonstrating adequate performance. Accordingly, in May of 1996, IACS GPG established a nonpermanent Ad-Hoc Group to establish Unified Requirements for Polar Ships (AHG/PSR), with one working group for structural requirements and one for machinery requirements. Notably, the AHG/PSR also includes non-IACS working members who have expertise and knowledge to assist in the development of requirements for this specialised subject. The efforts of AHG/PSR have resulted in three sets of unified requirements for Polar Ships; UR I1 (Polar Class Descriptions and Application); UR I2 (Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships); UR I3 (Machinery Requirements for Polar Class Ships). 2.0 Scope and Objectives The scope of UR I2 includes ice load definition as well as specific strength requirements for plating, framing (including web frames and load-carrying stringers), plated structures (such as decks and bulkheads), and the hull girder. The scope of UR I2 also includes material requirements, as well as corrosion/abrasion allowances. General strength requirements for hull appendages, stem and stern frames, as well as some provisions for local details, direct calculations and welding, are also included. The objective of UR I2 is to provide a unified set of structural requirements to enable polar class ships to withstand the effects of global and local ice loads, as well as temperatures, characteristic of their polar class. 3.0 Points of Discussions or Possible Discussions 3.1 Application The unified requirements for polar ships are to be applied to any ships constructed of steel and navigating in ice-infested polar waters, except for icebreakers, as specified in UR I1.1.
IACS UR I2
Page 1 of 3
August 2006
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I2 Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships - Technical Background 3.2 Hull Areas In all existing polar class rule systems, hull area factors are used to relate the calculated bow area loads to the anticipated loads on other parts of the ship. Although it is envisioned that future rule formulations will be based on an envelope of loads derived from various interaction scenarios, the first edition of the IACS unified requirements for polar ships will only provide explicit calculations of bow glancing and ramming loads. Loads are applied to other areas of the ship by means of a hull area factor system. Because the net effect of bow form on loads elsewhere is unclear and controversial, the hull area factors used in the unified requirement are independent of hull angles and based on a nominal load for a ship of given size and class. 3.3 Design Ice Loads The design ice load has been developed to enable each member of the hull structure to resist a single ship/ice interaction event that, although rare, has a nominal expectation of occurring once per year in polar water operations. Although any polar class ship will experience a complex mix of ship-ice interactions during its operational life, the glancing impact scenario has been selected as the basis for the scantling requirements, due to the availability of a relatively mature model describing this type of interaction. Accordingly, the maximum expected bow load associated with a glancing impact is calculated within the accuracy required to yield a sufficiently safe and robust vessel. Loads on areas of the hull other than the bow are estimated by assuming them to be a percentage of the bow load, corrected to remove bow form dependencies (see 3.2 above). Having established the magnitude of the loads for the different hull areas, the average pressure is obtained by transforming the apparent contact area into a reduced rectangular load patch. 3.4 Shell Plating and Framing Requirements The requirements proposed for the scantlings of plating and framing are based on a loading event that begins with ship/ice edge contact over a small area, and continues with growing contact area until the entire structural grillage is loaded to its design condition. Under the design load condition, and with the selected structural response criteria, a certain level of permanent set in the plating and framing should be expected. The scantlings of all framing members are, in general, based on plastic collapse limit state formulae. To calculate the dimensions of the plating and framing, it is first necessary to determine the pressure to be used in the scantling formulae. Since it is generally acknowledged that ice loads are not uniformly distributed over the instantaneous contact area, a load concentration factor (linked to the horizontal dimension of the load patch) is applied to the average pressure. Having calculated the design pressures for the plating and main frames, it is possible to directly calculate, in conjunction with stability checks, the required scantlings of each. The design of load-carrying stringers and web frames are to be based on an analysis of the entire grillage and are to be dimensioned such that the combined effects of shear and bending do not exceed the limit state(s) defined by each member society. 3.5 Corrosion/Abrasion Additions and Steel Renewal The proposed structural design criteria for polar class ships result in the minimum scantlings, tnet, required to resist the design ice loads according to various response criteria. Accordingly, abrasion/corrosion allowances, ts, are needed to ensure that the structure can deliver the expected performance at all times between surveys. These margins are linked to anticipated wastage rates,
IACS UR I2 Page 2 of 3 August 2006
IACS AHG/PSR IACS UR I2 Structural Requirements for Polar Class Ships - Technical Background which in turn are related to three factors; hull area, polar class, and the presence/absence of an effective coating system. 3.6 Material Requirements In the proposed requirements for longitudinal strength, plating and framing, there is an implicit assumption that brittle fracture of structural members will not occur. To ensure that this is the case, minimum grades of steel to be used for various structural members are specified. The basic criteria for steel grade selection includes four factors; polar class, material class, thickness of the structural member, and location above or below the waterline.
3.7 Longitudinal Strength Requirements The longitudinal strength requirements assume that ice loads resulting from head-on ramming are not occurring simultaneously with substantial wave loads. The equation to determine the ice force due to ramming is based on an analytical solution, which has been modified on the basis of energy methods and numerical results, and validated against available full-scale data. Substituting ship and class-based design values into this equation yields the maximum ice force. The maximum ice bending moment is subsequently calculated. Distributions of the shear forces and bending moments along the ship have been produced from the analytical model. Bending and shear strength requirements are then evaluated using existing longitudinal strength requirements S5, S7 and S11, with slightly revised permissible stresses because of the relative infrequency of ice loads compared with those arising from waves. Since these permissible stresses are independent of longitudinal position, buckling strength is to be verified over the entire length of the ship. 4.0 Source/Derivation of Proposed Requirements As noted in the foregoing, UR I2 is a consequence of the international effort to harmonise standards for marine operations in polar waters, and is directly connected with the IMO Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters (MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ.399).
IACS UR I2
Page 3 of 3
August 2006
Page 1 of 1 2 Part B, Annex

19/01/2007
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background for UR I2 Rev.2, Nov 2010

1. Scope and objectives To correct the known typographical errors and ambiguities as well as to correct minor format issues in UR I2. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale See the attachment Summary of proposed corrections to UR I2 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution Proposal by Hull Panel PT49. See the attachment Summary of proposed corrections to UR I2 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: See the attachment Summary of proposed corrections to UR I2 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The Hull Panel PT49 created the proposed modifications to correct the known typographical errors and ambiguities as well as to correct minor format issues in UR I2. The Hull Panel approved these changes during the Hull Panel meeting in October 2010. GPG decided to treat the modifications as a revision rather than a correction and the effective date of implementation of the revised UR as 1 January 2012. 6. Attachments if any Summary of proposed corrections to UR I2
Summary of Proposed Corrections to UR I2 (Corr. 1, Oct 2007)

Correction 1 - Body plan nomenclature (I2.3.2.1 (i)) The Hull Panel agreed to replace the phrase body plan A-A in Figure 2 with transverse section A-A. Correction 2 - Definition of ship length L (I2.3.2.1 (iii) (a))
To clarify the measurement of L, the Hull Panel agreed to replace the definition L = ship length measured at the upper ice waterline (UIWL) [m] with L = ship length as defined in UR S2.1, but measured on the upper ice waterline (UIWL) [m]. Correction 3 Equation 19 (I2.5.8) In Equation 19, the existing definition of Apn specifies that the cross-sectional area of the attached plate flange is not to be taken greater than the cross-sectional area of the local frame. However, I2.5.8 only applies to cases where the cross-sectional area of the attached plate flange exceeds the cross-sectional area of the local frame. Therefore, the definition of Apn should be replaced by Apn = net cross-sectional area of the local frame [cm2]. Correction 4 Equation 21 (I2.5.8)
Since the plastic neutral axis is located at the edge of the attached shell plate and not its neutral axis, the first term in Equation 21, tpn s zna sinw, should be replaced by tpn s (zna + tpn/2) sinw. Correction 5 Equation 26 (I2.9.2) Equation 26 is missing a square root sign.
t wn = 2.63 10 3 c1 y /(5.34 + 4 (c1 / c2 ) 2 ) [mm]
See derivation at the end of this document. Correction 6 - Web crippling requirement (I2.9.3)
The existing definition of the yield stress y = minimum upper yield stress of the material [N/mm2] should be replaced by y = minimum upper yield stress of the shell plate in way of the framing member [N/mm2]. Furthermore, the definition of tpn should read in way of. Correction 7 Other Areas (I2.11.2)
Since all hull areas are covered by the first 3 rows of Table 4, the last row Other Areas can be removed. Correction 8 Steel grades for Material Class III (I2.12.1) Steel grades for Material Class III are defined in Table 6, however no Material Class III structural member is defined in Table 5. Since the only Class III materials are those defined in UR S6.1, the Hull Panel agreed to replace "the Polar ice class notation assigned to the ship and the Material Class of structural members given in Table 5" with "the Polar ice class notation assigned to the ship and the Material Class of structural members according to I2.12.2."
Correction 9 - Material class for deck longitudinals (I2.12.2) In order to clarify that the material requirements also apply to deck longitudinals and other structures connected to deck plating, the Hull Panel agreed to replace the phrase shell plating with plating in paragraph I2.12.2 and in row 4 of Table 5 Correction 10- Reference to UR S6 (I2.12.3) Since the tables in UR S6 were revised in September 2007, the Hull Panel agreed to change the existing reference Table 2 of UR S6 to Table 6 of UR S6. Correction 11 - Definition of stem angle (I2.13.2.1)
Since stem is undefined, the Hull Panel agreed that be changed to stem in the right hand side of Figure 7 and to include a definition of stem with reference to this revised figure, i.e. stem = waterline angle measured in way of the stem at the upper ice waterline (UIWL) [deg] (see Figure 7). Correction 12 - Definition of ship length L (I2.13.4.1) To clarify the measurement of L, the Hull Panel agreed to replace the definition L = ship length (Rule Length as defined in UR S2.1) [m] with L = ship length as defined in UR S2.1, but measured on the upper ice waterline (UIWL) [m].
Derivation of Equation 26 Euler stress for shear buckling:

t wn e = 0,2 10 n c 1
6
where 0,2 10 6
2 E with Young modulus E= 216000 N/mm2 2 12 1
c1 n = 5,34 + 4 c 2
According to RS Rules (1990), p. 1.6.5.3

cr = y
3
when
e = 0,8 3 y
Then
2 c1 t wn 0,8 3 y = 0,2 10 5,34 + 4 c 2 c1 6
and
t wn = 0,8 3 c1 0,2 106
y
c1 5,34 + 4 c 2
2
= 2,63 10 3 c1
y
c1 5,34 + 4 c 2
2
TB for UR I3.
1. Background Notes - Propeller Ice Loads (15 pages)
2. Background Notes - Machinery Fastening Loading Accelerations (10 pages)
3. Background Notes - Blade design (11 pages)
4. RS Message dated 28 Aug.'06 - approval of URs without reservation(1 page)
IACS UR I3 Technical Background Propeller Ice Interaction Loads ___________________________________________________________________________
IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background Notes to Propeller Ice Interaction Loads
by Robin Browne and Lasse Norhamo
____________________________________________________________________________
15th June 2006 Rev 0.1

PROPELLER ICE INTERACTION LOADS 1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The propeller design ice loads given in I3(Section I3.4 of the Machinery Requirements for Polar Ship), are the result of extensive research and development by circumpolar nations over the past 25 years. The R&D has included analysis of service history of propeller damages, propeller and shaft load measurements on full scale trials, laboratory investigations and numerical simulation of propeller and ice interaction. The decision was taken at the start of the project that the most modern ice interaction models and information would be used in the process of developing new regulations and to be consistent with the FMA requirements The manner, in which the Requirements have been developed from this material, and their detailed explanation, is given below in Section 3.
2.
BACKGROUND
The mid 1970s to late 1980s was a time of great activity in the Arctic Marine field in North America, Russia and Scandinavia, with a large number of new buildings of icebreakers and ice class cargo vessels and supply vessels. These supported the offshore oil drilling activity and mineral transport in the Canadian Arctic, transportation on the Russian Northern Sea Route and in the Baltic, and U.S. scientific and strategic interests in Antarctica and Alaska. Arctic Marine R&D, including studies of ice loading on propellers and machinery systems, grew in step with this commercial activity. In North America, machinery ice loading studies generally took the form of data acquisition, and subsequent analysis, on full scale trials of the many new builds. Information recorded was generally shaft thrust and torque relative to ship and propeller operating conditions and the encountered ice conditions. In Scandinavia, principally Finland, the objective was a more fundamental understanding of propeller ice loading, based on detailed trials of a few, generally small vessels. Blade ice loads were measured directly, underwater video was added to the recordings, and some long term trials were conducted. The blade load measurement technology was also transferred to Canada and Russia for two trials on the Canadian Arctic Supply Vessel Robert Lemeur and Russian Arctic Icebreaker Arctika. Russia carried out some shaft and blade load measurements. Moreover, with by far the largest Arctic fleet, Russia benefited from the statistical analysis of machinery performance and damages. During this period, it became increasingly evident that existing machinery protection regulations were not adequate to the task, and had in many areas become irrelevant. For example, blade scantlings in the Baltic and Canadian rules were dependent upon a design ice torque, rather than a direct expression of the out-of-plane blade bending moment, which can cause major blade deformation and breakage. Experienced designers and manufacturers were using their own improved understanding and practices, especially with regard to propeller design. In Russia, the detailed analysis of blade failures on high ice class icebreakers led to greatly improved designs in stainless steel, with emphasis on material properties and quality of the castings. At the end of the 1980s, both the Canadian and Baltic marine authorities had decided to update their respective machinery protection regulations. In order to share expertise and resources, a joint
____________________________________________________________________________

research project arrangement ( JRPA#6 ) on the important matter of blade design ice loads, was entered into between Canada and Finland. Finland would develop a numerical simulation model of propeller and ice interaction during the ice milling operation, which would incorporate a Finnish model for contact load components and a Canadian model for non-contact load components. A number of associated research programmes provided additional information, such as ice properties at interaction velocities, and analysis of available full scale data. The ice block impact condition on the back of a blade, such as occurs when a propeller is dragged through ice, can generate extreme loads. This condition is avoided by masters as imprudent operation, and is not a design condition. The lack of directly measured blade loads on a large propeller in Arctic conditions also gave impetus to a joint Canadian-American project for propeller ice load trials on USCGC Polar Star in the early 1990s. The JRPA#6 three-dimensional numerical simulation model was developed by the mid-1990s, and was used to determine parametric influences upon propeller and ice interaction loads. These loads applied to open propellers and included backward blade bending moment, blade spindle torque, propeller torque and shaft thrust. Included in the load formulae was the parameter of blade attack angle. The exact value of this parameter is not known at the time of maximum load and it was therefore necessary to make a final calibration of the formulae using all available full scale data. A design interaction blade attack angle of + 4 degrees was adopted. The dependencies in the load formulae, with some modifications based on Russian R&D results, find their way into the load formulae in the IACS unified design requirements. The numerical simulation model did not address the ducted propeller directly, nor maximum forward blade loads. However, it was possible to determine working formulations based on available full scale data.
3. I3.4.3
Points of Discussion Design Ice Loads for Open Propeller Maximum Backward Blade Force
I3.4.3.1
The formula for the maximum backward blade ice force on a propeller blade, derived from the JRPA#6 numerical simulation model, is given in Reference 8 as: Fbl where: D Z EAR = = = propeller diameter in metres number of blades expanded blade area ratio = -93.0 [ EAR/Z ]0.287 [ Hi/D ]1.36 e (-0.183
)
(nD)0.712 D2.02
kN
____________________________________________________________________________

n Hi = = = = = = propeller rotational speed rps ice thickness in metres apparent angle of attack - arctan ( V/(0.7nD)) pitch angle at 0.7R uniaxial unconfined compressive strength of ice in MPa
The blade force does not increase indefinitely, with increase in the ratio of ice thickness/propeller diameter. This is due to two factors: As ice thickness and block size and inertia increase, the interaction moves towards the infinite ice block case, and the loads move asymptotically to a limiting value. As ice thickness increases to be greater than blade length, the interaction geometry becomes more asymmetric, and the ice block tends to rotate on contact away from the blade, thereby releasing or limiting the load.
It was found that this limiting effect is as follows: when Hi/D > 0.65, the value of Hi/D = 0.65 This blade force is known from full scale observations and measurements [ 10, 12,13, 16 ] and laboratory tests [ 4 ], to be distributed radially in a strip close to the blade leading edge, with an equivalent point location for blade root stress calculation at 0.8R and approximately 0.2 of chord back from the leading edge. This load formula was modified for use as a Regulatory model by the substitution of:
Hice for Hi. Each PC ice class has a design ice thickness, as given in the Regulation Table 3.1. These values are used for the appropriate class in the formula calculations. A coefficient Sice to account for the ice strength influence. The ice strength influence is an increase of approximately 20% in ice load for a doubling of ice strength, as would be the case in going from first year to multi-year ice. Full scale data in [15] support this. In Table 3.2, Sice is given as 1.2 for ice classes which may interact with multi-year ice. For ice classes PC5 to PC2 Sice has been selected as an intermediate value of 1.1 in order to adjust backward ice force Fbl to full scale validation data. The use of a single decimal place in the exponent values for simplicity. Higher accuracy cannot be justified. The adoption of an angle of attack of + 4 degrees. The angle of attack at the time of maximum backward blade load is known to be small, but the exact value is not known. Its practical measurement is beyond current possibility. The value of + 4 degrees was selected as the value which brings the formula and full scale data into agreement. For fixed pitch propellers, maximum backward ice load does not occur at heavy ice condition ship speeds, because propeller speeds will be low, but in a condition of lower ice concentration/thickness where ship speed and propeller speed are higher. In this situation the propeller can hit a large ice block at a low attack angle and experience a large load. Therefore 0,85 of nominal speed has been selected for practical use.
As a result of the above measures, the formulae for maximum backward blade force in the regulation section I3.4.3.1 become: Dlimit = 0.85 (Hice)1.4
When D< Dlimit Fb = -27 Sice (nD)0.7 [EAR/Z ]0.3 D2 kN
When D> Dlimit Fb = -23 Sice (nD)0.7 [EAR/Z ]0.3 ( Hice)1.4 D kN
____________________________________________________________________________
Ice Class PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 Hice Sice Sqice
Hice [m] 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.75 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1
S ice [-]
S qice [-] 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1 1
Ice thickness for machinery strength design Ice strength index for blade ice force Ice strength index for blade ice torque
The most significant parameters are generally Ice Class, giving rise to Hiceand Sice, and propeller diameter. The product nD normally varies little in practical designs (an upper limit normally exists for the avoidance of blade tip cavitation), and EAR/Z does not normally vary very much.
IACS UR I3 - Propeller Blade Loads Influence of nD to Backw ard Load 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 9 10 11 12 product nD
nD^07
Index %
IACS UR I3 - Propeller Blade Loads Influence of nD to Backw ard Load 150,0 100,0 50,0 0,0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 product nD
In flu en ce to Ice L o ad
13
14
15
Influence to Ice Load in % / Tip speed in m/s
Blade tip speed - m/s
____________________________________________________________________________

IACS UR I3 - Propeller Blade Loads Influence of EAR and Z to Backward Load
0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,4 0,5 0,6 EAR Number of blades - Z 5 Number of blades - Z 3 Number of blades - Z 4
Number of blades - Z 5

Influence to Ice Load in %
140,0 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0 0,4 0,5 0,6 EAR 0,7 0,8 0,9
Influence to Ice Load
0,7
0,8
0,9
The above formulae show that for any given ice class, and accompanying design ice thickness, the design ice load for small propellers increases with the square of diameter, until Dlimit is reached. Above Dlimit, design ice load increases linearly with increase in diameter. Both statements are valid provided that nD is kept constant and EAR/Z is same. The graphical presentation of the loads for PC1 to PC7, D = 1 to 8m, nD = 12, EAR = 0.7 and Z=4 is given below [ 16 ].
____________________________________________________________________________

Backward blade load - Open propeller Constant nD
-9000,0
-8000,0
-7000,0
-5000,0
-4000,0
-3000,0
-2000,0
-1000,0
0,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Diameter - m
PC1 PC2
PC3
PC4
PC5
PC6
PC-7
The maximum directly measured blade loads for the vessels Gudingen - PC7 equivalent (PC6 questioned) and Polar Star PC3 equivalent demonstrate the overall validity of the load model in the proper manner. These ships are plotted in the next diagram, which was drawn before final adjustment of constants (10% reduction) and new Sice values (1.1 instead of 1.2) for PC2 to PC5 and is therefore presented in purpose of entirety. These adjustments were considered reasonable based on validations carried out and acknowledging that the PC1 ice class is the only one intended year round operation in all Polar areas. Shaft measured thrust loads on some icebreakers have also been corrected to propeller loads by taking shaft dynamics into account [15]. The resulting propeller loads, relative to propeller diameter and ice thickness are of the same order of magnitude as given in the above Regulatory Load Figure. For blade scantlings design, the maximum backward blade load is to be applied as shown in the regulations Table 1, load case 1 for the full milling condition and Load case 2, the tip milling condition for skewed CP-propellers in particular. Although the blade load is not in practice of uniform intensity [ 4], this simplification over the specified area, has an equivalent effect. Load case 5 in the same table is intended for blade trailing edge loading for reversible (rotational direction) propellers. This is developed based on observed ice damages (bent blade tips at trailing
____________________________________________________________________________
Blade Load - Fb - kN
-6000,0

edge side) and shall take care of skewed blade form. Thus there is no need for any limitation of skew angle.
I3.43.2
Maximum Forward Blade Force
The forward blade load on the open propeller is a non-contact load occurring due to the very close proximity of an ice block and propeller blade. These loads have been measured directly [9], but the exact mechanism of their generation and the shape of the load distribution on the blade are not fully understood. The formulae in regulation section I3.4.3.2, model the available full scale information. Dlimit = 2/[1-d/D] Hice m
When D<Dlimit Ff = 250 [EAR/Z] D2 kN
When D>Dlimit Ff = 500 (1/[1-d/D]) Hice [EAR/Z] D kN
At any given propeller diameter, the forward blade load increases with ice thickness, until ice thickness equals blade length and one whole blade at any time can be shielded by the ice block. These loads are to be applied following the same scheme as for the full milling backward blade loads, except that the loads are applied to the face ( pressure ) side of the blade.
____________________________________________________________________________

The graphical presentation of the loads for PC1 to PC7, D = 1 to 10m, d/D = 0.36, nD = 12, EAR = 0.7 and Z=4 is given below.
Forward blade load - Open Propeller

6000,0
5000,0
4000,0
3000,0
2000,0
1000,0
0,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Diameter - m
PC1
PC2
PC3
PC4
PC5
PC6
PC-7
I3.4.3.4
Maximum Propeller Ice Torque
The formula for maximum propeller ice torque ( ice torque or polar moment applied to the shaft by the propeller at the propeller location ), derived from the JRPA#6 numerical simulation model, is given in Reference 8 as: Qmax= 234 (1-d/D) 0.195 (Hi/D)1.07 ( -0.902 J2 + J + 0.438 ) (P/D)0.162 (t/D)0.605 (nD)0.173 D3.04 Where: J t/D = = V/nD blade thickness/diameter ratio kNm
When Hi/D > 0.55, Hi/D should be taken as 0.55 It is noted that for geometrically and dynamically similar interaction conditions, propeller ice torque varies with the cube of propeller diameter, as opposed to the square of propeller diameter for ice force in I3.4.3.1 and I3.4.3.2.
____________________________________________________________________________
N M a x im u m B la d eL o a d- F f-k

This load formula was modified for use as a Regulatory model by the substitution of:
Hice for Hi. A coefficient Sqice to account for the ice strength influence. The ice strength influence is an increase of approximately 15% in ice load for a doubling of ice strength, as would be the case in going from first year to multi-year ice. In Table 3.2, Sqice is given as 1.15 for ice classes which may interact with multi-year ice. The use of two decimal places in the exponent values for simplicity. Higher accuracy cannot be justified. The adoption of a J value of 0.5, which provides the maximum value for the J term expression in brackets. Pitch and blade thickness are taken at 0.7 radius in m. Pitch shall correspond to MCR at zero speed of ship. For CP propeller this can be taken as 70% of the design pitch at maximum ship speed in open water at maximum continuous rating of the engine. Rotational speed - n shall be corresponding zero speed of ship
As a result of the above measures, the formulae for maximum propeller ice torque in the regulation section I3.4.3.4 become: Dlimit = 1.81 Hice
When D< Dlimit Qmax= 105 (1-d/D) Sqice (P0,7/D)0.16 (t0.7/D)0.6 (nD)0.17 D3 When D> Dlimit Qmax= 202 (1-d/D) Sqice Hice1.1 (P0,7/D)0.16 (t0.7/D)0.6 (nD)0.17 D1.9 kNm Shaft measured ice torque loads on some icebreakers have also been corrected to propeller torques by taking shaft dynamics into account [15]. The resulting propeller torques, relative to propeller diameter and ice thickness are of the same order of magnitude as given in the above formulae. kNm
I3.4.3.5
Maximum Propeller Ice Thrust
When the propeller blade in-plane and out-of-plane ice loads were resolved in the shaft axial direction, the maximum ice thrust was found to be approximately 1.1 times the out-of-plane blade load, Fb or Ff. In the figure below, long term negative propeller ice thrust predictions from trials data [15] for Ikaluk and Robert Lemeur are compared with the above formulae. The propeller thrust predictions are derived from shaft measured data using shaft dynamic response characteristics. The expected value in 500 hours of operation is used, and the regulatory formula values for blade load are multiplied by 1.1 in order to represent shaft thrust. It is noted that the full scale data match the regulatory formulae very well. This also provides additional validation for the diameter squared influence upon backward propeller blade ice forces. Load pattern location on the blades are given in the Table 2 , load cases 1 and 5.
____________________________________________________________________________
10
I3.4.4 I3.4.4.1
Design Ice Loads for Ducted Propeller Maximum Backward Blade Force
For ducted propellers, the backward blade ice force increases with increase in ice thickness until ice thickness equals about 25% of propeller diameter or about 70% of blade length. This is shown very clearly by shaft thrust data for Nathanial Palmer [14] in level ice of increasing thickness. Ice of thickness 70% blade length can include the largest ice blocks which can enter a ducted propeller without impacting the duct. Therefore, the open propeller model should model the ducted propeller for backward blade force, within this ice thickness range. Following this reasoning, the formulae for maximum backward blade ice force become: Dlimit = 4 Hice
When D< Dlimit Fb = -9.5 Sice x (nD)0.7 [EAR/Z ]0.3 D2 kN
When D> Dlimit Fb = -66 Sice x (nD)0.7 [EAR/Z ]0.3 ( Hice )1.4 D0.6 kN
____________________________________________________________________________
11

Following diagram show backward bending load for ducted propeller with same constants as for open propeller. PC1, PC4 and PC7 open propellers are presented in the same diagram for comparison purpose.
Backward blade load - Nozzle vs Open Propeller - Constant nD

-9000,0 -8000,0 -7000,0 -6000,0 -5000,0 -4000,0 -3000,0 -2000,0 -1000,0 0,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Diameter - m
PC1 Nozzle
PC5 Nozzle PC4 Open
PC2 Nozzle
PC6 Nozzle PC7 Open
PC3 Nozzle
PC7 Nozzle
PC4 Nozzle
PC1 Open
I3.4.4.2
The maximum forward blade force is close to the maximum forward blade force on an open propeller of the same diameter.
____________________________________________________________________________
12

This is indicated from full scale Baltic data [9]. Additionally, the maximum directly measured forward blade force on the Robert Lemeur agrees with this formulation. Load patterns location on the blades are given in the Table 2, load cases 2 and 5. Note that forward bending load covers half of the blade width on leading edge side.
I3.4.4.3
The maximum propeller ice torque is to be taken as 70% of the torque on an open propeller of the same diameter. In the figure below, long term maximum propeller ice torque predictions from trials data [15] for Ikaluk, Robert Lemeur and Oden are compared with the regulatory requirement. The propeller ice torque predictions are derived from shaft measured data using shaft dynamic response characteristics. The expected value in 500 hours of operation is used. The expected value in 500 hours of operation is used. A cubic fit is put through the full scale data, which provides support for the propeller diameter parametric relationship developed from the numerical simulation model. It is noted that the regulatory requirement is set just slightly higher than the full scale data long term predictions.
____________________________________________________________________________
13
IACS UR I3 Technical Background Propeller Ice Interaction Loads ___________________________________________________________________________ I3.4.4.5 Maximum Propeller Ice Thrust
When the propeller blade in-plane and out-of-plane ice loads were resolved in the shaft axial direction, the maximum ice thrust was found to be approximately 1.1 times the out-of-plane blade load, Fb or Ff.
____________________________________________________________________________
14

4 REFERENCES AND OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
JRPA#6 CANADA/FINLAND JOINT RESEARCH PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
Propeller-ice Interaction Joint Research Project Arrangement #6, Joint Conclusion report. H. Soininen, B. Veitch. Technical Research Centre of Finland Research Notes 1762. 1996.
STATE OF THE ART REVIEW OF ICE/PROPELLER INTERACTION MODELS
Interaction between ice and propeller. Matti Jussila, Harry Soininen. Technical Research Centre of Finland, Research Notes 1281. September 1991.
CONTACT LOAD COMPONENT MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Propeller Ice Contact Load Model. Harri Soininen. VTT Manufacturing Technology Technical Report VALB89. December 1995. Laboratory tests of propeller blade profile pressure distribution under ice contact. H. Soininen et al. VTT Research Notes 1664. August 1995. High Speed Uniaxial Compression tests On Ice. J. Sweeney, S. Jones. NRC/IMD Report LM-1994-17. November 1994.
NON-CONTACT COMPONENT MODEL DEVELOPMENT
JRPA#6 Propeller/Ice Interaction Development of Semi-Empirical Models. R. P. Browne for NRC/IMD. Report CR-1996-12. September 1996
5 Decision by voting Russian Register did not accept in entirety the concepts introduced under this section. In particular they had issues with the angle of attack assumed in the derivation of the formulae
____________________________________________________________________________
15
IACS UR I3 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND MACHINERY FASTENING LOADING ACCELERATIONS
IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background Notes and Verification
for
Machinery Fastening Loading Accelerations
by Robin Browne
_____________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 1

1. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
Accelerations imposed upon machinery due to ice impact/ramming are required in order that the integrity of holding down arrangements of essential machinery is maintained. Machinery Fastening Loading Accelerations are specified in the Machinery Requirements URI3.6. The formulae in URI3.6 defining these accelerations, require in turn, additional information on bow vertical ice force and bow side ice force magnitudes from the Structural Requirements URI2 (latest version December 2004). Using the latest versions of URI2 and URI3, an Excel spreadsheet program has been written to calculate the machinery fastening global accelerations corresponding to ship conditions where full scale trials data of global ship accelerations have been measured.
2.
POINTS OF DISCUSSION
There is a paucity of data for global ship accelerations. However, the data that exist have been extracted from reports of full scale icebreaker tests and trials, and reported in Ref 1, from which the acceleration formulae in UR I3.6 are taken.
COMPARISON OF FULL SCALE DATA WITH UR REQUIREMENTS The calculated UR requirements are based on assumptions/standards for the ramming or ice interaction speeds of vessels of any given Polar Class. The full scale data were not necessarily recorded at these ramming speeds, and, for the purposes of comparison, have therefore been adjusted linearly to the standard values.
_____________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 2
IACS UR I3 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND MACHINERY FASTENING LOADING ACCELERATIONS I3 6.2 LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION COMPARISONS
LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION AT BOW IN ICE
0.30 Calculated 0.25 Measured
0.20
g's
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00 M.V. Kigoriak Kigoriak with skeg impact M.V. Robert Lemeur M.V. Kalvik Polar Sea CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent
LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION AT MIDSHIPS IN ICE

0.80
g's
0.60
0.40
0.20
_____________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 0.00 3

M.V. Kigoriak Kigoriak with skeg impact M.V. Robert Lemeur M.V. Kalvik Polar Sea CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent
LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION AT STERN IN ICE

0.30
Calculated
0.25
Measured
0.20
g's
0.15
0.10
0.05
The UR required vertical accelerations show a generally good agreement with actual measured values from icebreakers in operating conditions. There are, however, many fewer data. There is just one comparison for the bow (Polar Sea), three for midships (Kigoriak with and without skeg contact and Louis St Laurent), and none for the stern. It is of course clear that there should be negligible difference in accelerations measured simultaneously at these three locations on a vessel. The four records should therefore be seen as agreement for four cases at all locations. These were all directly measured accelerations at the noted locations.
_____________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 4
IACS UR I3 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND MACHINERY FASTENING LOADING ACCELERATIONS I3 6.3 VERTICAL ACCELERATION COMPARISONS
_____________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 5
VERTICAL ACCELERATION AT BOW IN ICE

1.20
Calculated
1.00
Measured
0.80
g's
0.60
0.40
0.20
VERTICAL ACCELERATION AT MIDSHIPS IN ICE

0.18
Calculated
0.16
Measured
0.14
0.12
0.10
g's
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 M.V. Kigoriak Kigoriak with skeg im pact M.V. Robert Lem eur M.V. Kalv ik Polar Sea CCG S Louis S. St. Laurent
_____________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 6
VERTICAL ACCELERATION AT STERN IN ICE

0.35
Calculated
0.30
Measured
0.25
0.20 G'S 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 M.V. Kigoriak Kigoriak with skeg impact M.V. Robert Lemeur M.V. Kalvik Polar Sea CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent
The UR required vertical accelerations show a generally good agreement with actual measured values from icebreakers in operating conditions. There are four comparisons for the bow (Kigoriak, Robert Lemeur, Kalvik, and Polar Sea), and one each for midships (Louis St Laurent) and the stern (Kalvik). These were all directly measured accelerations at the noted locations.
_____________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 7
IACS UR I3 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND MACHINERY FASTENING LOADING ACCELERATIONS I3 6.4 TRANSVERSE ACCELERATION COMPARISONS
TRANSVERSE ACCELERATION AT BOW IN ICE
2.00
Calculated
1.80
Measured
1.60 1.40
1.20 g's
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
TRANSVERSE ACCELERATION AT MIDSHIPS IN ICE

0.25
Calculated
0.20
Measured
0.15 g's 0.10 0.05 0.00 M.V. Kigoriak Kigoriak with skeg impact M.V. Robert Lemeur M.V. Kalvik Polar Sea CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent
_____________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 8

TRANSVERSE ACCELERATION AT STERN IN ICE
1.80
Calculated
1.60
Measured
1.40
1.20
1.00 g's 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 M.V. Kigoriak Kigoriak with skeg impact M.V. Robert Lemeur M.V. Kalvik Polar Sea CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent
Transverse accelerations are only available for one vessel, Louis St Laurent. The measurements were made at midships, using a gyro-stabilised linear and angular acceleration array. The direct measurement of transverse acceleration at midships shows reasonable agreement with the UR requirements. However, those at bow and stern are very high relative to the UR requirements. It is suspected that resolution of the bow and stern accelerations from the recorded linear and angular accelerations has been faulty. However, these trials were conducted in the late 70s and there is no means of verifying this statement. It is, however, technically reasonable to expect the transverse accelerations at any location to be reasonably similar to the vertical accelerations. The calculated values are such. The published transverse accelerations at bow and stern for Louis St Laurent are therefore rejected as incorrect.
SUMMARY All available, and considered reliable, measured full scale global accelerations of icebreakers, show generally good agreement with the Machinery URI3 requirements. These requirements are considered sufficiently accurate as they stand.
_____________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 9
3. 1
REFERENCES
Harmonisation of Polar Ship Rules, Development of Polar Rules for Machinery: Holding Down Loading Factors ( Global Ship Accelerations) Fleet Technology Ltd. 4643A3.DF, 27 February 1997.
DECISION BY VOTING
No objections made
_____________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 10
IACS UR I3 Technical Background Propeller Blade design
IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background Notes to
Blade design" version 2.0

by Pekka Koskinen, Robin Browne and Lasse Norhamo
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 1
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
It was a requirement that the use of modern analytical tools be considered to replace the current blade strength requirements. The design of blades and their skews have altered considerably in the recent years, noting that some failures could not have been predicted by the rules and requirements currently in place.
This document gives information on how the requirements for propeller design given in IACS UR I3 (Section 5 of the Machinery Requirements forPolar Ship) have been developed. Direct citations from the Unified Requirements are written in Italics, and comments on the paragraph in question are written in normal text.
2 POINTS OF DISCUSSION
I3.5.1 Design Principle The propeller design has to fulfil the maximum load design criteria. The maximum load design criterion is based on estimation of the maximum load expected once during the ships service life. This load should not cause any significant damage to the blade that could put the ships safety at risk. However, local yielding on the blade may occur. This maximum load is based on normal prudent vessel operation in ice, relative to the vessel design, ice class and the ice conditions. Even higher ice loads can be generated by off-design operating conditions, such as might occur if a propeller blade were to strike an ice feature, when the propeller was stopped and the vessel was moving. A requirement therefore exists, to protect the machinery system from such off-design loads called Blade failure load Fex and is used as one design criteria for blade attachment, hub strength, CP-mechanishm and propeller shaft, as well as for thrust bearing.. The strength of the propulsion line components are, subsequently, to be designed according to the "selective strength principle". This means that the first damage should be to a component that is relatively easy to repair, and whose damage does not cause any remarkable risk to the ships safety. Damages to other shaft line components are then avoided. For most designs, the propeller blade is likely to be the selected sacrificial component. The selective strength principle is quite similar to the "pyramid of strength principle. However, a true pyramid of strength, where the strength requirement increases stepwise from the propeller along the shaft line, is impractical, and would cause overly high strength requirements for some shaftline components. This is why the "selective strength criteria can be applied in the new requirements and pyramid strength principal is limited to propeller and propeller shaft.
I3.5.3 I3.5.3.1
Blade Design Maximum Blade Stresses
Blade stresses are determined on the basis of estimated maximum loads, which act on realistic areas of the blade, and bend the blade in both the forward and backward directions. Blade stress data are required in both bending directions for fatigue loading calculations.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 1
For an open propeller, the main load case is generally where the propeller is milling an ice block, and the ice pressure load acts on the leading edge of the forward side (suction side of blade with vessel going forwards) of the blade (Figure 1a). This load bends the blade backwards. Full-scale experience indicates that loads acting over the tip area (Figure 1b), also occur (Koskinen & Jussila 1991, and DNV damage investigations 1983-1990). Again, these loads bend the blade backwards when the vessel is going ahead. These loads may occur for example when a ship is turning, and an ice block enters the propeller in the radial direction. This tip load case is often the most critical one for highly skewed propellers. Forward blade bending loads also occur. Whereas their magnitude is reasonably well defined, their nature and exact location are not as well understood as for the backward bending loads. The same load distribution as for the ice block milling condition (Figure 1a) is used, as a worst case scenario. The same load case distributions are used for ducted propellers. However, the relative magnitudes of the loads are different, with the forward bending case generally being the most important.
Figure 1. Location of the load on the blade with original load pattern 10% of section length In order to determine the methodology to be used for calculating blade stresses, three alternate procedures have been studied. The traditional procedure, on which the present ice class rules are based, gives bending stresses that are caused by a point load on the blade. It is assumed that the blade is a cantilever beam, and the stresses due to spindle torque are neglected. Another methodology, proposed by the Russian register (Katsman & Andryushin 1997), takes into account the additional stresses (constraint torsion) due to the spindle torque. The third methodology is based on FE-analysis, in which loads are applied on the blade as shown in Figure 1. These methods have been compared by the Machinery Working Group. FE-analysis for propeller blades were carried out by each classification society, and the results were compared with those obtained by the other methods. The comparison was carried out by Lloyds Register in the form of an Excel Workbook. The comparison showed that the simplified methods could not predict the blade stresses with reasonable accuracy. In general it is not accepteble that an advanced method, in this case FE-analysis ended up in considerably higher stresses in a blade. In addition, the measured stresses from the icebreaker Polar Star, showed good agreement with the stresses obtained with FE-analysis (Browne 1998). On other hand, calculated stresses for Gudingen propeller indicate that blades should have been destroyed, if the estimated loads had been acting in true case. Gudingen propeller has been made to comply 1A Super, when as the ship it self has 1A ice class. This ship has been operated 20 years in occasionally difficult ice conditions without visible damage on the propeller blades. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 2
Based on these studies it was decided to use FE-analysis in the rules for stress calculation. However, there was a significant scatter in the stresses calculated by different classification societies using FE-analysis. This emphasises a need of guidelines for FE-analysis in the new UR. Ice load contact patterns for Fb and Ff were increased from 10% to 20% of the chord length. See Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Ice load contact area for Fb and Ff
During winter 2003 DNV experienced several propeller damages caused by propeller ice interaction during reversed operation in ice condition. The blade tips on the trailing edge side have most likely been bent by ice during reversing of propellers. Even if these damages may be considered as minor, engine load may be seriously affected requiring immediate temporary repair (cutting off the bent blade tip and opposite one for balancing).
1. Bent blade tip on the trailing edge side 2. Detail of the same Propeller facts: Fixed pitch; Skew angle 24o; Diameter 5.8 m; Engine power about 9500 kW. Ice Class ICE-1B. In the In the areas where damages have been experienced the ice conditions were severe for ice class ICE-1B ships, in fact ice thickness in excess of 60-70 cm. Considering that the damaged propellers did satisfy the current ICE-1B rules (in fact the tip thickness is 50% above the requirement) DNV has carried out several FEM analyses both in order to estimate blade stresses caused by ice loads and effect of possible modifications of blade shape and thickness profiles Several propellers having skew angles close to 25 would fulfil the I3 criteria as drafted and nevertheless be vulnerable to above type damages. DNV carried out number of FE-calculations in order to determine proper criteria for skewed fixed pith propellers. See examples of stress plots below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 3
Fig . 3
Von-Mises stresses load from 0.6R to 1.0R on trailing edge - Suction side
Fig . 4
This resulted in an additional ice load case trailing edge load that provides proper trailing edge strength for reversible rotation propellers, and eliminates need for any skew angle limitation for which the I3 is valid. Trailing edge load case (load case 5 for open and ducted propellers): 60 % of Ff or Fb which one is greater Uniform pressure applied on propeller face (pressure side) to an area from 0.6R to the tip and from the trailing edge to 0.2 times the chord length
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 4
Fig. 5 Trailing edge load case for reversible propellers Forward bending load - Ff - for ducted propellers did not have same type load pattern as open propellers. Based on validation of 4 ducted propellers and re-assesment of measurement results, following load pattern was selected Load case 3: Uniform pressure applied on the blade face (pressure side) to an area from 0.6R to the tip and from the leading edge to 0.5 times the chord length.
Fig . 6 Ducted propeller Forward load I3.53.1 Maximum blade stresses
Calculated blade stress for maximum ice loads shall have sufficient safety margin (1,5) to the material reference stress in order to avoid harmfull distortion of the blade considering consequences for maintenance of propulsion capacity. Permissible static stress can thus be defined as : ref: / S
ref
is reference stress, defined as:
ref = 0.7 u or ref = 0.6 0.2 + 0.4 u
which ever is lesser
Where u and 0.2 are representative values for the blade material at considered section. A reference stress has originally been developed to reflect the real capability of the blade to carry loads aimed to in particular for extreme loads, i.e. plastic bending of the blade. This has been used in definition of the Blade failure load Fex. The formula for ref takes into account, for example, the increase in strength of the blade due to work hardening of the material. The reference stress is a combination of the 0.2-proof stress and ultimate tensile strength ( ref = 0.6 0.2 + 0.4 u ). The development of the formulae is
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 5
based on a test series carried out by VTT where cantilever beams made of blade materials were bent. The cross-section of the beam was 6*20 mm and three bronze and two stainless steel materials were tested. The development of the reference strength formula was carried out in close co-operation with Det Norske Veritas. During the work of the MWG, a concern arose that the reference strength equation might overestimate the strength of high tensile strength steels. Therefore, the reference strength was limited to 0.7 times the ultimate strength of the blade material. I3. 5.3.2 Blade Edge Thicknes
Analytic method to derive formula for required tip / edge thickness is explained below. Basic principle: Propeller tip or edges shall not be subject to permanent deflections when exposed to an extreme, local ice pressure of 16 N/mm2.
Assumption: The local loading will cause high stresses just inside the loaded area. It is assumed that for a narrow strip within the loaded area, the stresses may be calculated by cantilever beam theory.
Load prediction If the breadth, B of the strip is set to unity, the resulting load will be:
Fedge = pA = 16 1 X
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 6
Where X equals the length of the strip, i.e. the distance from the contour to the ending of the loaded area. Assuming constant pressure, bending moment arm may be taken as half the length of the strip. I.e.:
M edge = Fedge arm = 16 X 0.5 X = 8 X 2

Stress calculation: Further, the section modulus for calculation of stresses at the innermost part of the strip is:
wstrip =
B t 2 1 t 2 = 6 6
M edge wstrip 8 X 2 48 X 2 = 2 = t t2 6
Stresses at the innermost part of the strip is found as:
edge =
Stresses up to yield strength are allowed. This prevents permanent deflections and takes into account current experience that steel blades are less exposed to edge damages than bronze blades (existing edge criterion refers to tensile strength). Hence, edge thickness must not be less than:
7X
Where y is yield strength of material In this respect, no safety factor is included. In case safety factor is taken as 1.5, 2.0 or 3.0, the figure in front of X would be 8.5, 10 or 12, respectively (instead of 7). 2.5% of the chord length (0.025C) is a relevant reference for calculating maximum stresses due to extreme local ice pressures at the propeller blade edges - figures for this location is normally given in the section table. However, for large chord lengths (in particular towards the tip), the reference to 0.025C will read to unreasonably large edge dimensions. Hence, the considered distance from the contour to the considered location of the blade should be limited. 50 mm seems to be a reasonable limitation. In the same way a minimum limitation should be applied. 20 mm is suggested. Including a safety factor of 2.0 with respect to yielding, the following is found:
t contour =
10 X
[mm]
For the tip thickness requirement (maximum profile thickness towards tip), chord length is not relevant as reference, and should instead include the propeller diameter, as today (take into account that a minimum value should apply). For instance:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 7
t tip =
50( D + 10)
Where D is propeller diameter [m] This ensures that the length of the calculation strip, X is never taken less than 50mm, even for a small propeller. For simplicity, this thickness should refer to a fixed radial point, but because the propeller tip is normally rounded, and to avoid conflict with the edge requirement, it should not apply directly to the 1.0R. A better reference is 0.95R. I.e.:
t 0.95 R =
50( D + 10)
[mm]
Including Ice class dependency: In case a dependency of ice class is wanted, this could easily be done introducing a ice class dependency for the extreme ice pressure. This could be tabulated changing the factors used in the formulae above. Assuming that 16 N/mm2 represents the extreme ice pressure relevant for PC1 (and PC2), the following is suggested:
t contour = 2.5 X
pext
[mm]
X is location for measuring contour thickness [mm], to be taken as 0.025C, but not larger than 50 mm nor less than 20 mm. and
t 0.95 R = 12.5( D + 10)
p ext
Where pext is the maximum local ice pressure. and selected based on the measured maximum local ice pressure. Based on validation exercise and consequent use of permissible stress following has been selected:
tedge = x S S ice
pice
ref
= is distance from the blade edge measured perpendicularly to the edge and shall = be 2,5% of chord length, minimum 2,5% of 0.975R section length, however need not be taken greater than 45 mm S = safety factor
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 8
Sice pice
= 2,5 for trailing edges = 3,5 for leading edges = 5 for tip = according to Section I3.4.4.2 = ice pressure = 16 Mpa as defined in 5.3.1
Edge thickness is for leading edge and trailing edge for reversible rotation open propellers. Tip thickness refers to the max thickness of the cylindrical section at 0,975R.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 9
3 REFERENCES Browne R. 1998 "Polar Star Antarctic Trials 1995 - Propeller Blade Von Mises Stress Levels", 4 November 1998 Cowper, B. & Koskinen, P. 1993. Joint Canadian/Finnish Conclusions from Full-Scale Data Review. Ontario, Canada: Fleet Technology Limited Report No. 3657A. 26 p. Katsman, F.M. & Andryushin, A.V. 1997. Draft requirements for propeller strength standards of 7- 9 ice categories. St. Petersburg: Russian Maritime icebreakers and ice-strenghtened ship of Register of Shipping 57 p. Koskinen, P. & Jussila, M. 1991. Potkurin lavan jkuormien pitkaikaismittaus m/s Gudingenilla [Long Term Measurements of Ice Loads on Propeller Blade of M/S Gudingen]. Espoo: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Research Notes 1260. 46 p. + app. 118 p. (In Finnish.) Marquis, G. Koski, K. Koskinen, P. 2000. Development of fatigue design methodology for propellers operating in ice Wenshot, P. 1986. The Properties of Ni-Al Bronze Sand Cast Ship Propellers in Relation to the Section Thickness, Naval Engineers Journal, September 1986, pp. 58 - 69
DECISION BY VOTING
Russian Register did not agree to the static loads design based upon their experience on ARTICA
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th June 2006 10
Attached - RS Message (no reservation)

TB for UR I3 (August 2006)
1. Background Notes - Propeller Ice Loads (16 pages)
2. Background Notes - Machinery Fastening Loading Accelerations (10 pages)
3. Background Notes - Blade design (11 pages)
IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background Notes to Propeller Ice Interaction Loads
by Robin Browne and Lasse Norhamo
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 1

PROPELLER ICE INTERACTION LOADS 1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The propeller design ice loads given in I3(Section I3.4 of the Machinery Requirements for Polar Ship), are the result of extensive research and development by circumpolar nations over the past 25 years. The R&D has included analysis of service history of propeller damages, propeller and shaft load measurements on full scale trials, laboratory investigations and numerical simulation of propeller and ice interaction. The decision was taken at the start of the project that the most modern ice interaction models and information would be used in the process of developing new regulations and to be consistent with the FMA requirements The manner, in which the Requirements have been developed from this material, and their detailed explanation, is given below in Section 3.
2.
BACKGROUND
The mid 1970s to late 1980s was a time of great activity in the Arctic Marine field in North America, Russia and Scandinavia, with a large number of new buildings of icebreakers and ice class cargo vessels and supply vessels. These supported the offshore oil drilling activity and mineral transport in the Canadian Arctic, transportation on the Russian Northern Sea Route and in the Baltic, and U.S. scientific and strategic interests in Antarctica and Alaska. Arctic Marine R&D, including studies of ice loading on propellers and machinery systems, grew in step with this commercial activity. In North America, machinery ice loading studies generally took the form of data acquisition, and subsequent analysis, on full scale trials of the many new builds. Information recorded was generally shaft thrust and torque relative to ship and propeller operating conditions and the encountered ice conditions. In Scandinavia, principally Finland, the objective was a more fundamental understanding of propeller ice loading, based on detailed trials of a few, generally small vessels. Blade ice loads were measured directly, underwater video was added to the recordings, and some long term trials were conducted. The blade load measurement technology was also transferred to Canada and Russia for two trials on the Canadian Arctic Supply Vessel Robert Lemeur and Russian Arctic Icebreaker Arctika. Russia carried out some shaft and blade load measurements. Moreover, with by far the largest Arctic fleet, Russia benefited from the statistical analysis of machinery performance and damages. During this period, it became increasingly evident that existing machinery protection regulations were not adequate to the task, and had in many areas become irrelevant. For example, blade scantlings in the Baltic and Canadian rules were dependent upon a design ice torque, rather than a direct expression of the out-of-plane blade bending moment, which can cause major blade deformation and breakage. Experienced designers and manufacturers were using their own improved understanding and practices, especially with regard to propeller design. In Russia, the detailed analysis of blade failures on high ice class icebreakers led to greatly improved designs in stainless steel, with emphasis on material properties and quality of the castings. At the end of the 1980s, both the Canadian and Baltic marine authorities had decided to update their respective machinery protection regulations. In order to share expertise and resources, a joint
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 2

research project arrangement ( JRPA#6 ) on the important matter of blade design ice loads, was entered into between Canada and Finland. Finland would develop a numerical simulation model of propeller and ice interaction during the ice milling operation, which would incorporate a Finnish model for contact load components and a Canadian model for non-contact load components. A number of associated research programmes provided additional information, such as ice properties at interaction velocities, and analysis of available full scale data. The ice block impact condition on the back of a blade, such as occurs when a propeller is dragged through ice, can generate extreme loads. This condition is avoided by masters as imprudent operation, and is not a design condition. The lack of directly measured blade loads on a large propeller in Arctic conditions also gave impetus to a joint Canadian-American project for propeller ice load trials on USCGC Polar Star in the early 1990s. The JRPA#6 three-dimensional numerical simulation model was developed by the mid-1990s, and was used to determine parametric influences upon propeller and ice interaction loads. These loads applied to open propellers and included backward blade bending moment, blade spindle torque, propeller torque and shaft thrust. Included in the load formulae was the parameter of blade attack angle. The exact value of this parameter is not known at the time of maximum load and it was therefore necessary to make a final calibration of the formulae using all available full scale data. A design interaction blade attack angle of + 4 degrees was adopted. The dependencies in the load formulae, with some modifications based on Russian R&D results, find their way into the load formulae in the IACS unified design requirements. The numerical simulation model did not address the ducted propeller directly, nor maximum forward blade loads. However, it was possible to determine working formulations based on available full scale data.
3. I3.4.3
Points of Discussion Design Ice Loads for Open Propeller Maximum Backward Blade Force
I3.4.3.1
The formula for the maximum backward blade ice force on a propeller blade, derived from the JRPA#6 numerical simulation model, is given in Reference 8 as: Fbl where: D Z EAR = = = propeller diameter in metres number of blades expanded blade area ratio = -93.0 [ EAR/Z ]0.287 [ Hi/D ]1.36 e (-0.183
)
(nD)0.712 D2.02
kN
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 3

n Hi = = = = = = propeller rotational speed rps ice thickness in metres apparent angle of attack - arctan ( V/(0.7nD)) pitch angle at 0.7R uniaxial unconfined compressive strength of ice in MPa
The blade force does not increase indefinitely, with increase in the ratio of ice thickness/propeller diameter. This is due to two factors: As ice thickness and block size and inertia increase, the interaction moves towards the infinite ice block case, and the loads move asymptotically to a limiting value. As ice thickness increases to be greater than blade length, the interaction geometry becomes more asymmetric, and the ice block tends to rotate on contact away from the blade, thereby releasing or limiting the load.
It was found that this limiting effect is as follows: when Hi/D > 0.65, the value of Hi/D = 0.65 This blade force is known from full scale observations and measurements [ 10, 12,13, 16 ] and laboratory tests [ 4 ], to be distributed radially in a strip close to the blade leading edge, with an equivalent point location for blade root stress calculation at 0.8R and approximately 0.2 of chord back from the leading edge. This load formula was modified for use as a Regulatory model by the substitution of:
Hice for Hi. Each PC ice class has a design ice thickness, as given in the Regulation Table 3.1. These values are used for the appropriate class in the formula calculations. A coefficient Sice to account for the ice strength influence. The ice strength influence is an increase of approximately 20% in ice load for a doubling of ice strength, as would be the case in going from first year to multi-year ice. Full scale data in [15] support this. In Table 3.2, Sice is given as 1.2 for ice classes which may interact with multi-year ice. For ice classes PC5 to PC2 Sice has been selected as an intermediate value of 1.1 in order to adjust backward ice force Fbl to full scale validation data. The use of a single decimal place in the exponent values for simplicity. Higher accuracy cannot be justified. The adoption of an angle of attack of + 4 degrees. The angle of attack at the time of maximum backward blade load is known to be small, but the exact value is not known. Its practical measurement is beyond current possibility. The value of + 4 degrees was selected as the value which brings the formula and full scale data into agreement. For fixed pitch propellers, maximum backward ice load does not occur at heavy ice condition ship speeds, because propeller speeds will be low, but in a condition of lower ice concentration/thickness where ship speed and propeller speed are higher. In this situation the propeller can hit a large ice block at a low attack angle and experience a large load. Therefore 0,85 of nominal speed has been selected for practical use.
As a result of the above measures, the formulae for maximum backward blade force in the regulation section I3.4.3.1 become: Dlimit = 0.85 (Hice)1.4
When D< Dlimit Fb = -27 Sice (nD)0.7 [EAR/Z ]0.3 D2 kN
When D> Dlimit Fb = -23 Sice (nD)0.7 [EAR/Z ]0.3 ( Hice)1.4 D kN
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 4
Ice Class PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 Hice Sice Sqice
Hice [m] 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.75 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1
S ice [-]
S qice [-] 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1 1
Ice thickness for machinery strength design Ice strength index for blade ice force Ice strength index for blade ice torque
The most significant parameters are generally Ice Class, giving rise to Hiceand Sice, and propeller diameter. The product nD normally varies little in practical designs (an upper limit normally exists for the avoidance of blade tip cavitation), and EAR/Z does not normally vary very much.
IACS UR I3 - Propeller Blade Loads Influence of nD to Backw ard Load 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 9 10 11 12 product nD
nD^07
Index % IACS UR I3 - Propeller Blade Loads Influence of nD to Backw ard Load 150,0 100,0 50,0 0,0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 product nD
In flu en ce to Ice L o ad
13
14
15
Influence to Ice Load in % / Tip speed in m/s
Blade tip speed - m/s
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 5

0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0,4 0,5 0,6 EAR Number of blades - Z 5 Number of blades - Z 3 Number of blades - Z 4

Influence to Ice Load in %
Influence to Ice Load
140,0 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0 0,4 0,5 0,6 EAR 0,7 0,8 0,9
0,7
0,8
0,9
The above formulae show that for any given ice class, and accompanying design ice thickness, the design ice load for small propellers increases with the square of diameter, until Dlimit is reached. Above Dlimit, design ice load increases linearly with increase in diameter. Both statements are valid provided that nD is kept constant and EAR/Z is same. The graphical presentation of the loads for PC1 to PC7, D = 1 to 8m, nD = 12, EAR = 0.7 and Z=4 is given below [ 16 ].
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 6

Backward blade load - Open propeller Constant nD
-9000,0
-8000,0
-7000,0
-5000,0
-4000,0
-3000,0
-2000,0
-1000,0
0,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Diameter - m PC1
PC2
PC3
PC4
PC5
PC6
PC-7
The maximum directly measured blade loads for the vessels Gudingen - PC7 equivalent (PC6 questioned) and Polar Star PC3 equivalent demonstrate the overall validity of the load model in the proper manner. These ships are plotted in the next diagram, which was drawn before final adjustment of constants (10% reduction) and new Sice values (1.1 instead of 1.2) for PC2 to PC5 and is therefore presented in purpose of entirety. These adjustments were considered reasonable based on validations carried out and acknowledging that the PC1 ice class is the only one intended year round operation in all Polar areas. Shaft measured thrust loads on some icebreakers have also been corrected to propeller loads by taking shaft dynamics into account [15]. The resulting propeller loads, relative to propeller diameter and ice thickness are of the same order of magnitude as given in the above Regulatory Load Figure. For blade scantlings design, the maximum backward blade load is to be applied as shown in the regulations Table 1, load case 1 for the full milling condition and Load case 2, the tip milling condition for skewed CP-propellers in particular. Although the blade load is not in practice of uniform intensity [ 4], this simplification over the specified area, has an equivalent effect. Load case 5 in the same table is intended for blade trailing edge loading for reversible (rotational direction) propellers. This is developed based on observed ice damages (bent blade tips at trailing
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 7
-6000,0

edge side) and shall take care of skewed blade form. Thus there is no need for any limitation of skew angle.
I3.43.2
The forward blade load on the open propeller is a non-contact load occurring due to the very close proximity of an ice block and propeller blade. These loads have been measured directly [9], but the exact mechanism of their generation and the shape of the load distribution on the blade are not fully understood. The formulae in regulation section I3.4.3.2, model the available full scale information. Dlimit = 2/[1-d/D] Hice m
When D<Dlimit Ff = 250 [EAR/Z] D2 kN
When D>Dlimit Ff = 500 (1/[1-d/D]) Hice [EAR/Z] D kN
At any given propeller diameter, the forward blade load increases with ice thickness, until ice thickness equals blade length and one whole blade at any time can be shielded by the ice block. These loads are to be applied following the same scheme as for the full milling backward blade loads, except that the loads are applied to the face ( pressure ) side of the blade.
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 8

The graphical presentation of the loads for PC1 to PC7, D = 1 to 10m, d/D = 0.36, nD = 12, EAR = 0.7 and Z=4 is given below.
Forward blade load - Open Propeller

6000,0
5000,0
4000,0
3000,0
2000,0
1000,0
0,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Diameter - m
PC1 PC2
PC3
PC4 PC5
PC6
PC-7
I3.4.3.4
The formula for maximum propeller ice torque ( ice torque or polar moment applied to the shaft by the propeller at the propeller location ), derived from the JRPA#6 numerical simulation model, is given in Reference 8 as: Qmax= 234 (1-d/D) 0.195 (Hi/D)1.07 ( -0.902 J2 + J + 0.438 ) (P/D)0.162 (t/D)0.605 (nD)0.173 D3.04 Where: J t/D = = V/nD blade thickness/diameter ratio kNm
When Hi/D > 0.55, Hi/D should be taken as 0.55 It is noted that for geometrically and dynamically similar interaction conditions, propeller ice torque varies with the cube of propeller diameter, as opposed to the square of propeller diameter for ice force in I3.4.3.1 and I3.4.3.2.
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 9
N M a x im u m B la d eL o a d- F f-k

This load formula was modified for use as a Regulatory model by the substitution of:
Hice for Hi. A coefficient Sqice to account for the ice strength influence. The ice strength influence is an increase of approximately 15% in ice load for a doubling of ice strength, as would be the case in going from first year to multi-year ice. In Table 3.2, Sqice is given as 1.15 for ice classes which may interact with multi-year ice. The use of two decimal places in the exponent values for simplicity. Higher accuracy cannot be justified. The adoption of a J value of 0.5, which provides the maximum value for the J term expression in brackets. Pitch and blade thickness are taken at 0.7 radius in m. Pitch shall correspond to MCR at zero speed of ship. For CP propeller this can be taken as 70% of the design pitch at maximum ship speed in open water at maximum continuous rating of the engine. Rotational speed - n shall be corresponding zero speed of ship
As a result of the above measures, the formulae for maximum propeller ice torque in the regulation section I3.4.3.4 become: Dlimit = 1.81 Hice
When D< Dlimit Qmax= 105 (1-d/D) Sqice (P0,7/D)0.16 (t0.7/D)0.6 (nD)0.17 D3 When D> Dlimit Qmax= 202 (1-d/D) Sqice Hice1.1 (P0,7/D)0.16 (t0.7/D)0.6 (nD)0.17 D1.9 kNm Shaft measured ice torque loads on some icebreakers have also been corrected to propeller torques by taking shaft dynamics into account [15]. The resulting propeller torques, relative to propeller diameter and ice thickness are of the same order of magnitude as given in the above formulae. kNm
I3.4.3.5
Maximum Propeller Ice Thrust
When the propeller blade in-plane and out-of-plane ice loads were resolved in the shaft axial direction, the maximum ice thrust was found to be approximately 1.1 times the out-of-plane blade load, Fb or Ff. In the figure below, long term negative propeller ice thrust predictions from trials data [15] for Ikaluk and Robert Lemeur are compared with the above formulae. The propeller thrust predictions are derived from shaft measured data using shaft dynamic response characteristics. The expected value in 500 hours of operation is used, and the regulatory formula values for blade load are multiplied by 1.1 in order to represent shaft thrust. It is noted that the full scale data match the regulatory formulae very well. This also provides additional validation for the diameter squared influence upon backward propeller blade ice forces. Load pattern location on the blades are given in the Table 2 , load cases 1 and 5.
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 10
I3.4.4 I3.4.4.1
Design Ice Loads for Ducted Propeller Maximum Backward Blade Force
For ducted propellers, the backward blade ice force increases with increase in ice thickness until ice thickness equals about 25% of propeller diameter or about 70% of blade length. This is shown very clearly by shaft thrust data for Nathanial Palmer [14] in level ice of increasing thickness. Ice of thickness 70% blade length can include the largest ice blocks which can enter a ducted propeller without impacting the duct. Therefore, the open propeller model should model the ducted propeller for backward blade force, within this ice thickness range. Following this reasoning, the formulae for maximum backward blade ice force become: Dlimit = 4 Hice
When D< Dlimit Fb = -9.5 Sice x (nD)0.7 [EAR/Z ]0.3 D2 kN
When D> Dlimit Fb = -66 Sice x (nD)0.7 [EAR/Z ]0.3 ( Hice )1.4 D0.6 kN
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 11

Following diagram show backward bending load for ducted propeller with same constants as for open propeller. PC1, PC4 and PC7 open propellers are presented in the same diagram for comparison purpose.
Backward blade load - Nozzle vs Open Propeller - Constant nD

-9000,0 -8000,0 -7000,0 -6000,0 -5000,0 -4000,0 -3000,0 -2000,0 -1000,0 0,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Diameter - m
PC1 Nozzle
PC2 Nozzle
PC3 Nozzle
PC4 Nozzle
PC5 Nozzle PC4 Open
PC6 Nozzle PC7 Open
PC7 Nozzle
PC1 Open
I3.4.4.2
The maximum forward blade force is close to the maximum forward blade force on an open propeller of the same diameter.
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 12

This is indicated from full scale Baltic data [9]. Additionally, the maximum directly measured forward blade force on the Robert Lemeur agrees with this formulation. Load patterns location on the blades are given in the Table 2, load cases 2 and 5. Note that forward bending load covers half of the blade width on leading edge side.
I3.4.4.3
The maximum propeller ice torque is to be taken as 70% of the torque on an open propeller of the same diameter. In the figure below, long term maximum propeller ice torque predictions from trials data [15] for Ikaluk, Robert Lemeur and Oden are compared with the regulatory requirement. The propeller ice torque predictions are derived from shaft measured data using shaft dynamic response characteristics. The expected value in 500 hours of operation is used. The expected value in 500 hours of operation is used. A cubic fit is put through the full scale data, which provides support for the propeller diameter parametric relationship developed from the numerical simulation model. It is noted that the regulatory requirement is set just slightly higher than the full scale data long term predictions.
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 13
IACS UR I3 Technical Background Propeller Ice Interaction Loads ___________________________________________________________________________ I3.4.4.5 Maximum Propeller Ice Thrust
When the propeller blade in-plane and out-of-plane ice loads were resolved in the shaft axial direction, the maximum ice thrust was found to be approximately 1.1 times the out-of-plane blade load, Fb or Ff.
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 14

4 REFERENCES AND OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
JRPA#6 CANADA/FINLAND JOINT RESEARCH PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
Propeller-ice Interaction Joint Research Project Arrangement #6, Joint Conclusion report. H. Soininen, B. Veitch. Technical Research Centre of Finland Research Notes 1762. 1996.
STATE OF THE ART REVIEW OF ICE/PROPELLER INTERACTION MODELS
Interaction between ice and propeller. Matti Jussila, Harry Soininen. Technical Research Centre of Finland, Research Notes 1281. September 1991.
CONTACT LOAD COMPONENT MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Propeller Ice Contact Load Model. Harri Soininen. VTT Manufacturing Technology Technical Report VALB89. December 1995. Laboratory tests of propeller blade profile pressure distribution under ice contact. H. Soininen et al. VTT Research Notes 1664. August 1995. High Speed Uniaxial Compression tests On Ice. J. Sweeney, S. Jones. NRC/IMD Report LM-1994-17. November 1994.
NON-CONTACT COMPONENT MODEL DEVELOPMENT
JRPA#6 Propeller/Ice Interaction Development of Semi-Empirical Models. R. P. Browne for NRC/IMD. Report CR-1996-12. September 1996
____________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 15
IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background Notes and Verification
for
Machinery Fastening Loading Accelerations
by Robin Browne
_____________________________________________________________________ August 2006 1

1. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
Accelerations imposed upon machinery due to ice impact/ramming are required in order that the integrity of holding down arrangements of essential machinery is maintained. Machinery Fastening Loading Accelerations are specified in the Machinery Requirements URI3.6. The formulae in URI3.6 defining these accelerations, require in turn, additional information on bow vertical ice force and bow side ice force magnitudes from the Structural Requirements URI2 (latest version December 2004). Using the latest versions of URI2 and URI3, an Excel spreadsheet program has been written to calculate the machinery fastening global accelerations corresponding to ship conditions where full scale trials data of global ship accelerations have been measured.
2.
POINTS OF DISCUSSION
There is a paucity of data for global ship accelerations. However, the data that exist have been extracted from reports of full scale icebreaker tests and trials, and reported in Ref 1, from which the acceleration formulae in UR I3.6 are taken.
COMPARISON OF FULL SCALE DATA WITH UR REQUIREMENTS The calculated UR requirements are based on assumptions/standards for the ramming or ice interaction speeds of vessels of any given Polar Class. The full scale data were not necessarily recorded at these ramming speeds, and, for the purposes of comparison, have therefore been adjusted linearly to the standard values.
_____________________________________________________________________ August 2006 2
IACS UR I3 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND MACHINERY FASTENING LOADING ACCELERATIONS I3 6.2 LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION COMPARISONS
LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION AT BOW IN ICE
0.20
g's
0.15
0.10
0.05
LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION AT MIDSHIPS IN ICE

0.80
g's
0.60
0.40
0.20
_____________________________________________________________________ August 2006 0.00 3

M.V. Kigoriak Kigoriak with skeg impact M.V. Robert Lemeur M.V. Kalvik Polar Sea CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent
LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION AT STERN IN ICE

0.30
Calculated
0.25
Measured
0.20
g's
0.15
0.10
0.05
The UR required vertical accelerations show a generally good agreement with actual measured values from icebreakers in operating conditions. There are, however, many fewer data. There is just one comparison for the bow (Polar Sea), three for midships (Kigoriak with and without skeg contact and Louis St Laurent), and none for the stern. It is of course clear that there should be negligible difference in accelerations measured simultaneously at these three locations on a vessel. The four records should therefore be seen as agreement for four cases at all locations. These were all directly measured accelerations at the noted locations.
_____________________________________________________________________ August 2006 4
IACS UR I3 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND MACHINERY FASTENING LOADING ACCELERATIONS I3 6.3 VERTICAL ACCELERATION COMPARISONS
_____________________________________________________________________ August 2006 5
VERTICAL ACCELERATION AT BOW IN ICE

1.20 Calculated
1.00
Measured
0.80
g's
0.60
0.40
0.20
VERTICAL ACCELERATION AT MIDSHIPS IN ICE

0.18 Calculated 0.16 Measured 0.14
0.12
0.10 g's 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 M.V. Kigoriak Kigoriak with skeg im pact M.V. Robert Lem eur M.V. Kalv ik Polar Sea CCG S Louis S. St. Laurent
_____________________________________________________________________ August 2006 6
VERTICAL ACCELERATION AT STERN IN ICE

0.35
Calculated
0.30
Measured
0.25
0.20 G'S 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 M.V. Kigoriak Kigoriak with skeg impact M.V. Robert Lemeur M.V. Kalvik Polar Sea CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent
The UR required vertical accelerations show a generally good agreement with actual measured values from icebreakers in operating conditions. There are four comparisons for the bow (Kigoriak, Robert Lemeur, Kalvik, and Polar Sea), and one each for midships (Louis St Laurent) and the stern (Kalvik). These were all directly measured accelerations at the noted locations.
_____________________________________________________________________ August 2006 7
IACS UR I3 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND MACHINERY FASTENING LOADING ACCELERATIONS I3 6.4 TRANSVERSE ACCELERATION COMPARISONS
TRANSVERSE ACCELERATION AT BOW IN ICE
1.60 1.40
1.20 g's
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
TRANSVERSE ACCELERATION AT MIDSHIPS IN ICE

0.25 Calculated
0.20
Measured
0.15
g's
0.10
0.05
_____________________________________________________________________ August 2006 8

TRANSVERSE ACCELERATION AT STERN IN ICE
1.80 Calculated 1.60
Measured
1.40
1.20
1.00 g's 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 M.V. Kigoriak Kigoriak with skeg impact M.V. Robert Lemeur M.V. Kalvik Polar Sea CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent
Transverse accelerations are only available for one vessel, Louis St Laurent. The measurements were made at midships, using a gyro-stabilised linear and angular acceleration array. The direct measurement of transverse acceleration at midships shows reasonable agreement with the UR requirements. However, those at bow and stern are very high relative to the UR requirements. It is suspected that resolution of the bow and stern accelerations from the recorded linear and angular accelerations has been faulty. However, these trials were conducted in the late 70s and there is no means of verifying this statement. It is, however, technically reasonable to expect the transverse accelerations at any location to be reasonably similar to the vertical accelerations. The calculated values are such. The published transverse accelerations at bow and stern for Louis St Laurent are therefore rejected as incorrect.
SUMMARY All available, and considered reliable, measured full scale global accelerations of icebreakers, show generally good agreement with the Machinery URI3 requirements. These requirements are considered sufficiently accurate as they stand.
_____________________________________________________________________ August 2006 9
3. 1
REFERENCES
Harmonisation of Polar Ship Rules, Development of Polar Rules for Machinery: Holding Down Loading Factors ( Global Ship Accelerations) Fleet Technology Ltd. 4643A3.DF, 27 February 1997.
_____________________________________________________________________ August 2006 10
IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Ships Background Notes to
Blade design" version 2.0

by Pekka Koskinen, Robin Browne and Lasse Norhamo
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 1
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
It was a requirement that the use of modern analytical tools be considered to replace the current blade strength requirements. The design of blades and their skews have altered considerably in the recent years, noting that some failures could not have been predicted by the rules and requirements currently in place.
This document gives information on how the requirements for propeller design given in IACS UR I3 (Section 5 of the Machinery Requirements forPolar Ship) have been developed. Direct citations from the Unified Requirements are written in Italics, and comments on the paragraph in question are written in normal text.
2 POINTS OF DISCUSSION
I3.5.1 Design Principle The propeller design has to fulfil the maximum load design criteria. The maximum load design criterion is based on estimation of the maximum load expected once during the ships service life. This load should not cause any significant damage to the blade that could put the ships safety at risk. However, local yielding on the blade may occur. This maximum load is based on normal prudent vessel operation in ice, relative to the vessel design, ice class and the ice conditions. Even higher ice loads can be generated by off-design operating conditions, such as might occur if a propeller blade were to strike an ice feature, when the propeller was stopped and the vessel was moving. A requirement therefore exists, to protect the machinery system from such off-design loads called Blade failure load Fex and is used as one design criteria for blade attachment, hub strength, CP-mechanishm and propeller shaft, as well as for thrust bearing.. The strength of the propulsion line components are, subsequently, to be designed according to the "selective strength principle". This means that the first damage should be to a component that is relatively easy to repair, and whose damage does not cause any remarkable risk to the ships safety. Damages to other shaft line components are then avoided. For most designs, the propeller blade is likely to be the selected sacrificial component. The selective strength principle is quite similar to the "pyramid of strength principle. However, a true pyramid of strength, where the strength requirement increases stepwise from the propeller along the shaft line, is impractical, and would cause overly high strength requirements for some shaftline components. This is why the "selective strength criteria can be applied in the new requirements and pyramid strength principal is limited to propeller and propeller shaft.
I3.5.3 I3.5.3.1
Blade Design Maximum Blade Stresses
Blade stresses are determined on the basis of estimated maximum loads, which act on realistic areas of the blade, and bend the blade in both the forward and backward directions. Blade stress data are required in both bending directions for fatigue loading calculations.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 1
For an open propeller, the main load case is generally where the propeller is milling an ice block, and the ice pressure load acts on the leading edge of the forward side (suction side of blade with vessel going forwards) of the blade (Figure 1a). This load bends the blade backwards. Full-scale experience indicates that loads acting over the tip area (Figure 1b), also occur (Koskinen & Jussila 1991, and DNV damage investigations 1983-1990). Again, these loads bend the blade backwards when the vessel is going ahead. These loads may occur for example when a ship is turning, and an ice block enters the propeller in the radial direction. This tip load case is often the most critical one for highly skewed propellers. Forward blade bending loads also occur. Whereas their magnitude is reasonably well defined, their nature and exact location are not as well understood as for the backward bending loads. The same load distribution as for the ice block milling condition (Figure 1a) is used, as a worst case scenario. The same load case distributions are used for ducted propellers. However, the relative magnitudes of the loads are different, with the forward bending case generally being the most important.
Figure 1. Location of the load on the blade with original load pattern 10% of section length In order to determine the methodology to be used for calculating blade stresses, three alternate procedures have been studied. The traditional procedure, on which the present ice class rules are based, gives bending stresses that are caused by a point load on the blade. It is assumed that the blade is a cantilever beam, and the stresses due to spindle torque are neglected. Another methodology, proposed by the Russian register (Katsman & Andryushin 1997), takes into account the additional stresses (constraint torsion) due to the spindle torque. The third methodology is based on FE-analysis, in which loads are applied on the blade as shown in Figure 1. These methods have been compared by the Machinery Working Group. FE-analysis for propeller blades were carried out by each classification society, and the results were compared with those obtained by the other methods. The comparison was carried out by Lloyds Register in the form of an Excel Workbook. The comparison showed that the simplified methods could not predict the blade stresses with reasonable accuracy. In general it is not accepteble that an advanced method, in this case FE-analysis ended up in considerably higher stresses in a blade. In addition, the measured stresses from the icebreaker Polar Star, showed good agreement with the stresses obtained with FE-analysis (Browne 1998). On other hand, calculated stresses for Gudingen propeller indicate that blades should have been destroyed, if the estimated loads had been acting in true case. Gudingen propeller has been made to comply 1A Super, when as the ship it self has 1A ice class. This ship has been operated 20 years in occasionally difficult ice conditions without visible damage on the propeller blades. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 2
Based on these studies it was decided to use FE-analysis in the rules for stress calculation. However, there was a significant scatter in the stresses calculated by different classification societies using FE-analysis. This emphasises a need of guidelines for FE-analysis in the new UR. Ice load contact patterns for Fb and Ff were increased from 10% to 20% of the chord length. See Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Ice load contact area for Fb and Ff
During winter 2003 DNV experienced several propeller damages caused by propeller ice interaction during reversed operation in ice condition. The blade tips on the trailing edge side have most likely been bent by ice during reversing of propellers. Even if these damages may be considered as minor, engine load may be seriously affected requiring immediate temporary repair (cutting off the bent blade tip and opposite one for balancing).
1. Bent blade tip on the trailing edge side 2. Detail of the same Propeller facts: Fixed pitch; Skew angle 24o; Diameter 5.8 m; Engine power about 9500 kW. Ice Class ICE-1B. In the In the areas where damages have been experienced the ice conditions were severe for ice class ICE-1B ships, in fact ice thickness in excess of 60-70 cm. Considering that the damaged propellers did satisfy the current ICE-1B rules (in fact the tip thickness is 50% above the requirement) DNV has carried out several FEM analyses both in order to estimate blade stresses caused by ice loads and effect of possible modifications of blade shape and thickness profiles Several propellers having skew angles close to 25 would fulfil the I3 criteria as drafted and nevertheless be vulnerable to above type damages. DNV carried out number of FE-calculations in order to determine proper criteria for skewed fixed pith propellers. See examples of stress plots below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 3
Fig . 3
Fig . 4
This resulted in an additional ice load case trailing edge load that provides proper trailing edge strength for reversible rotation propellers, and eliminates need for any skew angle limitation for which the I3 is valid. Trailing edge load case (load case 5 for open and ducted propellers): 60 % of Ff or Fb which one is greater Uniform pressure applied on propeller face (pressure side) to an area from 0.6R to the tip and from the trailing edge to 0.2 times the chord length
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 4
Fig. 5 Trailing edge load case for reversible propellers Forward bending load - Ff - for ducted propellers did not have same type load pattern as open propellers. Based on validation of 4 ducted propellers and re-assesment of measurement results, following load pattern was selected Load case 3: Uniform pressure applied on the blade face (pressure side) to an area from 0.6R to the tip and from the leading edge to 0.5 times the chord length.
Fig . 6 Ducted propeller Forward load I3.53.1 Maximum blade stresses
Calculated blade stress for maximum ice loads shall have sufficient safety margin (1,5) to the material reference stress in order to avoid harmfull distortion of the blade considering consequences for maintenance of propulsion capacity. Permissible static stress can thus be defined as : ref: / S
ref
is reference stress, defined as:
ref = 0.7 u or ref = 0.6 0.2 + 0.4 u
which ever is lesser
Where u and 0.2 are representative values for the blade material at considered section. A reference stress has originally been developed to reflect the real capability of the blade to carry loads aimed to in particular for extreme loads, i.e. plastic bending of the blade. This has been used in definition of the Blade failure load Fex. The formula for ref takes into account, for example, the increase in strength of the blade due to work hardening of the material. The reference stress is a combination of the 0.2-proof stress and ultimate tensile strength ( ref = 0.6 0.2 + 0.4 u ). The development of the formulae is
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 5
based on a test series carried out by VTT where cantilever beams made of blade materials were bent. The cross-section of the beam was 6*20 mm and three bronze and two stainless steel materials were tested. The development of the reference strength formula was carried out in close co-operation with Det Norske Veritas. During the work of the MWG, a concern arose that the reference strength equation might overestimate the strength of high tensile strength steels. Therefore, the reference strength was limited to 0.7 times the ultimate strength of the blade material. I3. 5.3.2 Blade Edge Thicknes
Analytic method to derive formula for required tip / edge thickness is explained below. Basic principle: Propeller tip or edges shall not be subject to permanent deflections when exposed to an extreme, local ice pressure of 16 N/mm2.
Assumption: The local loading will cause high stresses just inside the loaded area. It is assumed that for a narrow strip within the loaded area, the stresses may be calculated by cantilever beam theory.
Load prediction If the breadth, B of the strip is set to unity, the resulting load will be:
Fedge = pA = 16 1 X
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 6
Where X equals the length of the strip, i.e. the distance from the contour to the ending of the loaded area. Assuming constant pressure, bending moment arm may be taken as half the length of the strip. I.e.:
M edge = Fedge arm = 16 X 0.5 X = 8 X 2

Stress calculation: Further, the section modulus for calculation of stresses at the innermost part of the strip is:
wstrip =
B t 2 1 t 2 = 6 6
M edge wstrip 8 X 2 48 X 2 = 2 = t t2 6
Stresses at the innermost part of the strip is found as:
edge =
Stresses up to yield strength are allowed. This prevents permanent deflections and takes into account current experience that steel blades are less exposed to edge damages than bronze blades (existing edge criterion refers to tensile strength). Hence, edge thickness must not be less than:
7X
Where y is yield strength of material In this respect, no safety factor is included. In case safety factor is taken as 1.5, 2.0 or 3.0, the figure in front of X would be 8.5, 10 or 12, respectively (instead of 7). 2.5% of the chord length (0.025C) is a relevant reference for calculating maximum stresses due to extreme local ice pressures at the propeller blade edges - figures for this location is normally given in the section table. However, for large chord lengths (in particular towards the tip), the reference to 0.025C will read to unreasonably large edge dimensions. Hence, the considered distance from the contour to the considered location of the blade should be limited. 50 mm seems to be a reasonable limitation. In the same way a minimum limitation should be applied. 20 mm is suggested. Including a safety factor of 2.0 with respect to yielding, the following is found:
t contour =
10 X
[mm]
For the tip thickness requirement (maximum profile thickness towards tip), chord length is not relevant as reference, and should instead include the propeller diameter, as today (take into account that a minimum value should apply). For instance:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 7
t tip =
50( D + 10)
Where D is propeller diameter [m] This ensures that the length of the calculation strip, X is never taken less than 50mm, even for a small propeller. For simplicity, this thickness should refer to a fixed radial point, but because the propeller tip is normally rounded, and to avoid conflict with the edge requirement, it should not apply directly to the 1.0R. A better reference is 0.95R. I.e.:
t 0.95 R =
50( D + 10)
[mm]
Including Ice class dependency: In case a dependency of ice class is wanted, this could easily be done introducing a ice class dependency for the extreme ice pressure. This could be tabulated changing the factors used in the formulae above. Assuming that 16 N/mm2 represents the extreme ice pressure relevant for PC1 (and PC2), the following is suggested:
t contour = 2.5 X
p ext
[mm]
X is location for measuring contour thickness [mm], to be taken as 0.025C, but not larger than 50 mm nor less than 20 mm. and
t 0.95 R = 12.5( D + 10)
p ext
Where pext is the maximum local ice pressure. and selected based on the measured maximum local ice pressure. Based on validation exercise and consequent use of permissible stress following has been selected:
tedge = x S S ice
pice
ref
= is distance from the blade edge measured perpendicularly to the edge and shall = be 2,5% of chord length, minimum 2,5% of 0.975R section length, however need not be taken greater than 45 mm S = safety factor
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 8
Sice pice
= 2,5 for trailing edges = 3,5 for leading edges = 5 for tip = according to Section I3.4.4.2 = ice pressure = 16 Mpa as defined in 5.3.1
Edge thickness is for leading edge and trailing edge for reversible rotation open propellers. Tip thickness refers to the max thickness of the cylindrical section at 0,975R.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 9
3 REFERENCES Browne R. 1998 "Polar Star Antarctic Trials 1995 - Propeller Blade Von Mises Stress Levels", 4 November 1998 Cowper, B. & Koskinen, P. 1993. Joint Canadian/Finnish Conclusions from Full-Scale Data Review. Ontario, Canada: Fleet Technology Limited Report No. 3657A. 26 p. Katsman, F.M. & Andryushin, A.V. 1997. Draft requirements for propeller strength standards of 7- 9 ice categories. St. Petersburg: Russian Maritime icebreakers and ice-strenghtened ship of Register of Shipping 57 p. Koskinen, P. & Jussila, M. 1991. Potkurin lavan jkuormien pitkaikaismittaus m/s Gudingenilla [Long Term Measurements of Ice Loads on Propeller Blade of M/S Gudingen]. Espoo: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Research Notes 1260. 46 p. + app. 118 p. (In Finnish.) Marquis, G. Koski, K. Koskinen, P. 2000. Development of fatigue design methodology for propellers operating in ice Wenshot, P. 1986. The Properties of Ni-Al Bronze Sand Cast Ship Propellers in Relation to the Section Thickness, Naval Engineers Journal, September 1986, pp. 58 - 69
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ August 2006 10
Page 1 of 1

19/01/2007
IACS
July 2009
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Propellers (UR K)
Res. No. UR K1 UR K2 UR K3 Keyless Fitting of Propellers without Ice Strengthening Title Current Rev. Deleted
Superseded by W24
HF/TB? No No No
Deleted
Superseded by W24
Corr.2 June 1998
IACS
Aug 2011
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Subdivision, Stability and Load Line (UR L)
Res. No. UR L1 UR L2 UR L3 UR L4 UR L5 Intact stability Matter of class Intact stability of tankers during liquid transfer operations Closure of Chain Lockers Onboard Computers for Stability Calculations Title Current Rev. Deleted Rev.1 Jun 2000 Deleted (May 2001)
Re-categorised as Rec.60
HF/TB? No TB TB HF TB
Rev.3_Corr.1 Aug 2011 Rev.2, Corr.1 Nov 2006
Technical Background for Rev.1 UR L2

1. Objective and Scope The objective for this revision of UR L2 had been to update the reference to the IMO resolution pertaining to intact stability standards which is revised and amended since the last update of this UR. 2. Source of Proposed Requirements The requirements pertaining to intact stability for types of ships covered by IMO instruments are contained in IMO Resolution A. 749(18) amended by Resolution MSC.75(69). 3. Points of Discussion During the 35th meeting the question was raised within WP/SSLL whether in the context of UR L2 the existing reference to superseded IMO Res. A.167 should be updated to refer to IMO Res. A.749 instead. Members agreed not to increase the class requirements on intact stability and consequently decided to make reference to only those chapters of Res. A.749 which had already been part of Res. A.167. *****
Technical Background UR L2.doc/10/5/00 by WP/SSLL Chairman
L3
Intact stability of tankers during liquid transfer Operations

(Deletion in May 2001)
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to deal with different level of implementation of L 3 by Members.
b)
Points of Discussion Experience has shown that tankers with wide tanks can have severe intact stability problems during loading and unloading procedures (lolling effects). To prevent pollution from such effects, MARPOL I/Reg.25A requests oil tankers of 5000 DWT and above to meet minimum intact stability requirements in port. Noting this as a hazard to all kinds of tankers but not only oil tankers, WP/SSLL was tasked to develop a corresponding UR. To ensure sufficient intact stability during loading and unloading L 3 requires a minimum GM of 0.15 m in harbour conditions, to be ensured by design only or by detailed instructions for planning of loading and unloading. L 3 Rev.1 was applicable to all tankers not subject to MARPOL I/Reg.25A. However, LR did not accept L 3 as there was no mechanism within their Society to make a UR concerning stability part of LR Rules until IMO makes it a statutory requirement.
c)
GPG discussion 1) GPG Chairman instructed WP/SSLL to review L 3 implementation status on 7 October 1998. WP/SSLL reported back to GPG 45 (October 1998) that : (i) Group 1: either implemented L 3 to a large extent or completely; (ii) Group 2: not implemented or not intending to implement L 3 to a larger extent than was covered by MARPOL I/25A. (iii) Group 3: fully implemented L 3 or intending to implement L 3.
2) Though GPG agreed to downgrade L 3 to REC 60, it has been put aside to discuss how to apply para.6.2 of Internal Information No. 15 indication of Members who were implementing L3 and those not. 3) Finally, GPG/Council agreed that L3 be downgraded to Recommendation 60 on 18 May 2001. *****
Page 1 of 1
Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat (9 May 2001)

UR L4 Closure of Chain Lockers
Version no. Corr.1 (Aug 2011) Rev.3 (Mar 2011) Rev.2 (Nov 2005) Rev.1 (July 2003) NEW (Nov 2002) Approval date 23 August 2011 22 March 2011 2 November 2005 29 July 2003 14 November 2002
Part A
Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2012 1 July 2003
Corr.1 (Aug 2011)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by an IACS member
.2 Main Reason for Change: To reinstate the examples of acceptable closing arrangements of spurling pipes, which was inadvertently deleted during the last revision. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The correction was originally initiated by an IACS member and drafted by PermSec. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: 5 August 2011 Made by: An IACS member GPG Approval: 23 August 2011 (Ref.11137_IGb)
Rev.3 (Mar 2011)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Other (Based on Vessel Incident: Port state inspections found some instances where access openings on chain lockers could not be demonstrated as being watertight)
Page 1 of 3
.2 Main Reason for Change: To clarify requirements for access openings below the weather deck on spurling pipes and chain lockers. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The revision was originally initiated by an IACS member and drafted through discussions and email correspondence within the Hull Panel. Version approved by the Hull Panel was sent to the Statutory Panel for review and concurrence. Final version drafted by the Statutory Panel after discussions and further revisions by the Statutory Panel. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: 1 July 2010 Made by: An IACS member Panel Approval: 11 August 2010 (Hull Panel); 18 Feb 2011 (Statutory panel) GPG Approval: 22 March 2011 (Ref. 11047_IGc)
Rev.2 (Nov 2005)
See TB document in Part B.
Rev.1 (July 2003)
NEW (Nov 2002)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR L4: Annex 1. TB for New (November 2002)

Annex 2. TB for Rev.1 (July 2003)

Annex 3. TB for Rev.2 (November 2005)

Annex 4. TB for Rev.3 (March 2011)

There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document prepared for Rev.3 Corr.1 (August 2011)
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background Document WP/SSLL UR L4, New 2002

The Working Party on subdivision, stability and load lines has been tasked to develop a UR to ensure watertightness of chain lockers. At the same time the IMO subcommittee SLF introduced such a requirement in the revised annex for the 1988 Load Line Protocol. The WP agreed unanimously that this requirement meets all criteria considered necessary by the WP in their previous deliberations on this issue as there are the pressure height to be assumed and the closure of access opening to the chain locker by means of a cover secured by closely spaced bolts, as also advised by GPG in the actual Work Programme of the WP/SSLL. However, due to the situation that not all new-build ships are built under the provisions of the 1988 Protocol a UR covering the remaining ships remains necessary. The WP agreed to use the same wording used in the IMO text amended by a respective application paragraph.
Date of Submission: 25 Sept 2002 Permanent Secretariat
Part B, Annex 2
IACS
UR L4 Rev.1 Closure of chain lockers
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
ABS raised the question of clarification of acceptable means of closure, having been presented with arrangements that vary from canvas hoods with tie-downs to split steel plates that cover the spurling pipe while accommodating the presence of the chain to minimize the ingress of water to the chain locker. GPG concurred that a footnote should be added and approved the text as follows: "(*) examples of acceptable arrangements are such as: i.) steel plates with cutouts to accommodate chain links or ii.) canvas hoods with a lashing arrangement that maintains the cover in the secured position".
Permanent Secretariat 17 July 2003
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 3
UR L4 (Rev.2, Nov 2005)

Technical background
TB The text of existing UR L4 (rev. 1) cannot be read otherwise than the separation of the cable (chain) lockers should be watertight. The approval practice that is established for supply vessels is not in accordance with this UR. Therefore, it was proposed that the text should be changed so it would be clear that only the cable (chain) locker as a whole is to be made watertight, and that common boundary between, or separating, adjacent cable (chain) lockers need not be watertight.
Submitted by Statutory Panel Chairman 14 Sept 2005
Permsecs Note (Implementation Date) The Statutory Panel Chairman proposed that if GPG would consider it necessary to indicate an implementation date, considering the practice in place and that the modifications carried out do not modify its technical essence, the UR might be applied uniformly as soon as it is adopted by the Council.
GPG decided that an implementation date for this revision is not needed.
Council approved UR L4(Rev.2) on 1 Nov 2005 (5030dICa).
Part B, Annex 4
Technical Background for UR L4 Rev.3, Mar 2011

1. Scope and objectives To clarify watertight standard applicable to access openings situated below the weather deck on spurling pipes and chain lockers. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Access openings situated below the weather deck on spurling pipes and chain lockers are to be watertight. There have been instances of inspections of the chain locker by port state authorities where the access cover and its fittings on the chain locker could not be demonstrated as being watertight. The text of the UR is therefore being modified to explicitly state requirements for access openings below the weather deck. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution The source of the information was obtained through input from the Hull Panel and Statutory Panel. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: New text covering requirements in 2. above have been introduced in this revision. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The revisions were made through discussions and email correspondence separately within the Hull Panel and Statutory Panel, which involved incorporating individual comments and accepting the consolidated text. 6. Attachments if any None
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR L 5 (New, 2004)

1. Objective and Scope UR L5 is an IACS Unified Requirement addressing minimum requirements for the approval of onboard software and hardware used for stability calculations. Basing on the analysis of the of existing IACS Resolutions and other guidelines containing requirements for onboard computers, this UR provides minimum requirements for software and hardware used for stability calculations onboard of a ship. The UR is applicable to new installations and covers passive systems and the offline operation mode of active systems only. Requirements related to on-line interface for active systems, for instance remote tank sounding or draught reading, are not covered by this UR. The use of automatic data input by means of e.g. automatic draft reading systems is explicitly exempted from this UR. Systems taking any kind of active control are also exempted. 2. Source of Proposed Requirements
Onboard Computer for Stability Calculation

Paragraph 1. General Item 2 Item 3 Item 6 6. Approval Procedure 6.1 General Approval 6.2 Specific Approval 7. Operation Manual Item 2, 3, 7, 9. Periodical Testing 10. Other Requirements Source - Similar to Rec. 48 Paragraph 1.3 - Res. MSC.75(69) Amendments to Res. A.749(18) Paragraph 2.2.1 - Res. MSC.75(69) Amendments to Res. A.749(18) Paragraph 2.2.2 - UR S1 Paragraph S1.2.3 - UR S1 Paragraph S1.2.3 - Rec. 48 Paragraph 2.2.3 - Rec. 48 Paragraph 2.1.1 thru 2.1.6 - Res. MSC.75(69) Amendments to Res. A.749(18) Paragraph 2.2.3 - MSC/Circ.891 Paragraph 5.1.3 - Res. MSC.75(69) Amendments to Res. A.749(18) Paragraph 2.2.4 - UR S1 Paragraph S1.1.3 - MSC/Circ.891 Paragraph 3.1.6 - MSC/Circ.891 Paragraph 4.3.2
3. Points of Discussion Experience has shown, that results of several onboard stability calculation programs are different from those documented in the stability booklet. Usually those differences are caused by simplified input data e.g. due to disregarding trim. Therefore great importance should be placed on the question of accuracy. The discussion about damage stability calculation concentrated on the question wether an onboard stability calculation program should calculate individual damage calculations for each loading condition or use a limit curve for the
assessment of permissible stability according to requirements of damage stability. It was agreed, that in accordance with SOLAS II-1/Reg. 25-8, damage stability has to be established by using one limit curve without consideration of effects of e.g. differences in trim for a special loading condition. Members agreed that the information given by a computer should comprise the information requested by all applicable stability requirements. A further important issue covered was the definition of active vs. passive systems and, as a result, the judgement of stability software to be regarded as "safety related" or "safety critical". Members current practice in this concern seems to be differing: some members classify a system using online input data as safety critical, others assess a system safety critical that actively controls or initiates actions (i.e. loading or tank filling/ discharging operations). The question of performing rigorous damage stability calculation was raised. It was proposed to distinguish two software kinds: a) systems calculating directly and b) systems verifying damage stability requirements by means of a KG/GM limit curve. The latter might be treated as a variation of those covering intact stability calculating only. A discussion was held on Hardware and the question whether a system of two nominated computers and the approved software can be considered as acceptable in view of the amendments to the IS Code, requesting approved hard and software. The WP confirmed the view that both, a system meeting the requirements to have two nominated computers available or one approved computer, can be considered as an approved system according to the amended IS Code.
4.
Decision by Voting NK proposed to introduce a paragraph stating that; damage stability calculation software is not required for ships with arrangement given small possibilities for variation in the distribution of cargoes and ballast, and ships on regular and fixed trading pattern where the approved Damage Stability Booklet gives sufficient guidance. After a thorough discussion of pro's and con's, a majority of 8 vs 2 Members preferred not to introduce such a paragraph as there were seen different possibilities to cope with the applicable damage stability requirements of such ships within a stability software in a quite simple manner. *****
With the Work Programme 2003-2004 GPG redirected this task to the Working Group calling for clarifications of the following issues. WP/SSLL is to complete the work to address hardware approval in direct communication with WP/EL and finalize UR L[5], utilizing the latest version of UR L[5]. The responsibility of finalizing the draft UR L[5] rests with the WP/SSLL. The two Chairmen are to review the draft L[5] together before submission to GPG for approval. WP/SSLL and WP/EL are to also utilize the draft Inf. Inf. prepared by AHG/COMP in finalizing UR L[5] and incorporate directly or by reference the relevant aspects and requirements for the AHG/COMPs draft Int. Inf.
WP/EL XXV and ADH/COMPs last meeting outcomes have been considered by the WP/SSLL. It was unanimously agreed that WP should not take any action on correction UR L[5] from stabilitys point of view. As no specific proposals on hardware approval have been received from WP/EL and bearing in mind that existing IACS UR S1 and UR S1A do not contain any requirements on hardware approval WP/SSLL, taking into account the result of informal discussion on this issue between WP/SSLL and WP/EL Chairmen, unanimously agreed to remove UR L[5] chapter Hardware approval and advise GPG accordingly. Draft Int. Inf. elaborated by AHG/COMP should not be taken into account when preparing the latest version of UR L[5] because the Section Scope of Draft Int. Inf. contains the following instruction: For guidance on testing of loading instrument/stability computer software and hardware, refer to REC.No.48. proposed Implementation date: 1 January 2005
Technical Background for IACS UR L5 (Rev.1)
1.
Objective To achieve uniformity among IACS Members in implementing UR L5.
2.
Background On 18/09/2004, ABS questioned whether Members intended to apply UR L5 to software installed after 1 July 2005 as written in L5(version: May 2004). This would effectively mean that L5 apply to software installed after 1 July 2005 on existing ships, ships in construction or future new construction.
3. 3.1
Discussion In response to the ABS enquiry, NK informed as follows (3007bNKd, 21/09/2004):

NK, however, will implement the UR L5 only for new ships the keels of which are laid on or after 1 January 2005 due to following impracticable and unreasonable reasons. .1 Existing ships Since stability computer is not required to be onboard up to now, it is much difficult to identify whether ships has the stability computer onboard, when the stability computer was/will be provided on ships and when the software was/will be up-dated. .2 Ships under construction There are many ships, which were already initiated to construct before the date of adoption of the UR L5. Many shipbuilders have already purchased/contracted the software not to comply with the new UR L5 for installation after 1 July 2005 on these ships. This implementation scheme will cause such an unreasonable situation to impose replacement of the purchased software by the new type software. NK, therefore, decided the UR L5 does not apply to stability software on ships constructed before 1 January 2005 with a view to avoiding confusions.
3.2
In the meantime, WP/SSLL had discussed the same topic and provided the following advice to GPG on 14/10/2004.
Page 1 of 2
1) WP/SSLL agreed by majority that UR L5 shall apply to existing ships as well as new builds. NK representative is of the position that it shall apply only to new builds. Although ABS was not represented at the meeting its position has already been indicated by the ABS GPG Member. 2) It was also agreed by majority that the implementation date shall be the date of shipowner's/software developer's application to the Society for software approval. 3) It was decided that the UR L5 should be applied as it is. The UR can be further reconsidered after the compilation of some practical experiences on its application.
3.3
This matter was taken up at GPG 57th meeting (Oct 2004) where BV also indicated its intention to make reservation to L5, stating that: BV considers that we should not have requirements which cannot be identified/verified by our surveyors. BV believes that it is the responsability of the owners/masters to have an up-to-date equipment. GPG 57 decided to further consider, in prospect of the IMO Intact Stability Code becoming partly mandatory, how to achieve uniform implementation of UR L5.
3.4
GL and RS were of the view that UR L5 (May 2004) apply to new software only and regulate the approval of the new software, and no serious difficulties in applying L5 to existing ships were envisaged.
4.
Decision
Having observed other Members likely to follow NK and BV, GPG finally decided that the application statement of L5 should be amended with a view to achieving uniform implementation by all IACS Societies. The preamble of L5 was amended to the effect that L5 apply to stability software on ships contracted for construction on or after 1 July 2005.
Submitted by the Permanent Secretariat 3 Feb 2005
Page 2 of 2
UR L5 rev. 2 Technical Background

The 1st paragraph of the Preamble of Rev. 1 of UR L5 read The use of onboard computers for stability calculations is not a requirement of class. However, a stability software installed onboard shall cover all stability requirements applicable to the ship. This UR, which requires both software approval and either hardware approval or the provision of at least two nominated computers, applies to onboard computers which are provided with software capable of performing stability calculations for the vessel. The Statutory Panel noted that the requirements applicable to the hardware requirements, which were included in the text of this UR prepared by the former WP/SSLL, had been deleted by GPG56. The Panel considered that other parts of the UR needed to be editorially revised to remove references to hardware approval in order to eliminate any ambiguity on this aspect. Editorial modifications have been also introduced in Table 1. GPG discussion Approved GPG, without further amendment, 6077cIGb, 1 August 2006.
Technical Background UR L5 (Rev. 2, Corr. 1, Nov 2006) Onboard Computers for Stability Calculations
1) UR L5 (Rev. 2) was adopted by Council in September 2006, however NK in 6077cNKc (attached as Annex 1) raised some concerns that they had received from industry with respect to the implementation of UR L5 (Rev. 2). 2) In their email NK proposed amending the last paragraph under the Application section to be in line with the previous version of UR L5 and including the implementation statement as a footnote. 3) Other options including posting more than one version of the UR on the website were considered by GPG but in the end 8 members agreed to the proposed corrigenda to UR L5 (Rev. 2) and Corrigenda 1 to UR L5 (Rev.2) was therefore adopted by GPG and Council on 17 November 2006. 4) Specific comments from members can be seen in the GPG Chairmans concluding email, 6077cIGd (attached as Annex 2). 5) To avoid similar confusion in the future, ABS proposed, and were supported by other members, that it would be preferable to include the application statement for a UR in its "implementation statement" rather than in the text of the UR itself. This information has been forwarded to the Panel Chairmen for their reference.
Prepared by Permanent Secretariat 23 November 2006
Attached: Annex 1 NK message (6077cNKc) Annex 2 GPG Chairs message (6077cIGd)
Annex 1
Date: 30 October 2006 To: Mr. Mo Jianhui, Chairman of GPG Cc: All GPG Members Cc: Permanent Secretary Subject: 6077cNKc: Maintenance of IACS Resolution - UR L5 (SP6011fPCf) Dear Chairman, 1. Reference is made to UR L5 (rev.2) adopted in September 2006 circulated with IAb of 27 September 2006. 2. I have to apologize for raising this when UR L5 (rev.2) has been adopted, however NK believes that GPG should consider our proposal to resolve misunderstanding of industries. 3. Recently NK has received questions from our clients with respect to the implementation of UR L5 (rev.2). The questions are as to whether onboard stability software in compliance with UR L5 shall be installed on ships contracted for construction on or after 1 July 2005 or 1 January 2007. 4. As far as communication with our clients is concerned, their confusion is caused by the application statement The requirements in this UR apply to stability software on ships contracted for construction on or after 1 January 2007., which was changed from 1 July 2005 to 1 January 2007 in the revision of UR L5. 5. They are convinced that UR L5 requires to install onboard stability software on ships contracted for construction on or after 1 July 2005 by our explanations. However, NK has still concerns that our clients who not contact us would continue to have misunderstanding of this issue unless the application statement of UR L5 (rev.2) is revised. 6. Therefore, NK would propose the corrigenda with a view to eliminating possible misunderstanding. The text is attached for your easy reference. Best regards, Tetsuya Kinoshita NK IACS GPG Member
Annex 2
TO: IACS GPG Members CC: Mr. R. Leslie, IACS Perm. Sec. Our Ref: G061052 Subject: 6077cIGd : Maintenance of IACS Resolution - UR L5 (SP6011fPCf) 1. All members replied to my IGc, with their Council Members concurrence. 2. 8 members agreed to the UR L5(Corr. 1, xx 2006) as proposed in NKc, while 2.1 GL, in GLb, had no objection to the NKs proposal, and proposed to keep former versions of revisions on the website to provide easy access to URs applicable to ships built/ or contracted at various dates. 2.2 CCS, in CCc, proposed to post both version of L5 or new version with underline version on the website to avoid the confusion. 2.3 ABS, in ABc, further commented that there is no need to maintain multiple revisions of URs available on the IACS website. However, it would be preferable to include the application statement for a UR in its "implementation statement" rather than in the text of the UR itself and we should keep this in mind going forward. NK and other members have similar position. 3. Having reviewed members comment on the issue, this is a typical example on how we include the implementation statement to avoid the mis-interpreted by industry of installation requirement and technical requirement. I do agree ABS comment that we can only post our updated resolution on the Website. However, we should bear in mind that the revision of resolution should not amend the installation requirement if the resolution is only an improvement on technical requirement. 4. I, therefore, conclude that 4.1 the UR L5(Corr. 1, xx 2006), as attached which I incorporated NK proposal into approved Rev.2 of UR L5, is adopted 4.2 Permsec is requested to 4.2.1 typeset the resolution and post it on the Website and circulate to member for implementation and record 4.2.2 prepare the Technical Background document reflecting the discussion at GPG 4.2.3 inform this example to all Panel chairmen for their reference.
Regards, Mo Jianhui IACS GPG Chairman
IACS
Mar 2012
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Machinery Installations (UR M)
Res. No. UR M1 UR M2 UR M3 UR M4 UR M5 UR M6 UR M7 UR M8 UR M9 UR M10 UR M11 UR M12 UR M13 UR M14 UR M15 UR M16 Devices for emergency operation of propulsion steam turbines Mass production of internal combustion engines: definition of mass production Crankcase explosion relief valves for crankcases of internal combustion engines Protection of internal combustion engines against crankcase explosions Protective devices for starting air mains Fire extinguishing systems for scavenge manifolds Mass production of internal combustion engines, procedure for inspection Test pressures for parts of internal combustion engines Title Cylinder overpressure monitoring of internal combustion engines Alarm devices of internal combustion engines Speed governor and overspeed protective device Current Rev. Deleted (Aug 2004) 1971 Rev.5 Feb 2006 Deleted
Refer to F35
HF/TB? TB No TB No No No No No TB TB No No No No No TB
Rev.1 1987 Rev.3 May 1998 Deleted

Deleted
Rev.3, Corr.2 Sept 2007 Rev.3 Sept 2008 1972 1972 Deleted
1973 Deleted
Rev.1 Jan 2005
Res. No. UR M17 UR M18 UR M19 UR M20 UR M21 UR M22 UR M23 UR M24 UR M25 UR M26 UR M27 UR M28 UR M29 UR M30 UR M31
Title
Current Rev. Deleted (Jul 1998) Rev. 4 June 2000 1974 Deleted (Nov 2001)
Requirements relocated to URs Z18 and Z21
HF/TB? No TB No TB No
Parts of internal combustion engines for which material tests are required Parts of internal combustion engines for which nondestructive tests are required Periodical Survey of Machinery Mass production of internal combustion engines: type test conditions No record Mass production of engines: mass produced exhaust driven turboblowers Requirements concerning use of crude oil or slops as fuel for tanker boilers Astern power for main propulsion Safety devices of steam turbines Bilge level alarms for unattended machinery spaces Ambient reference conditions Alarm systems for vessels with periodically unattended machinery spaces Safety systems for vessels with periodically unattended machinery spaces Continuity of electrical power supply for vessels with periodically unattended machinery spaces Definition of diesel engine type Scantlings of intermediate shafts Scantlings of coupling flanges Alarms, remote indications and safeguards for main reciprocating i.c. engines installed in unattended machinery spaces Alarms and safeguards for auxiliary reciprocating internal combustion engines driving generators in unattended machinery spaces Scantlings of propeller shafts k-factors for different shaft design features (intermediate shafts) - see M33 k-factors for different shaft design features (propeller shafts) - see M37
Corr. Sept 2003
Rev.3 1991 Rev.1 1976 Rev.3 July 2003 Corr.1 Feb 2005 1976 1978 Rev.3 1997 Rev. 1 1997 1978
No No TB No No No No No No
UR M32 UR M33 UR M34 UR M35
1979 Deleted (Feb 2005)

Replaced by UR M68
No TB No TB
1980 Rev.5 Aug 2008
UR M36
Rev.3 Sept 2008
TB
UR M37 UR M38 UR M39
Deleted (Feb 2005)

Replaced by UR M68
TB TB TB
Deleted (Feb 2005)

Replaced by UR M68
Deleted (Feb 2005)

Replaced by UR M68
Res. No. UR M40 UR M41 UR M42 UR M43 UR M44 UR M45 UR M46 UR M47 UR M48 UR M49 UR M50 UR M51 UR M52 UR M53 UR M54 UR M55 UR M56 UR M57 UR M58 UR M59 UR M60 UR M61 UR M62 UR M63
Title Ambient conditions Temperatures Automation - type testing conditions for control and instrumentation equipment Steering gear Bridge control of propulsion machinery for unattended machinery spaces Documents for the approval of diesel engines Ventilation of Machinery Spaces Ambient conditions Inclinations Bridge control of propulsion machinery for attended machinery spaces Permissible limits of stresses due to torsional vibrations for intermediate, thrust and propeller shafts Availability of Machinery Programme for type testing of nonmass produced I.C. engines Programme for trials of i.c. engines to assess operational capability Length of aft stern bush bearing Calculation of crankshafts for I.C. engines Steering gear action for ships in service Planned maintenance scheme (PMS) for machinery Marine gears Load capacity of involute parallel axis spur and helical gears Use of Ammonia as a Refrigerant Charge Air Coolers Control and Safety System for Dual Fuel Diesel Engines Control and Safety of Gas Turbines for Marine Propulsion Use Starting Arrangements of Internal Combustion Engines Rooms for emergency fire pumps in cargo ships Alarms and safeguards for emergency diesel engines
Current Rev. 1981 Deleted (1991)

Superseded by UR E10
HF/TB? No No HF No TB HF No No TB TB TB TB No HF No No No No No No No TB TB TB
Rev.4 June 2011 1982 Rev.7 May 2004 Rev.2 Feb 2011 Rev.1 June 2002 1983 Deleted (Feb 2005)
Replaced by UR M68
Deleted (Dec 2003)

Merged with UR E8 to form UR M61
Rev.3 Jan 2008 Rev.3 Jan 2008 1986 Rev.2 Jan 2011 Deleted (1997) Deleted (May 2001) Rev.1, Corr.1996 1993 1994 1996 1997 Dec 2003 Feb 2002 Jan 2005
Res. No. UR M64 UR M65 UR M66 UR M67 UR M68 UR M69
Title Design of integrated cargo and ballast systems on tankers Draining and Pumping Forward Spaces in Bulk Carriers Type Testing Procedure for Crankcase Explosion Relief Valves Type Testing Procedure For Crankcase Oil Mist Detection and Alarm Equipment Dimensions of propulsion shafts and their permissible torsional vibration stresses Qualitative Failure Analysis for Propulsion and Steering on Passenger Ships
Current Rev. Rev.1 July 2004 Rev.1 July 2004 Rev.3 Jan 2008 Rev.1, Corr.1 Oct 2007 Corr.1 Mar 2012 Jun 2008
HF/TB? TB TB TB TB HF TB
TB (Deletion of UR MI ) Cylinder Overpressure Monitoring of Internal Combustion Engines Technical Justification for deletion and the need for revision of M35 and M36. 1. WP/MCH Task 64 was established to review the requirement in UR M1 for cylinder overpressure monitoring of internal combustion engines. 2. The objectives of the Task were to review the requirement in UR M1 for cylinder overpressure monitoring of internal combustion engines and address its application to unattended machinery spaces. 3. The work specification included: Review SOLAS II-1 Reg 27.2 and UR M1. Determine whether remote indication/alarm is feasible and consider its inclusion in UR M35 and M36 for alarms for periodically unattended internal combustion engines. 4. The background to the task was that IACS WP/MCH members reported cases of owners requesting alarms for cylinder overpressure to be included with the other UMS alarms. It is acknowledged that sentinel valves only provide audible indication when crew members are within earshot. 5. The current requirement for overpressure monitoring stems back to when the design of combustion equipment and operation of engines was not always reliable with the possibilities of excessive fuel charge, pre-ignition and hanging up of injection valves. Cylinder pressure relief valves were installed and generally set a pressure corresponding to 110% of the maximum cylinder pressure. 6. The improvements in design and reliability of combustion equipment associated with current designs of marine diesel engines has led the industry to agree that the need for full overpressure relief to be unnecessary and that a sentinel valve could be an acceptable means of indicating that excessive cylinder firing pressure was being affected. By nature of its function the operation of such a sentinel valve would only be recognised in an attended machinery space. 7. Acceptance of a sentinel valve has now been questioned as it does not protect an engine cylinder from excessive pressure as identified in SOLAS Chapter II-1, Regulation 27.2. It is proposed to delete M1 from the Unified Requirements concerning Machinery Installations. 8. It is however recognised that cylinder pressure monitoring is one of the parameters that provides an input to the safe and reliable operation of electronically controlled engines and requirements for monitoring cylinder pressure and provision of overpressure alarm are considered essential where a single failure in equipment or system design could be the cause of cylinder overpressure. . In this respect the WP will propose a new task to review M 35 and M36.
29/06/2004, WP/MCH Chairman
Technical Background UR M3 (Rev.5 Feb 2006)

Machinery Panel Task PM5201 In the course of revision of UR M3, giving rise to Rev.4 (June 2002), the wording of M3.2.1 was changed, and joined with the requirements which was in last sentence of M3.2.3 . Thus, the requirement for recovery time to steady state not to exceed 5 seconds when the total consumer load is applied suddenly, was made applicable to emergency generating sets. It resulted from industry that modern turbocharged engines cannot satisfy the above requirement, and can hardly cope with transient frequency variation, unless the engine is oversized in respect of the total consumer load. Especially for passenger ships, where the emergency power requirement is quite high, it resulted difficult to satisfy the requirement while complying with other practical constraints. It was therefore decided to evaluate the requirement in UR M3 Rev.4 against the SOLAS Reg. II-1/42 and Reg II-1/43 It resulted that the requirement from the UR was effectively stricter that SOLAS, in that the SOLAS Regulations II-1/42.2 and 43.2 do require the emergency source of power to be capable of supplying simultaneously the required services, but the scope of the regulation is the power balance, and not the transitory behaviour at startup and during switching on, which, according to Reg. 42.3.1.2 is only subject to a limit of 45 seconds upon failure of the electrical supply from the main source of electrical power. There was therefore some room for softer but technically sound requirements and it was considered that there is no need for much stricter load-taking capability requirements for the emergency generating sets. The proposal put forward highlighted that supplying the electrical load in steps, similarly to what regularly accepted for the main source of electrical power, is a technically sound solution, provided the following constraints are complied with: the 45 seconds limits is to be satisfied; the emergency power distribution systems is to be made such that the loads are automatically switched on in steps; the load steps are not larger than the emergency source of power can accept without giving rise to excessive frequency disturbances, the maximum allowable load step for the generator should be established in advance, to enable a suitable power distribution system design The UR has been modified accordingly. Submitted by MCH Panel Chairman 30 Dec 2005
Page 1 of 2
Permsecs note: GPG discussion 1. DNV(NVa) commented as follows: DNV can not accept the requirement given in M3.2.3. We require 3 equal steps since modern engine with high charging air pressure will normally not be able to take 50% sudden load. This is the reason for adding the new requirement for emergency generator. If we where to require load steps of 50%, almost every installation will have to be verified in accordance with the exception given M3.2.3. Consequently DNV can not agree to have a UR where in most the cases the exception has to be applied.
2.
LR replied(LRb): In LR's view the Form A of this task was specific in as much emergency generator prime movers were to be addressed only. The comment in NVa seem to indicate a change of direction. As far as we are concerned the current requirements for the main generator prime movers do allow a relaxation of loading from two steps to three steps and therefore we do not see the argument as being strong enough to stop completion of this task. LR is not convinced that the majority of the engines will have difficulties in coping with the two step load. We would prefer to see the draft submitted to Council for adoption based on 3/4 majority.
3.
DNV responded: DNV understand LR's comment in LRb, and have therefore reconsidered the situation and decided that we can accept UR M3 as revised in (PM5201).
Therefore, unanimous agreement was achieved at GPG level, too (6001_IGc, 25 Jan 06)
Implementation (6001_ICa, 6 Feb 2006):

UR M3(Rev.4) was adopted on 6 Feb 2006. The requirements introduced therein are to be implemented within one year of adoption by Council. END
Page 2 of 2
IACS WP/MCH TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Rev.2, M9 Safety valves for crankcases of internal combustion engines. 2.1. Scope and objectives The item is covered by Task 41. The question put forward by RINA initiated the revision . Proposal was related to the possible use of more than two crankcase explosion relief valves, which seemed to be in conflict with text in current IACS UR M9, Note 2. 2.2 Points of discussion
The subject was discussed, and it was agreed that the use of more than two safety valves could be accepted from a technical point of view, provided they otherwise satisfied the requirements of UR M9.2 and M10.4. In order to avoid future confusion as to this it was agreed to propose a revision of IACS UR M9, by deleting the present Note 2. 2.3 Source/derivation of proposed requirements Initiated by question made by RINA in their fax MAC/VBC/25182 - 1999-06-16 2.4 Decision by voting.
All WP/MCH members agreed in above.

Submitted by WP/MCH Chairman on 10 May 2000
Page 2
Technical Background Revision UR M9 (Rev.3) and M10(Rev.2) New URs (M 66 & M67) for Type Testing Crankcase Explosion Relief Valves and Oil Mist Detection Arrangements
1. WP/MCH Task 55 was established to review the requirements in URM9 Safety valves for crankcases of internal combustion engines and M10 Protection of internal combustion engines against crankcase explosions for applicability and suitability to modern diesel engines. 2. The work specification included the following: Review crankcase explosion reports for the past 10 years. Review SOLAS requirements applicable to diesel engine crankcase safety. Establish philosophy for a holistic approach to crankcase safety. Consider the applicability of the safeguards in M9 and M10 for crankcase to all types of modern diesel engines (high speed, medium speed and large slow speed engines + large and small bore engines). Propose a set Unified Requirements for crankcase safety that include: Requirements for submission of plans and particulars Assessment of engine arrangements Design of equipment Testing of equipment and safety arrangements Type testing requirements Monitoring arrangements Protection of engine and personnel Through life survey and inspection
3. The background to the task was that there have been a number of serious incidents involving crankcase explosions in large diesel engines in the past 5-6 years that have resulted in loss of life and major damage to ships and their machinery. Questions have been raised regarding the adequacy of current standards for crankcase safety with engine builders and ship-owners pressing for revision/re-assessment of the current the standards that essentially stem from the Reina del Pacifico incident in 1947. 4. UR M9 has been extended to address design requirements for explosion relief valves in terms of a required provision of a flame arrester that prevents the passage of flame following a crankcase explosion and for valve to be type tested. The possible effects of shielding on relief valve efficacy have been recognised with a requirement for testing if such shielding is fitted. 5. The revised M9 also includes requirements for a manufacturers installation and maintenance manual with instructions installation, maintenance and actions required to be followed after a crankcase explosion. Requirements for marking of the valves have also been included.
Page 1 of 2
6. UR M10 has been revised to remove requirements for the explosion relief valve (moved to M9) and clarify the existing text. The revised M10 now includes requirements for type testing of oil mist detection/monitoring systems and compliance with the oil mist manufacturers instructions. Requirements for arrangements and installation onto the engine have been defined and also for system testing. 7. UR M10 also addresses alternative methods of preventing the build-up of oil mist and methods of assessment. 8. To support the extensive revisions to M9 and M10 new Unified Requirements for type testing explosion relief valves and for oil mist monitoring/detection arrangements have been developed. These URs provide a common standard against which relief valves and oil mist monitoring/detection systems cane be assessed. They define the scope, purpose, test facilities, processes, assessment and reporting.
Note by the Permanent Secretariat: 1. GPG added the following implementation statement to the URs:
"Engines are to be fitted with components and arrangements complying with this UR when: 1) an application for certification of an engine is dated on/after 1 January 2006; or 2) installed in new ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 January 2006."
2. The URs (M 66 & 67, M9(Rev.2) and M20(Rev.3)) do not apply to existing engines on the existing ships.
Submitted by WP/MCH Chairman 24th August 2004
Page 2 of 2
Technical Background Document UR M9(Rev.3, Corr.1, November 2005) UR M10(Rev.2, Corr.1, November 2005) UR M66(New, Corr.1, November 2005) UR M67(New, Corr.1, November 2005)
1. These UR Ms were adopted in Jan 2005 for implementation from 1 Jan 2006. 2. However, IACS was requested, via the Machinery Panel, by CIMAC and MAN/B&W, to postpone the 1 Jan 06 implementation date for the type testing requirements for crankcase explosion relief valves and crankcase oil mist detection/monitoring and alarm arrangements contained in IACS URs M66 and M67, respectively. 3. This discussion led to re-issuance of these UR Ms, changing the implementation statements. These UR Ms were re-issued as Corr.1 on 29 Nov 2005.
4. GPG Chairmans message (4069gIGk, 14/11/2005) contains a more detailed background for this amendment. For records, GPG/Council Chairmens messages are attached to the TB document for the January 2005 versions.
Permanent Secretariat 29 Nov 2005
Page 1 of 2
GYH
From: Sent: To: AIACS@eagle.org 23 November 2005 20:50 iacs@bureauveritas.com; iacs@ccs.org.cn; iacs@dnv.com; iacs@gl-group.com; krsiacs@krs.co.kr; iacs@lr.org; clnkiacs@classnk.or.jp; iacs@rina.org; iacs@rs-head.spb.ru; johnderose@iacs.org.uk; colinwright@iacs.org.uk; gilyonghan@iacs.org.uk; terryperkins@iacs.org.uk; efs@iacs.org.uk; richardleslie@iacs.org.uk; helenbutcher@iacs.org.uk; MCH-Panel@gl-group.com
Subject: 4069gICd: UR M66, M67 - application date
Date: 23 Nov 05 TO: IACS Council Members TO: IACS GPG Chairman & Members TO: IACS Permanent Secretary: Mr. R. Leslie TO: IACS Machinery Panel Chairman: Dr. U. Petersen FROM: R. D. Somerville File Ref: T-12-2 Subject: 4069gICd: UR M66, M67 - application date 1. All Members have replied to ICc. Eight Members have supported the proposed course of action in IGk. 2. Lloyd's, supported by RINA, proposes that the URs need not be withdrawn, as proposed in IGk, but that only the implementation date need be changed. LR proposed posponement to 1 July 06 -- instead of 1 Jan 07, as proposed in IGk. 2.1 Regarding the implementation date of 1 July 06 vs. 1 Jan 07, this had already been debated in GPG and the strong majority supported 1 Jan 2007. I conclude 1 January 2007 is agreed. 2.2 Regarding whether to "withdraw" the URs or "postpone" their date of application, to my understanding either approach is acceptable and will result in the same outcome. 3. Therefore to accomodate the request that the URs not be withdrawn, I conclude that the agreed course of action is: 3.1 Perm Sec is to revise the uniform application statements for the URs, as follows, reissue them, and post them on the IACS website: 3.1.1 For URs M66 and M67: "Note: Engines are to be fitted with components and arrangements complying with this UR when: 1) an application for certification of an engine is dated on/after 1 January 2007; or 2) installed in new ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 January 2007." 3.1.2 For UR M9, Rev.3: "2. Engines are to be fitted with components and arrangements complying with Revision 3 of this UR, except for M9.8, when:
29/11/2005
Page 2 of 2
1) an application for certification of an engine is dated on/after 1 January 2006; or 2) installed in new ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 January 2006. The requirements of M9.8 apply, in both cases above, from 1 January 2007." 3.1.3 For UR M10, Rev.2: "2. Engines are to be fitted with components and arrangements complying with Revision 2 of this UR, except for M10.8, when: 1) an application for certification of an engine is dated on/after 1 January 2006; or 2) installed in new ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 January 2006. The requirements of M10.8 apply, in both cases above, from 1 January 2007." 3.2 Machinery Panel is to: a. inform CIMAC and MAN/B&W of the postponed application of URs M66 and M67, and the intention to update them; b. update URs M66 and M67, as quickly as possible, taking account of CIMAC's, MAN/B&W and Panel Member's inputs; c. once adopted at Panel level, send the revised URs to CIMAC for quick review/comment and notification to the equipment suppliers; d. further update the URs as needed in light of any comments received from CIMAC; e. submit the revised URs to GPG for approval not later than the end of the 1st Q 2006. 3.3 Upon adoption of the revised URs by IACS Council, Machinery Panel is to send them to CIMAC for their information and requesting that CIMAC notify the equipment suppliers of the requirements. Regards, Robert D. Somerville IACS Council Chairman
29/11/2005
Page 1 of 2
GYH
From: Sent: To: AIACS@eagle.org 14 November 2005 22:00 iacs@bureauveritas.com; iacs@ccs.org.cn; iacs@dnv.com; iacs@gl-group.com; krsiacs@krs.co.kr; iacs@lr.org; clnkiacs@classnk.or.jp; iacs@rina.org; iacs@rs-head.spb.ru; johnderose@iacs.org.uk; colinwright@iacs.org.uk; gilyonghan@iacs.org.uk; terryperkins@iacs.org.uk; efs@iacs.org.uk; richardleslie@iacs.org.uk; helenbutcher@iacs.org.uk MCH-Panel@gl-group.com
Cc:
Subject: 4069gIGk: UR M66, M67 - application date
Date: 14 Nov 05 TO: Mr. R.D. Somerville, IACS Council Chairman CC: IACS Council Members CC: IACS GPG Members CC: IACS Machinery Panel Chairman: Dr. U. Petersen CC: IACS Permanent Secretary: Mr. R. Leslie FROM: S.R. McIntyre File Ref: T-12-2 Subject: 4069gIGk: UR M66, M67 - application date 1. IACS has been requested, via the Machinery Panel, by CIMAC and MAN/B&W, to postpone the 1 Jan 06 implementation date for the type testing requirements for crankcase explosion relief valves and crankcase oil mist detection/monitoring and alarm arrangements contained in IACS URs M66 and M67, respectively. Their request is to give the equipment manufacturers and the engine builders more time to adapt to the new requirements. Industry has also recommended the need for some improvements/clarifications in the two URs, which the Machinery Panel has agreed are needed/appropriate. 1.1 Since CIMAC was involved in the IACS decision, some years ago, to develop these URs, in retrospect it would have been advisable to submit the URs for external review by CIMAC before their adoption to ensure that CIMAC would be fully aware of the requirements and the timetable for their implementation--and working with IACS Societies to ensure that their suppliers were apprised of and complying with the new requirements. Unfortunately, this was not done. 1.2 The type testing requirements of URs M66 and M67 are invoked in recent revisions of M9 and M10, respectively. 2. The Machinery Panel recommended that GPG postpone implementation of URs M66 and M67 and advised GPG that both URs need to be updated/clarified. 2.1 Several Members have also advised that they needed more time for initial implementation and could not implement the two URs from 1 Jan 06 as had been originally agreed by Council. 3. Having carefully considered the input from CIMAC, MAN/B&W, the Machinery Panel and Members, GPG agrees that IACS should postpone the implementation of these URs by one year to give time for updating them, vetting the changes with CIMAC, notifying industry and for Members to process the related rule changes. Therefore, GPG requests Council's agreement to the following course of action:
24/11/2005
Page 2 of 2
3.1 URs M66 and M67, along with M9.8 of M9, Rev.3 and M10.8 of M10, Rev.2 are to be withdrawn pending the updating of M66 and M67, which needs to be accomplished as quickly as possible (ie. the target date of 1st Q 2006 for revising M66, agreed at GPG 59, needs to be accelerated); 3.2 The updated URs, once adopted at Panel level are to be sent to CIMAC by the Machinery Panel for quick review/comment by CIMAC, and then further updated by the Panel in light of any comments received, prior to submission to GPG/Council; 3.3 The updated URs M66 and M67, once adopted by GPG/Council, are to be issued as "Corr" (since the initial versions will never have been implemented)--with uniform application from 1 Jan 2007 (instead of 1 Jan 2006); 3.4 M9, Rev.3 without M9.8, and M10, Rev. 2, without M10.8, are to be reissued as "Corr" until the updated M66 and M67 are adopted by Council, at which time M9.8 and M10.8 are to be included in M9, Rev.4 and M10, Rev.3, respectively for application from 1 Jan 2007. 4. Council Chairman is kindly requested to seek Council's agreement to this course of action as soon as possible. Regards, S.R. McIntyre IACS GPG Chairman
24/11/2005
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2
GYH
29/11/2005
Page 2 of 2
29/11/2005
Page 1 of 2
GYH
Cc:
24/11/2005
Page 2 of 2
24/11/2005
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Technical Background UR M10 (Rev. 3, Sept 2008) and UI SC 228 (New, Dec 2008)
Existing SOLAS Regulation Analysis SOLAS Reg. II-1/27.5 requires: Main turbine propulsion machinery and, where applicable, main internal combustion propulsion machinery and auxiliary machinery shall be provided with automatic shutoff arrangements in the case of failures ....which could lead rapidly to .... serious damage or explosion. The administration may permit overriding automatic shutoff devices. SOLAS Reg. II-1/31.2.10 requires: Automation systems shall be designed in a manner which ensures that threshold warning of impending or imminent slowdown or shutdown of the propulsion machinery is given to the officer in charge of the navigational watch in time to assess the navigational circumstances in an emergency. In particular, the system shall control, monitor, alert and take safety action to slow down or stop propulsion while providing the officer in charge of the navigational watch an opportunity to manually intervene, except for those case where manual intervention will result in total failure of the engine and/or propulsion equipment within a short time, for example in the case of overspeed. SOLAS Reg. II-1/31.3 requires: Where the main propulsion and associated machinery, including sources of main electrical supply, are provided with various degrees of automatic or remote control and are under continuous manual supervision from a control room the arrangements and controls shall be so designed, equipped and installed that the machinery operation will be as safe and effective as if it were under direct supervision; for this purpose regulations 46 to 50 shall apply as appropriate. Particular consideration shall be given to protect such spaces against fire and flooding. SOLAS Reg. II-1/47.2 requires: Internal combustion engines of 2,250 kW and above or having cylinders of more than 300 mm bore shall be provided with crankcase oil mist detectors or engine bearing temperature monitors or equivalent devices. Summarising SOLAS: Engines are to be fitted with safety system shutting off the engines to prevent serious damage or explosion and overrides may be permitted. The safety system, either in attended or unattended machinery spaces, is to alert and take action (alarm + slow down or stop) but, when action is taken on the propulsion system, the watch officer is to be given an opportunity to intervene (alarm + override), except for those case where manual intervention will result in total failure of the engine and/or propulsion equipment within a short time. For periodically unattended machinery, engines larger than a given size are to be equipped with oil mist detectors or bearing temperature monitors or equivalent devices (SOLAS does not specify which action they are to initiate); the same applies to machinery systems under automatic or remote control or under remote manual supervision.
Existing IACS UR Analysis IACS UR M10 in item 10.8 gives a requirement applicable to oil mist detectors (including type testing to UR M67), but does not require an oil mist detector (OMD) to be fitted. IACS UR M35 Table 1 (slow speed main engines in unattended machinery spaces) requires an OMD to be installed and give alarm and slow down. IACS UR M35 Table 2 (medium speed main engines in unattended machinery spaces) requires an OMD to be installed and give alarm and shut down. (IACS UR M36 Table 1 (auxiliary engines in unattended machinery spaces) requires an OMD to be installed and give alarm and shut down). 1/2
IACS UR M67 gives standard type testing conditions for OMD. Summarising IACS URs: OMD (or equivalent arrangements) is to be fitted only to engines when installed in an unattended machinery space. The actions to be taken are described in M35, M36. The alarm system is to be in accordance with M29. The safety system is to be in accordance with M30. The OMD is to be type tested in accordance with M.67
Assessment of ISO TC8/SC1 WD 7240-26 "Fire detection and alarm systems - Point type oil mist detectors" This document has been considered. Summary of review: It addresses requirements applicable to oil mist detectors to be used in open spaces for fire detection systems in buildings and vessels. (It is not deemed applicable to oil mist detectors to be used in engine crankcases, even if some part could be used as guidance).
Summarising findings changes to M10 and new SC228 It is recognized that: 1. An OMD is a safety device and this also applies to bearing temperature devices and equivalent devices where fitted instead of an OMD. 2. Where OMD arrangements or alternative arrangements are used to initiate slow down, an alarm is to be given before intervention of the safety system. 3. Where OMD arrangements or alternative arrangements are used to initiate shut down, the alarm may be given upon intervention of safety system. 4. Where arrangements are provided for overriding a safety system, they are to be such that inadvertent operation is prevented. 5. Visual indication is to be given at the relevant control station(s) when a safety override is operated. 6. The consequences of overriding a safety system are to be established and documented. The Rev.3 of UR M10 and a new UI SC228 has been prepared to address the above.
Submitted by Machinery Panel Chairman 30 July 2008
Permanent Secretariat note (January 2009): UR M10 Rev.3 was approved, with the following implementation statement, by GPG on 11 September 2008 (ref. 6098_IGj): "Note: 1) The requirements of M10 Rev. 3 are to be uniformly implemented by IACS Societies for engines: i) when an application for certification of an engine is dated on or after 1 January 2010; or ii) which are installed in new ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 January 2010. 2) The "contract for construction" date means the date on which the contract to build the vessel is signed between the prospective owner and the shipbuilder. For further details regarding the date of "contract for construction", refer to IACS Procedural requirement (PR) No.29." After initial review by GPG new UI SC228 was returned to Machinery Panel to clarify a possible discrepancy between the UI text and revised UR M10.8, before being approved by GPG on 22 December 2008 (ref. 6098_IGl).
2/2
Technical Background Revision of M16 (Rev.1)

M16 dates back to 1974 and has not been revised since then. A revision is necessary of following reasons: 1. The wording safety device implies that it should be function tested. All safety functions are normally required to be verified by testing, except these devices for emergency operation. In order to justify this practice the heading should be altered to just devices for emergency....... 2. M16 mentions no verification of the devices. Full verification by testing various combinations during sea trial is considered too much (see 1), but a trial mounting before the sea trial should be required. 3. M16 does not require any minimum power in these emergency operating conditions. Without a certain minimum the objective of these devices is unclear. 4. M16 does not require specification of available/permissible power in the various combinations. This should be available onboard. 5. A high permissible power in these emergency operating conditions may jeopardise the last stage reduction gearing due to the influence of shaft alignment on gear faceload distribution. This potential problem should be addressed.
Submitted by WP/MCH Chairman 02 December 2004
IACS WP/MCH TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Rev.4, M18 Parts of internal combustion engines for which material tests are required.
2.1 Scope and objectives The item is covered by Task 41. Question was put forward by DNV. Ref. fax DNV J-450 dated 199907-02. 2.2 Points of discussion A discussion was initiated based on DNVs earlier input. It was agreed that the term Supercharger used in UR M18.2 and M23 is to be understood as turbochargers and engine driven compressors (incl. Root blowers), but not auxiliary blowers. The question mass produced or non-mass produced is considered quite important as to UR M18.2/M23. It appears that Manufacturer Survey Arrangements (MSAs) are currently issued based on conditions actually not covered by IACS UR, and IACS members normal procedures are to some extent differing from the procedure laid out in the URs. It was agreed to take this matter up later as a separate task in order to clarify/rectify the requirements given in M18.5. As to M 18.1 and M18.2, it was agreed to propose this revised as follows: Amend M18.1: The list given below applies to engines and superchargers not covered by M5 and M23 Supercharger shaft and rotor, including blades (Supercharger is understood as turbochargers and engine driven compressors (incl. Root blowers), but not auxiliary blowers).
Amend M18.2 (xiv):
2.3 Source/derivation of proposed requirements Initiated by question forwarded by DNV in their fax DNV J-450 dated 1999-07-02. 2.4 Decision by voting.
All WP/MCH members agreed in above.
Page 3
Technical Background for Rev.5, M 20
1. Scope of objectives This revision is to introduce a requirement for machinery verification run during dry docking to verify safe operation of main and auxiliary machinery. This is one of the outcomes of the ESP Tripartite (IACS, OCIMF, INTERTANKO) technical Working Group which was held on 15 October 1999 in London. 2. Points of discussions or possible discussions BV (GPG) did not agree to the first sentence of the proposed requirement in that it is the owners responsibility to check the machinery installations are in good operational condition after a ship is re-floated. However, all Council unanimously agreed to the amendment. NEW MVR Requirement has been positioned in new section M 20.5. Originally it was proposed to place it under UR Z7 with change to its title Hull Classification Surveys and Machinery Verification Runs. Subsequent GPG discussion yielded that it should be placed in UR Z 18, however, the Permsec suggested to put it in M 20 since the Z 18 had not been formally adopted.
3.
Source/derivation of proposed requirements The final minute of the Tripartite meeting reads (C 40/6/WP.1): IACS has given further consideration to this item and proposed the following wording for inclusion in IUR Z7: At the time of dry docking a dock trial is to be carried out to attending surveyors satisfaction to confirm satisfactory operation of main and auxiliary machinery. If significant repairs are carried out to main or auxiliary machinery or steering gear, consideration should be given to a sea trial to attending surveyors satisfaction. The Working Group agreed to the above wording. This measure would be applicable to any type of ship but would not be recorded in the CER for Tankers.
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 1 New UR Z 18, Z21 and deletion of M20 (+ Rev.8 of Z7)

To review existing UR M 20 and relocate it as a UR under UR Z.

WP/SRC Chairman reported by e-mail 6 May 1999 that WP/SRC Members had discussed and reviewed the requirements contained in UR M20 through correspondence and at their last meeting and had relocated the text of M20 to a new UR Z18. A proposal for resolving ABS existing reservations against M20 is included in the proposed UR Z18.
Note by the Permanent Secretariat GPG did not accept WP/SRCs proposal for resolving ABS reservations since the proposal would not, in fact, lead to any greater uniformity in practice than by simply retaining ABS existing reservations, and therefore did not approve the proposed UR Z18, pending receipt and consideration of an acceptable means of resolving ABS reservations from the ABS GPG representative. The ABS GPG representative reported to GPG, at its 51st meeting on 2-4 October 2001 that ABS was not prepared to change its practice and that he could not identify any means of resolving ABS reservations without significant change to other Members practices, which other Members were not prepared to accept. Therefore, GPG expressed its preparedness to live with ABS reservation to the tail shaft survey requirements of ex M20 (now Z21), agreed to isolate it from Z18.
Outcome: Delete M 20; Create new Z18 excluding tail shaft survey requirements; Create new Z21 for the tail shaft survey requirements. Revision 8 of Z7 to have the same descriptions of special survey as those in Z10s and Z18. (GPG considered it prudent to keep Revision 8 of Z7 in abeyance until WP/SRC complete its Task 83 "revision of Z7".)
Technical Background UR M 25 (Rev. 3, July 2003)

WP/MCH Task 61 M25.1 regarding duration of astern trials. WP/MCH submitted proposed amendments to M25.1 requiring that the main propulsion machinery should be capable of reversing the direction of thrust so as to bring the ship to rest from maximum service speed. NK Council clarified what should have been written in M25.2. Agreed. ***
WP/MCH Task 41 Technical Justification for revision of M33 M37 M38 M39 M48 and new UR M68
CIMAC established a working group (WG14) for the purpose of getting a unified practice among Classification Societies on the topic of shafting and permissible torsional vibrations. This WG14 concluded the work by the end of 2002, however, with a more restricted scope than the original. The original scope included issues for both 4-stroke and 2-stroke plants, but it soon became clear that due to the limited time (all to be within 2002) only 2-stroke plants with fixed pitch propellers could be handled. It was the intention of WG14 that the agreements of 2002 should be reflected in the rules of the participating societies (ABS, GL, LR and DNV). During the IACS MCH meeting in London 2003, it was agreed that actions should be taken versus very old URs, meaning a) confirm b) revise or c) delete. Among other, the above mentioned URs were chosen because: All 5 UR are interconnected and partly repeat each other Reservations were made (e.g. DNV) Several societies practiced considerable deviations from the UR WG14 had concluded on something different (for 2-stroke) Design features for controllable pitch propellers lacking
After revising the technical contents of the 5 URs, it was intended to merge them into one UR. The 4-stroke issues of WG14 (that were not in the agreement of 2002) had little or no relevance for the revision of these URs which only dealt with shafts. Of that reason the revision should include all relevant kinds of shafts. The draft UR replaces M33, M37, M38, M39 and M48.
Note: This UR applies to ships constructed for construction from 1 July 2006.
Submitted by WP/MCH Chairman 21 Dec 2004
Technical Background Document Revision of UR M35 (Revision 5, August 2008) Revision of UR M36 (Revision 3, September 2008)
Alarms, remote indications and safeguards for main reciprocating I.C. engines installed in unattended machinery spaces
Objective and Scope: The aim of Task 5101 was to review the alarm requirements in UR M35 for oil mist detection (OMD) and turbocharger lubricating oil in comparison with slow speed engines and medium / high speed engines. Further, to update the UR to reflect on modern engine design and to develop new requirements for fuel or hydraulic oil pressure monitoring of newly introduced electronically controlled diesel engines (E-engines). Finally, the clarity of the information provided in the columns of Tables 1 and 2 was to be improved. For consistency reasons UR M36 was also to be reviewed with respect to requirements for fuel and hydraulic oil pressure monitoring on Eengines as well as the format of the table.
Background: The background for the proposed modification / additions in the UR M35 has two aspects. First: the harmonization of Table 1 and Table 2 of UR M35 and second: the development of new requirements for fuel or hydraulic oil pressure monitoring on E-engines.
Points of discussion: A discussion developed around requirements for OMD. It has been pointed out that at present OMD is not regarded as a safety device and only required for unattended machinery spaces. Further, it has been suggested, that remote indication is needed to keep personnel away from the engine when an alarm is triggered. The Panel considered that there is still a problem with the reliability of the OMD alarm signal and that this needs to be taken into account when considering possible corrective action, such as engine slowdown or shutdown. UR M35 was discussed in conjunction with UR M10 and there was a general view that OMD or alternative arrangements should be required for both attended and unattended machinery spaces. It has been agreed to introduce this in M10. This would make the installation of OMD or alternative arrangements mandatory for all engines independent from the operational mode. The power limitation from Note 3 in Table 1 of UR M35 Rev.4 should also be added.
Page 1 of 2
Finally, it has been decided to modify footnote 9 and 10 of table 1 and footnote 8 of table 2. With the changes in the footnotes M35 can be applied regardless of a different design of turbocharger lubrication. To reflect on changes in the design of modern electronically controlled diesel engines there was agreement to introduce a low pressure alarm for common rail fuel oil and rail servo oil pressure. Conclusion: Following changes to Table 1 and Table 2 in UR M35 have been agreed: M35, Table 1 and 2, 1.0, add new item: Common rail fuel oil pressure; alarm pressure low
M35, Table 1 and 2, 2.0, add new item: Common rail servo oil pressure; alarm pressure low
M35, Table 1 9.0, change the wording to: Exhaust gas temp. after each cylinder
M35, Table 1, 3.0, add Notes 9 and 10: 9) Unless provided with a self-contained lubricating oil system integrated with the turbocharger (also Note 5 in Table 2). 10) Where outlet temperature from each bearing cannot be monitored due to the engine/turbocharger design alternative arrangements may be accepted.
M35, Table 2, 3.0, add new item and Note 8: New item: Turbocharger lub. oil temperature each bearing 8) Where outlet temperature from each bearing cannot be monitored due to the engine/turbocharger design alternative arrangements may be accepted.
M35, Table 1 and Table 2, Note 3: Add reference to OMD requirements in UR M10.8 or SOALS Reg. II-1/47.2
M36, Table 1: Add low level alarm for common rail fuel and servo oil pressure
The changes have been agreed unanimously by Panel members.
GPG approval, UR M35(Rev.5): 28 August 2008, s/n 4069bIGh GPG approval, UR M36(Rev.3): 22 September 2008, s/n 4069cIGb.
Page 2 of 2
IACS WP/MCH TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Rev.2, M36 Alarms and safeguards for auxiliary reciprocating internal combustion engines driving generators in unattended machinery spaces. 2.1 Scope and objectives The item is covered by Task 41, and dealt with under item 6.2 at WP/MCHs 40th meeting. Main objective was to achieve agreement as to a revised UR M36 which could be accepted by all IACS parties without reservations. 2.2 Points of discussion The subject was thoroughly discussed at WP/MCHs 40th meeting. In this respect it was expressed that: - Continuous review and updating of both IACS UR M35 and M36 is foreseen necessary also for the future. - With regards to IACS UR M35 and M36, the requirement shut down is to be considered as more conservative than slow down. Accordingly each Society will be free to request shut down by their Rules where IACS UR request slow down only, without giving any reservation. As to revision of current IACS UR M36 it was concluded (all parties agreed) to propose to GPG the following alterations to be made: - A new requirement (based on NKs proposal) to be included in Table 1 requesting Alarm (high and low value) for Fuel oil viscosity before injection pumps or Fuel oil temp before injection pumps. A footnote to be added to said requirement stating: For heavy fuel oil burning engines only. A new requirement (based on NKs proposal) to be included in Table 1 requesting Alarm (high) for Exhaust gas temperature after each cylinder. A footnote to be added stating: For engine power above 500 kW/cyl.
2.2 Source/derivation of proposed requirements Earlier discussions within WP/MCH, input from CIMAC and proposal from NK. 2.3 Decision by voting. All WP/MCH members agreed in above.
Submitted by WP/MCH Chairman on 10 May 2000
Page 4
Technical Background Document Revision of UR M35 (Revision 5, August 2008) Revision of UR M36 (Revision 3, September 2008)
Alarms, remote indications and safeguards for main reciprocating I.C. engines installed in unattended machinery spaces
Objective and Scope: The aim of Task 5101 was to review the alarm requirements in UR M35 for oil mist detection (OMD) and turbocharger lubricating oil in comparison with slow speed engines and medium / high speed engines. Further, to update the UR to reflect on modern engine design and to develop new requirements for fuel or hydraulic oil pressure monitoring of newly introduced electronically controlled diesel engines (E-engines). Finally, the clarity of the information provided in the columns of Tables 1 and 2 was to be improved. For consistency reasons UR M36 was also to be reviewed with respect to requirements for fuel and hydraulic oil pressure monitoring on Eengines as well as the format of the table.
Background: The background for the proposed modification / additions in the UR M35 has two aspects. First: the harmonization of Table 1 and Table 2 of UR M35 and second: the development of new requirements for fuel or hydraulic oil pressure monitoring on E-engines.
Points of discussion: A discussion developed around requirements for OMD. It has been pointed out that at present OMD is not regarded as a safety device and only required for unattended machinery spaces. Further, it has been suggested, that remote indication is needed to keep personnel away from the engine when an alarm is triggered. The Panel considered that there is still a problem with the reliability of the OMD alarm signal and that this needs to be taken into account when considering possible corrective action, such as engine slowdown or shutdown. UR M35 was discussed in conjunction with UR M10 and there was a general view that OMD or alternative arrangements should be required for both attended and unattended machinery spaces. It has been agreed to introduce this in M10. This would make the installation of OMD or alternative arrangements mandatory for all engines independent from the operational mode. The power limitation from Note 3 in Table 1 of UR M35 Rev.4 should also be added.
Page 1 of 2
Finally, it has been decided to modify footnote 9 and 10 of table 1 and footnote 8 of table 2. With the changes in the footnotes M35 can be applied regardless of a different design of turbocharger lubrication. To reflect on changes in the design of modern electronically controlled diesel engines there was agreement to introduce a low pressure alarm for common rail fuel oil and rail servo oil pressure. Conclusion: Following changes to Table 1 and Table 2 in UR M35 have been agreed: M35, Table 1 and 2, 1.0, add new item: Common rail fuel oil pressure; alarm pressure low
M35, Table 1 and 2, 2.0, add new item: Common rail servo oil pressure; alarm pressure low
M35, Table 1 9.0, change the wording to: Exhaust gas temp. after each cylinder
M35, Table 1, 3.0, add Notes 9 and 10: 9) Unless provided with a self-contained lubricating oil system integrated with the turbocharger (also Note 5 in Table 2). 10) Where outlet temperature from each bearing cannot be monitored due to the engine/turbocharger design alternative arrangements may be accepted.
M35, Table 2, 3.0, add new item and Note 8: New item: Turbocharger lub. oil temperature each bearing 8) Where outlet temperature from each bearing cannot be monitored due to the engine/turbocharger design alternative arrangements may be accepted.
M35, Table 1 and Table 2, Note 3: Add reference to OMD requirements in UR M10.8 or SOALS Reg. II-1/47.2
M36, Table 1: Add low level alarm for common rail fuel and servo oil pressure
The changes have been agreed unanimously by Panel members.
GPG approval, UR M35(Rev.5): 28 August 2008, s/n 4069bIGh GPG approval, UR M36(Rev.3): 22 September 2008, s/n 4069cIGb.
Page 2 of 2

UR M42 Steering Gear
Version no. Rev.4 (June 2011) Rev.3 (1997) Rev.2 (1995) Rev.1 (1986) NEW (1982) Approval date 27 June 2011 12 May 2011 No Record No Record No Record Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2012 -
Part A
Rev.4 (June 2011)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Based on IMO Regulation .2 Main Reason for Change: To develop a UI in respect of SOLAS Regulations II-1/29.3.2 and 29.4.2 and establish conditions for ships which cannot achieve deepest seagoing draught at the trial to replace the alternative requirement in UR M42.15(i). .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: PT agreed that no amendment to SOLAS II-1 regulation 29 would be necessary and that the draft UI to be developed by the team would be sufficient to meet the objectives of the task. Review of DNV proposed method completed and the need for experimental data confirmed as necessary to verify the predicted steering gear loads for steering gear when rudders are partially submerged. Reference to ISO 19019:2005 Sea-going vessels and marine technology Instructions for planning, carrying out and reporting sea trials agreed by the PT as the reference procedure for all ships which are not at deepest seagoing draught. Draft UI and Proposed amendment to URM42 developed to support this reference. Additional conditions were developed by the team to be applied when testing steering gear in accordance with the ISO instructions on all occasions when ships were not at the deepest draught for the trial, in order to establish reliable and consistent test methodology. (SOLAS II-1 regulation 29.3.2 & 29.4.2)
Page 1 of 3
Part B
.5 Other Resolutions Changes UI SC246 (New June 2011) developed in respect of the panel task in conjunction with the UR amendment proposal. .6 Dates: Original proposal: Made by M. Wharton Manager PT PM6801 Panel Approval: 30 April 2011 GPG Approval: 27 June 2011 (Ref: 5031gIGv)
Rev. 3 (1997)
Rev. 2 (1995)
Rev. 1 (1986)
New (1981)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR M42:
Annex 1.
TB for Rev.4 (June 2011)

Note: 1) There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for UR M42 New (1981), Rev.1 (1986), Rev.2 (1995) and Rev.3 (1997).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR M42 Rev.4, June 2011

1. Scope and objectives To establish alternative steering gear trial conditions for vessels which cannot be tested at their deepest seagoing draught and to develop a UI in respect of SOLAS Regulations II-1/29.3.2 and 29.4.2 and based on this interpretation consider whether/how UR M42.15(i) is compatible with UI and propose amendments to M42.15(i) as necessary. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale The SOLAS regulations require that the main steering gear and rudder stock shall be: - of adequate strength and capable of steering the ship at maximum ahead service speed which shall be demonstrated; and - capable of putting the rudder over from 35 on one side to 35 on the other side with the ship at its deepest seagoing draught and running ahead at maximum ahead service speed and, under the same conditions, from 35 on either side to 30 on the other side in not more than 28 s Alternative steering gear trial conditions to those where the vessel is at the deepest sea going draught, which is normally equal to the summer load line, are considered necessary for certain ship types in order to provide acceptable testing conditions. In order to establish a sound and uniform practice, the draft UI is suggested to refer to ISO 19019:2005 and through a proposed amendment to UR M42 allow the trial requirements contained in the ISO instructions to replace the requirement for alternative testing provided that the loading condition specified will result in predictable trial conditions in compliance with UR M42.15(i) as proposed for amendment. The extant ISO 19019:2005 Sea-going vessels and marine technology Instructions for planning, carrying out and reporting sea trials contains a procedure to demonstrate the performance requirements of SOLAS regulations for steering gear and refers to the loading condition for the ship to be as close as practical to full load displacement. This procedure is referenced to replace the specially considered clause in M42.15, subject to additional conditions developed by the team to establish consistent and reliable testing for ships not tested at the deepest sea-going draught. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution For ships not at the deepest sea-going draught for the steering gear trial ISO 19019:2005 Sea-going vessels and marine technology Instructions for planning, carrying out and reporting sea trials is referenced. The following extracts are relevant and applicable: 6.1 Steering gear trials 6.1.1 Purpose Steering gear trials are performed to verify the performance of the steering gear and to demonstrate its efficiency.
6.1.2 Trials specification If the loading condition is not contractually specified, steering gear trials shall be conducted at a displacement as close as reasonably possible to full-load displacement for merchant ships and warships. and; 6.1.5.1 Ahead-steering-gear trial With the main propulsion engines delivering maximum continuous rating ahead or at the corresponding shaft speed, the following rudder manoeuvres shall be executed. The first direction of rudder movement, i.e. port or starboard, shall be at the discretion of the trial captain, considering the conditions in the area. The following description is for first rudder deflection to port. a) Amidships to 35 port Hold for sufficient duration in order to record time taken, at the steering gear, between rudder amidships and 30; b) 35 port to 35 starboard Hold approximately 10 s; record time taken, at the steering gear, between 35 hardover to 30 to the opposite side (as the steering gear is slowing down between 30 and hardover); c) 35 starboard to 35 port Hold approximately 10 s; record time taken between 35 starboard and 30 port; d) 35 port to amidships Record time taken between 35 port and rudder amidships; e) trial completed. This trial shall be repeated for each power unit of the steering gear and, if possible, for both units acting together. For emergency power units, trials shall be performed at reduced speed and reduced rudder angles. Setting of the propulsion plant of a singlescrew main propulsion system shall not be changed during the trial; however, change in throttle adjustment or propeller pitch in the case of a controllable-pitch propeller plant or multi-screw main propulsion systems is permissible during the trial to avoid overload or overspeed. If the maximum rudder angle is less than 35, the maximum possible rudder angle shall be used, with time determined to the maximum angle minus 5, as above. The additional requirements to be satisfied during the trial were developed and agreed by the PT to establish consistent and reliable trial conditions for all occasions when the trial is undertaken with the ship not at the deepest sea-going draught. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: To replace the alternative trial conditions may be specially considered term in UR M42.15(i) with specific requirements when the loading condition for the ship at the steering gear trial is contractually specified to be other than the deepest seagoing draft or the ship cannot achieve deepest draught to test in accordance with ISO 19019:2005 subject to additional conditions for consistent and reliable testing. Proposed amendment 15. Trials The steering gear should be tried out on the trial trip in order to demonstrate to the Surveyor's satisfaction that the requirements of the Rules have been met. The trial is to include the operation of the following:
(i) the steering gear, including demonstration of the performances required by Regulation 29.3.2 and 29.4.2. For controllable pitch propellers, the propeller pitch is to be at the maximum design pitch approved for the maximum continuous ahead R.P.M. at the main steering gear trial. If the vessel cannot be tested at the deepest draught, alternative trial conditions may be specially considered as stated in Section 6.1.5.1 of ISO 19019:2005 Sea-going vessels and marine technology Instructions for planning, carrying out and reporting sea trials are to be applied. If the loading condition is such that the ship is not at the deepest draught, steering gear trials shall be conducted at a displacement as close as reasonably possible to fullload displacement as required by Section 6.1.2 of ISO 19019:2005 on the conditions that either the rudder is fully submerged (zero speed waterline) and the vessel is in an acceptable trim condition, or the rudder load and torque at the specified trial loading condition have been predicted and extrapolated to the full load condition. In this case for the main steering gear trial, the speed of ship corresponding to the number of maximum continuous revolution of main engine could is to apply. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions SOLAS II-1/29.3.2 and 29.4.2 Reviewed by the PT in order to generate a UI for the performance requirements for the main and auxiliary steering gear UR M42.15(i) Reviewed by the PT in order to establish requirements to replace the alternative trial conditions with specific reference to ISO 19019:2005 Sea-going vessels and marine technology Instructions for planning, carrying out and reporting sea trials subject to additional conditions developed by the PT. From work specification items for the panel task: A review of the DNV proposal Steering gear test with partly submerged rudder was completed and an evaluation of the need for experimental data was completed, it was considered necessary that experimental data would be required to verify the proposed method. 6. Attachments if any None
UR M44 Rev.6 and P2 Rev.5

The UK MAIB report on its investigation of the causes of an engine fire in the high-speed ferry 'Stena Explorer' concluded that it was due to the incorrect reassembly of a compression fitting in a high pressure fuel line. IACS did not concur in the MAIB recommendation to discontinue the use of such fittings, and so advised the MAIB in a letter from the GPG Chairman on 15 September 2003 (3051_IGb). However WP/MCH proposed amendments to UR M44 and P2 to enhance relevant requirements for approval and maintenance. They are:
UR M44:
i) Add suffix 7 to Item 33,
ii) Add FOOTNOTE 7. 7. operation and service manuals are to contain maintenance requirements (servicing and repair) including details of any special tools and gauges that are to be used with their fitting/settings together with any test requirements on completion of maintenance. iii) Add NOTE 5. 5. Where the operation and service manuals identify special tools and gauges for maintenance purposes (see footnote 7.) refer to UR P2.7.4.14.
UR P2:
i) add P2.7.4.14: The installation of mechanical joints is to be in accordance with the manufacturer's assembly instructions. Where special tools and gauges are required for installation of the joints, these are to be supplied by the manufacturer. ii) Add sentence above P2.7.4.1 : The application and pressure ratings of different mechanical joints are to be approved by the Classification Society. The approval is to be based on Type Approval procedure in P2.11. The amendments were approved by GPG on 30 September 2003 (3051aIGb)
Technical Background to Revision of M44 Documents for the approval of diesel engines (Rev. 7, 2004) WP/MCH Task 65
Background: The object of the revision to UR M44 is update the document with respect to documents required for approval of current engine designs and the related scope of approval activities carried out by classification societies. UR M44 provides a list of documents which are to be submitted to a classification society for the approval of a diesel engine. The first table in this UR identifies the requirements for submission of documents and the related activity concerning what will be carried out by classification societies after submission by the engine manufacturer. Details: It is generally understood that for a plan or design information to be approved there needs to be detailed criteria in the form of rules or specification, against which the design is appraised, and hence approval based upon. On this basis, a unified approach for the approval of diesel engines is achieved. During the 44th meeting of WP/MCH a detailed review of the existing plans list of UR M44 was carried out and a consensus reached on the validity of plans and information to be submitted, and their designation for approval, or for information. Additionally, it was proposed that a new designation. A* be adopted, requiring that the plan be submitted to the classification society for approval of materials and weld procedure specifications. This designation recognises that it may not be possible to approve a particular design due to there being no defined approval criteria, but the materials used in construction and welding procedures are important and may impact on the component and engine integrity. At the meeting and during subsequent correspondence between members the opportunity was taken to propose several minor amendments to the nomenclature of engine components used in UR M44 to reflect current industry terminology. It was acknowledged that diesel engine technology is rapidly moving and with the development of electronically controlled engines it is apparent that the rules for diesel engines need to address electronic control systems, which are undeniably complex systems for controlling the operation of the engine and all of its essential services. A crucial facet in the approval of an engine, its support systems including the engines control system itself, is ensuring that failure of a control system will not cause the loss of essential services for operation of the engine, or degrade the engine performance beyond an acceptable level. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a tool now widely being adopted within the marine industry to carry out a structured analysis of the effects of loss of function. By applying an FMEA the critical failure modes of a system can be identified and consequently, where unacceptable levels of risk are present, mitigating steps can be taken such as introducing redundancy into the system. The requirement for submission of an FMEA, as supporting documentation for the approval of plans, has been introduced into UR M44 where the engine incorporates an electronic control system. The requirement extends to all services which are considered essential to the operation of the engine.
Points of discussion The draft was agreed without reservations or statements. GPG Approved GPG without amendment 7 May 2004, 4069aIGb. Council Adopted Council without amendment 26 May 2004, 4069aICa. **********

UR M45 Ventilation of Machinery Spaces
Version no. Rev.2 (Feb 2011) Rev.1 (1987) NEW (1982) Approval date 01 February 2011 No Record No Record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2012 -
Part A
Rev.2 (Feb 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To clarify which machinery space is to be ventilated continuously. To modify the title of UR M45 to be consistent with the title of SOLAS Regulation II-1/35 (machinery space instead of engine room)
.3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The IACS Machinery Panel agreed to carry out the task to revise UR M45. Form A was agreed in the Panel in May 2010. The Machinery Panel developed the draft of revised UR M45 and submitted for GPG approval in January 2011. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: May 2010 Made by: Machinery panel Panel Approval: 04 January 2011 GPG Approval: 01 February 2011 (Ref. 11003_IGc)
Rev. 1 (1995)
New (1995)
Page 1 of 2
Part B

Annex 1.
TB for Rev.2 (Feb 2011)

Note: 1) There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for UR M45 New (1982) and Rev.1 (1987).
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR M45 Rev.2, Feb 2011

1. Scope and objectives To modify the existing UR M45 in order for Member Societies to uniformly implement the requirement for continuous ventilation of machinery spaces in all weather conditions on the Load Line convention. To clarify the application UR M45 to the Machinery spaces Revise UR M45 Ventilation of Machinery Spaces to Clarify the spaces mentioned in UR M45 Machinery
2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, as amended by the Protocol of 1988(ICLL mentioned below) has entered into force on 1 January 2005. Annex I Chapter II Regulation 17(3) of ICLL states: ventilators necessary to continuously supply the machinery space shall have coamings of sufficient height to comply with regulation 19(3), without having to fit weathertight closing appliances. Ventilators necessary to continuously supply the emergency generator room, if this is considered buoyant in the stability calculation or protecting opening leading below, shall have coamings of sufficient height to comply with regulation 19(3), without having to fit weathertight closing appliances. SOLAS Reg. II-1/35 states : Machinery spaces of category A shall be adequately ventilated so as to ensure that when machinery or boilers therein are operating at full power in all weather conditions, including heavy weather, an adequate supply of air maintained to the spaces for the safety and comfort of personnel and the operation of the machinery. Any other machinery space shall be adequately ventilated appropriate for the purpose of that machinery space. From abovementioned regulations, it is understood that only machinery spaces of category A shall be ventilated continuously. But the existing UR45 requires all machinery space to be ventilated continuously in all weather conditions. Furthermore, the title of UR M45 (engine room) is not consistent with the title of SOLAS Regulation II-1/35 (machinery space). So it was agreed to modify the existing UR M45 to clarify which machinery space is to be ventilated continuously in all weather conditions.
3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution None 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: The following description of UR M45 has been updated to clarify the Machinery spaces.
The title of UR M45 has been updated to be consistent with the title of SOLAS Regulation II-1/35 (machinery space instead of engine room) The existing first paragraph of UR M45 has been removed and replaced with "The ventilation of machinery spaces shall be according to the principles laid down in SOLAS Regulation II-1/35", so that UR M45 is aligned with SOLAS Regulation II-1/35. The new sentence The Machinery spaces are those defined in SOLAS Regulation II-1/3.16 has been added for clarification, so that the definition of machinery spaces within UR M45 is aligned with the definition of machinery spaces within SOLAS Regulation II-1/3.16.
5. Points of discussions or possible discussions Machinery spaces whether including the Machinery spaces of category A. This is the requirements of SOLAS Reg. II-1/35. The revision is to be submitted to respective Conventions for evaluation; for example ICLL and SOLAS
6. Attachments if any None
4.
Tasking of WP/MCH
UR M50 (Rev.3, Jan 2008) Programme for type testing of non-mass produced I.C. engines and UR M51 (Rev.3, Jan 2008) Programme for trials of i.c. engines to assess operational capability Machinery Panel Tasks PM5102 and PM6102
Objective and Scope: The aim of Task PM5102 was to reconsider UR M50 and UR M51 for electronically controlled two stroke and four stroke diesel engines especially in view of performance of the type approval test as required by the current UR M50 and the factory acceptance test as required by the current UR M51. The aim of Task PM6102 was to clarify the text of UR M51 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 to avoid different interpretations regarding the tests to be carried out on engines used for ships electrical propulsion. It has been decided by the Panel to combine both tasks to one Revision only.
Points of discussion: In Task 5102 three issues have been identified to be reflected in UR M50 and UR M51: a) Reference to the FMEA required by UR M44 for the type approval test in M50. b) A possible waiver for specific tests for an engine type which already has been type tested as conventional mechanical diesel engine (e.g. turbo charger cutoff test) in M50. c) Reference to FMEA for the FAT and other tests in UR M51. During the discussion the preference of the group was not to mention the turbo charger cut-off test explicitly, but rather to include a more generic statement. As far as testing on board is concerned in UR M51 2.1.3 the wording Main engines driving generators for propulsion is not intended to include engines driving generators, which also supply electrical power to the ship network. The intention of this paragraph is to address the tests to be carried out when an engine drives a generator, which is dedicated to the supply of an electric propulsion motor. Engines driving generators supplying electrical power to the ship network (even if electrical propulsion is included among the network electrical users) are to be tested as required in UR M51 2.1.4. The need to revise the wording to meet the above interpretation was discussed.
In addition during the discussion it has been recognized that also the wording rated power in UR M51 2.1.3 a) may lead to different interpretations, since it is not immediate to understand if reference is made to rated power of the engine, of the generator or of the propulsion motor. It has been agreed that the intent of the requirement is referred to the rated power of the propulsion motor. Conclusion: Following changes are proposed: UR M50: insert in 3.3 Functional tests 3.3.5 Integration Test For electronically controlled diesel engines integration tests shall verify that the response of the complete mechanical, hydraulic and electronic system is as predicted for all intended operational modes. The scope of these tests shall be agreed with the Society for selected cases based on the FMEA required in UR M44. M50.5 Notes 5.3 If an electronically controlled diesel engine has been type tested as a conventional engine the Society may waive tests required by this UR provided the results of the individual tests would be similar. UR M51: Include a new paragraph 1.5 with the same text as in 3.3.5 above. Based on the discussion of Task 6102 a new wording has been agreed for UR M51 , Paragraph 2.1.3 : 2.1.3 Single main engine driving generator for propulsion UR M51 2.1.3 a) shall read: 100% power (rated propulsion power): at least 4 hours" and the relevant note has to be modified to: "Tests are to be based on the rated electrical powers of the electric propulsion motor." The changes have been agreed unanimously by Panel members.
Submitted by Machinery Panel Chairman 22 November 2007
(Permanent Secretariat note: Approved by GPG 15 January 2008, ref. 7720_IGc)
Technical Background UR M 51 (Rev. 2, July 2003)

WP/MCH submitted a proposed amendment to M51.2.1 shipboard trials.
***
UR M50 (Rev.3, Jan 2008) Programme for type testing of non-mass produced I.C. engines and UR M51 (Rev.3, Jan 2008) Programme for trials of i.c. engines to assess operational capability Machinery Panel Tasks PM5102 and PM6102
Objective and Scope: The aim of Task PM5102 was to reconsider UR M50 and UR M51 for electronically controlled two stroke and four stroke diesel engines especially in view of performance of the type approval test as required by the current UR M50 and the factory acceptance test as required by the current UR M51. The aim of Task PM6102 was to clarify the text of UR M51 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 to avoid different interpretations regarding the tests to be carried out on engines used for ships electrical propulsion. It has been decided by the Panel to combine both tasks to one Revision only.
Points of discussion: In Task 5102 three issues have been identified to be reflected in UR M50 and UR M51: a) Reference to the FMEA required by UR M44 for the type approval test in M50. b) A possible waiver for specific tests for an engine type which already has been type tested as conventional mechanical diesel engine (e.g. turbo charger cutoff test) in M50. c) Reference to FMEA for the FAT and other tests in UR M51. During the discussion the preference of the group was not to mention the turbo charger cut-off test explicitly, but rather to include a more generic statement. As far as testing on board is concerned in UR M51 2.1.3 the wording Main engines driving generators for propulsion is not intended to include engines driving generators, which also supply electrical power to the ship network. The intention of this paragraph is to address the tests to be carried out when an engine drives a generator, which is dedicated to the supply of an electric propulsion motor. Engines driving generators supplying electrical power to the ship network (even if electrical propulsion is included among the network electrical users) are to be tested as required in UR M51 2.1.4. The need to revise the wording to meet the above interpretation was discussed.
In addition during the discussion it has been recognized that also the wording rated power in UR M51 2.1.3 a) may lead to different interpretations, since it is not immediate to understand if reference is made to rated power of the engine, of the generator or of the propulsion motor. It has been agreed that the intent of the requirement is referred to the rated power of the propulsion motor. Conclusion: Following changes are proposed: UR M50: insert in 3.3 Functional tests 3.3.5 Integration Test For electronically controlled diesel engines integration tests shall verify that the response of the complete mechanical, hydraulic and electronic system is as predicted for all intended operational modes. The scope of these tests shall be agreed with the Society for selected cases based on the FMEA required in UR M44. M50.5 Notes 5.3 If an electronically controlled diesel engine has been type tested as a conventional engine the Society may waive tests required by this UR provided the results of the individual tests would be similar. UR M51: Include a new paragraph 1.5 with the same text as in 3.3.5 above. Based on the discussion of Task 6102 a new wording has been agreed for UR M51 , Paragraph 2.1.3 : 2.1.3 Single main engine driving generator for propulsion UR M51 2.1.3 a) shall read: 100% power (rated propulsion power): at least 4 hours" and the relevant note has to be modified to: "Tests are to be based on the rated electrical powers of the electric propulsion motor." The changes have been agreed unanimously by Panel members.
Submitted by Machinery Panel Chairman 22 November 2007
(Permanent Secretariat note: Approved by GPG 15 January 2008, ref. 7720_IGc)
Part A
UR M53 Calculation of Crankshafts for I.C. Engines

Version no. Rev.2 (Jan 2011) Rev.1 (Dec 2004) New (1986) Approval date 06 Jan 2011 Dec 2004 1986 Implementation date when applicable 1 Jan 2012 1 Jan 2007 -
Rev.2 (Jan 2011)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Request by non-IACS entity (CIMAC)
.2 Main Reason for Change: CIMAC raised the issue that the empirical stress concentration factors in the calculation rules in the UR M53 do not cover some of the currently used crankshaft designs. Therefore in order to assist, the alternative method for calculation of Stress Concentration Factors in the web fillet radii of crankshafts by utilizing Finite Element Method was agreed. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: CIMAC submitted its proposal during the IACS-CIMAC (WG2) Sept. 2008 meeting. The proposal was then discussed in the Machinery Panel. After reviewing the proposal the Machinery Panel had comments which were later clarified by CIMAC. However the IACS Machinery Panel had concerns with the extent of validation, as the validation was made for one test previously and that no further validation data was available. After further discussion it was agreed to insert it as an appendix and use it as an alternative approach when the prescriptive method does not apply. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2008 Made by CIMAC (WG2) Panel Approval: September 2010 GPG Approval: 06 January 2011 (Ref: 10171_IGc)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.1 (Dec 2004)
See TB in Part B.
New (1986)
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents: Annex 1 TB for Rev.1 (Dec 2004) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Annex 2 TB for Rev. 2 (Jan 2011) See separate TB document in Annex 2. Note: There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document for New (1986).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
CIMAC Crankshaft Working Group (WG4) Documentation and remarks to IACS WP/MCH comments July 2. 2003, M. W. Rasser / Chairman
CIMAC Proposal for Revised M53 IACS WP/MCH Comments
Comments have been received from members and these essentially stem from the need to provide technical justification for the changes and new requirements. For the proposals to be accepted and incorporated as Unified Requirements we have to provide a technical justification for the requirements and it is noted that we have not received any additional technical documentation other than the 30 pages expanded from the original 15. Identification of the changes and the background to each change and addition is required as part of the technical justification. Some comments received include: 1) Fig 5 and Fig 7 For crankshafts with overlap and recessed fillets, the web thickness W appears to be taken at the outside of the web which is different from that indicated in Fig 5 for a crankshaft without overlap, where W is taken from the centre of the recessed fillet. CIMAC remark: The definition of W for cranks with overlap is identical to M53-issue 1986, and is taken from the outside of the web. The definition of W for cranks without overlap is newly introduced, see Fig. 5. The newly introduced definition of W is proposed based on the fact that all 2stroke manufacturers have crankshafts in operation for long time which do not fulfil the M53 with respect to the limitation of TH (TH RH). The proposal is therefore to define a reduced web thickness in such a way that it ends at the centre of RH. The definition also matches the relevant cross section more closely.
2) M53.2.2.2 Statement there are to be no barred speed ranges above a speed ratio of >0.8 of rated speed. It is not unusual to have barred speed ranges above a speed ratio of >0.8 for the one cylinder misfiring condition in two stroke engines and it is suggested that the sentence should be modified to read. There are to be no barred speed ranges above a speed ratio of >0.8 for normal firing conditions. CIMAC remark: Agreed. The wording is included in the latest draft M53 revision. 3) M53.6 K factor for cast steel crankshaft (was 0.93) has been removed and replaced by is to be agreed between engine manufacturer and the Classification Society. No technical justification has been given about the inadequacy of the previous value considering that semi-built cast steel crankshafts are widely used. It is considered that a specific value should be established in the UR. Also it is considered necessary to establish basic requirements regarding fatigue testing of crankshafts or specimens and to include these in the UR. CIMAC remark: The K factor for cast steel cranks has been removed and replaced by the comment on agreement between engine builders and Classification Society. The wording was agreed between CIMAC and the IACS representative Mr. E. Sandberg in a meeting held on 15/16 April 1999. The reason for the modified wording was that the previous figure of 0.93 was not considered realistic according to crankshaft manufacturer data. In current practice only 2-stroke engines use cast steel cranks with special treatment (e.g. stroke peening). Those engines never use the K figure, as given in UR M53 issue 1986, but get individual approval from Classification Societies. The wording as proposed is now consistent with the procedures followed since many years.
Regarding the provision of alternative means of determining of fatigue strength based on testing of specimens taken from a full size crankthrow it is proposed a size correction factor should be established, or to develop procedures for specimen testing in order to provide for a common basis of acceptance of such fatigue test results.
CIMAC remark: CIMAC see the development of a common basis for the acceptance of fatigue test results outside the scope of the UR M53 revision. The wording in M53.6 as proposed is now consistent with the procedures followed since many years. 4) M53.2.1.3 The calculation of alternating bending stress does not take into account alternating axial stress. For crosshead type engines LR Rules take into account axial alternating stress derived from forced-damped calculations. The section includes a procedure for calculating alternating bending and torsional stresses in outlet of oil bore. LR Rules do not publish a procedure but require that a fatigue strength calculation or alternative fatigue test results may be required to demonstrate acceptability of the design. Whilst no objection is raised to the proposed approach its accuracy is crucially dependent on the evaluation of the stress concentration for the oil hole. In the absence of a detailed justification, LR would continue to require, perhaps as an alternative to the proposed calculation method full fatigue analysis or experimental results. 5) M53.3 The dimensional ratio r lower limit is extended to 0.015, LR Rules limit this to 0.03. It is not clear on what grounds this extension is proposed. CIMAC remark: The discussion to extended the range of the parameter r from the current value of 0.03 down to lower values dates back some years. Meanwhile technical progress has obviated this range extension, as it is unlikely that modern crankshaft designs show fillet radii with the parameter r below 0.03. The latest draft M53 therefore goes back to the original range for the parameter r with a lower limit of 0.03.
6) M53.4 These stresses indicate that the misalignment component considered is 10N/mm2 and that for the crosshead engines, assuming the same level of misalignment the axial component is 20N/mm2. LR would recommend that the value of 20N/mm2 should be used only as guidance where no axial vibration calculations are available. It is considered that this value may be too high for a majority of systems operating away from axial or torsional (cross coupled effect should be considered) natural frequencies. CIMAC remark: CIMAC agree with this recommendation, nevertheless the wording of the UR M53 issue 1986 is carried over to the latest draft M53. 7) M53.8 The background to the expression in paragraph 8.2 is requested.
CIMAC remark:
Literature Auslegung elastisch-plastisch beanspruchter Pressverbnde Author Franz Gustav Kollmann published in "Forschung Ing.-Wes." Vol. 44 (1978) NR. 1, p. 1 11 DIN 7190 "Pressverbnde, Berechnungsgrundlagen und Gestaltungsregeln" A reply to the points raised a copy of the development process for the proposed changes that include technical justifications would assist in the final acceptance of the proposals by the WP/MCH. Norman Rattenbury Lloyds Register of Shipping 26th September 2001
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004)
02/10/2000
UR M53 REVISED EDITION

MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECIDED WORDING DURING CIMAC W.G. MEETING (15/16th APRIL 1999) AND FINAL WORDING PRESENTED IACS/CIMAC COMMON MEETING (11th NOVEMBER 1999)
53.2.2.2. CALCULATION OF NOMINAL ALTERNATING TORSIONAL STRESS NEW TEXT IS ONLY CLEARER ON DEFINITION, METHOD AND USE OF METHOD.
02/10/200
PRESENTATION OF CIMAC W.G. C.D. WORK
DURING COMMON MEETING CIMAC/IACS HELD IN OSLO 11th OF NOVEMBER 1999
02/10/2000
UR M53
CIMAC PROPOSAL SYNTHESIS
WHAT WAS NOT CHANGED
- CALCULATION PRINCIPLE - NOMINAL STRESS CALCULATIONS - STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTORS CALCULATIONS - FATIGUE STRENGTH FORMULA - SHRINKFIT CALCULATIONS IN CASE OF SEMI-BUILT CRANKSHAFT - MINIMUM SAFETY COEFFICIENT FACTOR FIGURE
10/11/1999
UR M53
WHY NO CHANGE ?
AFTER YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, PRESENT METHOD GIVES GENERALLY PRETTY GOOD RESULTS ON THE SAFE SIDE. IT MINIMIZES AMOUNT OF WORK. IT SHOULD BE EASIER TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON UPDATED VERSION BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES.
10/11/1999
UR M53
WHY CHANGES ?
IN ORDER TO HAVE A SAFER DESIGN OF CRANKSHAFT (SAFETY FACTOR AROUND OIL HOLE). IN ORDER TO BE MORE WELL SUITED TO NOWADAYS CRANKSHAFT DESIGN (EXTENSION OF CONCENTRATION FACTOR RANGE AND GEOMETRICAL PARAMETERS OF SEMI-BUILT CRANKSHAFT). IN ORDER TO AVOID MISTAKE IN APPLYING THE U.R. BY AVOIDING AMBIGUOUS DEFINITIONS. IN ORDER TO OPEN THE U.R. TO ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES (SURFACE TREATMENT, FATIGUE STRENGTH, F.E. CALCULATIONS, ).
11/10/1999
UR M53
MAIN IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY PRESENTED TO IACS AND DOCUMENTED

SAFETY FACTOR CALCULATION AROUND CRANKPIN OIL HOLE (ONLY IN CASE OF DIAMETRAL ONE). EXTENSION OF SOME CONCENTRATION FACTORS RANGE (ONLY WHEN FEASIBLE ACCORDING TO PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS). IMPROVED DEFINITIONS OF CALCULATION PRINCIPLE, VARIOUS STRESSES AND STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTORS. (IN CONSISTENCY WITH ANALYSIS METHOD USED AT CREATION OF PRESENT U.R.). CLARIFICATION CONCERNING GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS OF CRANKSHAFT. (SPECIALLY IN CASE OF 2 STROKES ENGINES)
10/11/1999
UR M53
WHAT WAS IMPROVED SINCE OUR LAST MEETING ACCORDING TO IACS/WP REQUESTS
MORE PRECISE DEFINITION OF EQUIVALENT ALTERNATING STRESSES USED IN U.R. THESE DEFINITIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY 2 APPENDIXES INCLUDED IN CIMAC PROPOSED TEXT : - APPENDIX 1 FOR STRESSES IN FILLETS - APPENDIX 2 FOR STRESSES AROUND OIL HOLE
NEW PARAGRAPH CONCERNING FATIGUE STRENGTH OF CRANKSHAFT TO ALLOW AS AN ALTERNATIVE CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY APPROVED EXPERIMENTAL METHODS BASED ON SAMPLE RESULTS (AND NOT ON FULL SCALE CRANKTHROW).
02/10/2000
UR M53
IACS POSITION AFTER PRESENTATION OF CIMAC UR M53 REVISED TEXT :
NEW PROPOSAL IS CLEARER AND DOES NOT NEED MUCH INTRODUCTION AND SUPPORT INFORMATION.
SOME PRECISIONS AND MODIFICATIONS ARE STILL ASKED TO CIMAC C.D. W.G.
DETAILED REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL IS REQUESTED TO EACH MEMBER OF IACS/WP/MCH BEFORE END OF YEAR 2000.
02/10/2000
Revision of Unified Requirements UR M53, Calculation of Crankshafts for Internal Combustion Engines Task 8.
Mr. Bertrand, chairman CIMAC WG-Crankshaft Dimensions (CD) gave a presentation on the subject and informed about the new CIMAC proposal for revised UR M53. It was emphasized that fundamental parts had not been altered, but that weak areas had been improved and volume thus increased from earlier 15 pages to now 30. In the presentation and the subsequent discussion the following was highlighted : - The new proposal is clearer than earlier versions and do not need much introduction and support information. However, when submitting the final proposal to WP/MCH, CIMAC was requested to provide documentary evidence of : (a) Specific reasons for individual requirement changes. (b) That the changes have the full support of all associated manufacturers of 2 and 4 stroke engines. - Current proposal is to be considered as a temporary proposal. Even when accepted and included in the IACS UR, the work within CIMAC, aiming at further improvements, will continue in line with the technical development. - Shrink fit criteria are not covered by the current proposal. This is a task for future development/revisions. - The new proposal is covering steel crankshafts, and is not suitable for crankshafts made from cast iron. - It is important that criteria are well defined. GLs experience from last IACS audit clearly illustrated how difficult it could be to explain to an auditor on what basis approval was made when not in compliance with current UR M53. - The new proposal (ref. top of page 4) have a paragraph which opens for the use of other criteria than those given in the UR itself. A number of WP/MCHs members found this somewhat confusing and expressed that lack of common minimum requirements, could involve that members in principle were free to accept designs on a subjective basis. This could mean that we do not have Unified Requirements, but Unified Recommendations. Is this considered sufficient for crankshafts ? - With basis in above, it was considered mandatory that the UR M53 gave clear criteria/definition as to what could be considered as equivalent methods . Accordingly, and upon request, Mr. Sandberg, DNV produced a proposal for definition/interpretation of the term equivalent intended applied for the new proposal to UR M53. The proposal with ref. to M53, page 4, amendment to 1.1 scope : . equivalence to these rules, reads : Equivalence is understood as : No alteration in principles affecting non apparent safety factors, i.e. the assumption of max bending and max torsion coinciding in time and position is to be maintained together with the acceptability factor. Empirical methods as e.g. calculation of nominal stresses, stress concentration factors, combination of stresses, fatigue strength, etc may be replaced by more relevant methods of It was agreed that : 0. Copy of the presentation given by Mr. Bertrand should be submitted WP/MCHs chairman (preferably in electronic form) for distribution to the WP/MCH members. Status : Not yet received. Reminder is hereby given. 1. All WP/MCH members should evaluate above definition together with the already distributed proposal for revision of UR M53. 2. All WP/MCH members should perform a detail review of the proposal submitted (together with above definition of equivalency) and revert with their comments to WP/MCHs chairman within end of this year. In this respect due attention should also be paid to the language and terms used. (In some places, translation to English (from French and German) have resulted in some unfortunate terms/wording, which need to be evaluated and considered corrected, e.g. W is defined as second moment of area).
02/10/2000
SHORT HISTORY OF UR M53 TECHNICAL EVOLUTION (1986 1999)

SEPT. 91 (PARIS) : First discussions about oil hole safety factor calculation. JUNE 92 (PARIS) : Definition, then edition, of Basic Documents on which are based the original version of UR M53. Discussion on the range of validity for SCF parameters. JUNE 93 (PARIS) : Proposal for introducing plasticity criteria in shrinkfit. Approval of oil hole method. Approval of decisions concerning SCF parameters extension range. OCT. 94 (WINTERTHUR) : Discussion about new definition for W and B. Proposal for calculation of shrinkfit with plasticity. JUNE 97 (PARIS) : Approval of modification concerning W, B and shrinkfit calculations with plasticity.
1/2
02/10/2000
JUNE 98 (COPENHAGEN) : 1st complete rewording of UR M53 incorporating : * Oil hole safety coeff. calculation method * Extension range of SCF factors * Clear definitions of various parameters consistently with Basic Documents * Cancellation of proposed method about plasticity effects during shrinkfit 1st discussion about future of UR M53
APRIL 99 (ST NAZAIRE) :
Definitive revision of UR M53 agreed by all W.G. members with addition of : * Appendix for clear explanation of SCF. * Possibility of DW determination by alternative experimental method. State of art in crankshaft design presented by each W.G. member. OCT. 99 : Presentation to IACS WP/MCH of previous revised edition of UR M53 (with only one editorial modification).
2/2
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for UR M53 Rev.2, Jan 2011

1. Scope and objectives The present UR M53 does not cater for some of the current designs of crankshaft and the Industry through CIMAC have proposed an alternative calculation procedure. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale The analytical method in UR M53 is based on empirical formulae developed from strain gauge measurements of various crank geometries. Use of these formulae beyond any of the various validity ranges can lead to erroneous results in either direction, i.e. results that are more inaccurate than indicated by the mentioned standard deviations. Therefore the FEM-based method is highly recommended and this Technical Background is taken from the work undertaken by CIMAC. The SCFs calculated according to the rules of this document are defined as the ratio of stresses calculated by FEM to nominal stresses in both journal and pin fillets. When used in connection with the present method in M53 von Mises stresses shall be calculated for bending and principal stresses for torsion or when alternative methods are considered. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution See Proposal by CIMAC WG4 ST-08-044 dated 29.06.2009. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: See Proposal by CIMAC WG4 ST-08-044 dated 29.06.2009. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions Proposal by CIMAC WG4 ST-08-044 dated 29.06.2009 was subject to extensive discussion regarding the validity of the proposal. A major concern was the lack of far reaching validation offered. It was for this reason that the proposal has been accepted as an alternative only where the current prescriptive rules in UR M53 are out of bounds and not as a means to replace UR M53 in its entirety. 6. Attachments if any Proposal by CIMAC WG4 (IACS UR M53, Appendix III Guidance for calculation of Stress Concentration Factors in the web fillet radii of crankshafts by utilizing Finite Element Method
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MACHINES A COMBUSTION
INTERNAT IONAL COUNCIL ON COMBUST ION ENGINES
CO-ORDINATING WORKING GROUP

"CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES DIESEL"
(WG2)
Proposal by CIMAC WG4

ST-08-044 29.06.2009
IACS UR M53, Appendix III

Guidance for calculation of
Stress Concentration Factors

in the web fillet radii of crankshafts by utilizing Finite Element Method
-2-
Index
1. 2. General................................................................................................................ 3 Model requirements............................................................................................. 3 2.1. Element mesh recommendations..................................................................... 3 2.2. Material ............................................................................................................ 4 2.3. Element mesh quality criteria ........................................................................... 4 2.3.1. Principal stresses criterion......................................................................... 5 2.3.2. Averaged/unaveraged stresses criterion ................................................... 5 3. Load cases .......................................................................................................... 5 3.1. Torsion ............................................................................................................. 5 3.2. Pure bending (4 point bending)........................................................................ 7 3.3. Bending with shear force (3 point bending)...................................................... 8 3.3.1. Method 1.................................................................................................. 10 3.3.2. Method 2.................................................................................................. 10
-3-
1. General
The objective of the analysis is to substitute the analytically calculated Stress Concentration Factors (SCF) at the crankshaft fillets by suitable Finite Element Method (FEM) calculated figures. The analytical method is based on empirical formulae developed from strain gauge measurements of various crank geometries. Use of these formulae beyond any of the various validity ranges can lead to erroneous results in either direction, i.e. results that are more inaccurate than indicated by the mentioned standard deviations. Therefore the FEM-based method is highly recommended. The SCFs calculated according to the rules of this document are defined as the ratio of stresses calculated by FEM to nominal stresses in both journal and pin fillets. When used in connection with the present method in M53 von Mises stresses shall be calculated for bending and principal stresses for torsion or when alternative methods are considered. The procedure as well as evaluation guidelines are valid for both solid cranks and semibuilt cranks (except journal fillets). The analysis is to be conducted as linear elastic FE analysis, and unit loads of appropriate magnitude are to be applied for all load cases. The calculation of SCF at the oil bores is at present not covered by this document. It is advised to check the element accuracy of the FE solver in use, e.g. by modelling a simple geometry and comparing the stresses obtained by FEM with the analytical solution for pure bending and torsion. Boundary Element Method (BEM) may be used instead of FEM.
2. Model requirements
The basic recommendations and perceptions for building the FE-model are presented in 2.1. It is obligatory for the final FE-model to fulfil the requirement in 2.3. 2.1. Element mesh recommendations In order to fulfil the mesh quality criteria it is advised to construct the FE model for the evaluation of Stress Concentration Factors according to the following recommendations: o The model consists of one complete crank, from the main bearing centreline to the opposite side main bearing centreline. o Element types used in the vicinity of the fillets: 10 node tetrahedral elements 8 node hexahedral elements 20 node hexahedral elements o Mesh properties in fillet radii. The following applies to 90 degrees in circumferential direction from the crank plane:
-4-
o o o o o o
Maximum element size a=r/4 through the entire fillet as well as in the circumferential direction. When using 20 node hexahedral elements, the element size in the circumferential direction may be extended up to 5a. In the case of multi-radii fillet r is the local fillet radius. (If 8 node hexahedral elements are used even smaller element size is required to meet the quality criteria.) Recommended manner for element size in fillet depth direction First layer thickness equal to element size of a Second layer thickness equal to element to size of 2a Third layer thickness equal to element to size of 3a Minimum 6 elements across web thickness. Generally the rest of the crank should be suitable for numeric stability of the solver. Counterweights only have to be modelled only when influencing the global stiffness of the crank significantly. Modelling of oil drillings is not necessary as long as the influence on global stiffness is negligible and the proximity to the fillet is more than 2r, see figure 2.1. Drillings and holes for weight reduction have to be modelled. Submodeling may be used as far as the software requirements are fulfilled.
Figure 2.1. Oil bore proximity to fillet. 2.2. Material UR M53 does not consider material properties such as Youngs Modulus (E) and Poissons ratio ( ). In FE analysis those material parameters are required, as strain is primarily calculated and stress is derived from strain using the Youngs Modulus and Poissons ratio. Reliable values for material parameters have to be used, either as quoted in literature or as measured on representative material samples. For steel the following is advised: E= 2.05105 MPa 2.3. Element mesh quality criteria If the actual element mesh does not fulfil any of the following criteria at the examined area for SCF evaluation, then a second calculation with a refined mesh is to be performed. and =0.3.
-5-
2.3.1. Principal stresses criterion The quality of the mesh should be assured by checking the stress component normal to the surface of the fillet radius. Ideally, this stress should be zero. With principal stresses 1, 2 and 3 the following criterion is required:
min
1
0.03 max
2.3.2. Averaged/unaveraged stresses criterion The criterion is based on observing the discontinuity of stress results over elements at the fillet for the calculation of SCF: Unaveraged nodal stress results calculated from each element connected to a nodei should differ less than by 5 % from the 100 % averaged nodal stress results at this nodei at the examined location.
3. Load cases
To substitute the analytically determined SCF in UR M53 the following load cases have to be calculated. 3.1. Torsion In analogy to the testing apparatus used for the investigations made by FVV the structure is loaded pure torsion. In the model surface warp at the end faces is suppressed. Torque is applied to the central node located at the crankshaft axis. This node acts as the master node with 6 degrees of freedom and is connected rigidly to all nodes of the end face. Boundary and load conditions are valid for both in-line and V-type engines.
-6-
y x z
Multi-point constraint: All nodes of cross section are rigidly connected to central node (= master)
Load: Torque T applied to central node
Boundary Conditions: DOFs for all nodes are fully restrained u x,y,z = 0
Figure 3.1 Boundary and load conditions for the torsion load case. For all nodes in both the journal and crank pin fillet principal stresses are extracted and the equivalent torsional stress is calculated: max
1 2
equiv
The maximum value taken for the subsequent calculation of the SCF:
equiv ,
T T
N equiv , N
where N is nominal torsional stress referred to the crankpin and respectively journal as per UR M53 2.2.2 with the torsional torque T:
T WP
-73.2. Pure bending (4 point bending) In analogy to the testing apparatus used for the investigations made by FVV the structure is loaded in pure bending. In the model surface warp at the end faces is suppressed. The bending moment is applied to the central node located at the crankshaft axis. This node acts as the master node with 6 degrees of freedom and is connected rigidly to all nodes of the end face. Boundary and load conditions are valid for both in-line- and V- type engines.
y x z
Multi-point constraint: All nodes of cross section are rigidly connected to central node (= master)
Load: In-plane bending by moment M applied at central node
Boundary Conditions: DOFs for all nodes are fully restrained u x,y,z = 0
Figure 3.2 Boundary and load conditions for the pure bending load case. For all nodes in both the journal and pin fillet von Mises equivalent stresses extracted. The maximum value is used to calculate the SCF according to:
equiv ,
equiv
are
B B
N equiv , N
-8Nominal stress
N
is calculated as per UR M53 2.1.2.1 with the bending moment M:
M Weqw
3.3. Bending with shear force (3-point bending) This load case is calculated to determine the SCF for pure transverse force (radial force, Q ) for the journal fillet. In analogy to the testing apparatus used for the investigations made by FVV, the structure is loaded in 3-point bending. In the model, surface warp at the both end faces is suppressed. All nodes are connected rigidly to the centre node; boundary conditions are applied to the centre nodes. These nodes act as master nodes with 6 degrees of freedom. The force is applied to the central node located at the pin centre-line of the connecting rod. This node is connected to all nodes of the pin cross sectional area. Warping of the sectional area is not suppressed. Boundary and load conditions are valid for in-line and V-type engines. V-type engines can be modelled with one connecting rod force only. Using two connecting rod forces will make no significant change in the SCF.
-9-
y x z
Load: Force F3p applied at central node at connecting rod centre line.
Boundary Conditions: Displacement in z direction for master node is restrained, uz = 0; uy, ux and (axial, vertical displacements and rotations are free)
Multi-point constraint: All nodes of cross section are connected to a central node (= master)
Boundary Conditions: Displacements for master node are fully restrained ux,y,z = 0; (rotations are free)
Boundary Conditions: Displacements in y and z directions for master node are restrained u y,z = 0. ux, (axial displacement and rotations are free)
Figure 3.3. Boundary and load conditions for the 3-point bending load case of an inline engine.
Figure 3.4 Load applications for in-line and V-type engines. The maximum equivalent von Mises stress 3P in the journal fillet is evaluated. The SCF in the journal fillet can be determined in two ways as shown below.
-103.3.1. Method 1 This method is analogue to the FVV investigation. The results from 3-point and 4point bending are combined as follows:
3P N 3P B Q3P Q
where:
3P N3P
B Q3P
as found by the FE calculation. Nominal bending stress in the web centre due to the force F3P [N] applied to the centre-line of the actual connecting rod, see figure 3.4. as determined in paragraph 3.2. = Q3P/(BW) where Q3P is the radial (shear) force in the web due to the force F3P [N] applied to the centre-line of the actual connecting rod, see also figures 3 and 4 in M53.
3.3.2. Method 2 This method is not analogous to the FVV investigation. In a statically determined system with one crank throw supported by two bearings, the bending moment and radial (shear) force are proportional. Therefore the journal fillet SCF can be found directly by the 3-point bending FE calculation. The SCF is then calculated according to
3P BQ N 3P
For symbols see 3.3.1. When using this method the radial force and stress determination in M53 becomes superfluous. The alternating bending stress in the journal fillet as per UR M53 2.1.3 is then evaluated:
BG BQ BFN
Note that the use of this method does not apply to the crankpin fillet and that this SCF must not be used in connection with calculation methods other than those assuming a statically determined system as in M53.
4.
Tasking of WP/MCH
Technical Background To DELETION OF F 30

&
NEW UR M 62 (Feb. 2002)

In the WP/FP+S Progress Report No.34 (March 2001), the WP/FP+S proposed to transfer three parts of F30 as interpretations (three UI SCs) and to drop the rest, as they were adequately covered by SOLAS and other interpretations. (Task No.31: To re-formulate F30, F34 and F35 into UIs or RECs as appropriate) The following steps have been taken: 1. GPG agreed to completely delete F30 from the Blue Book at its 50th meeting (Tokyo, March 2001); 2. GPG approved the three UI SCs 162, 163, and 164, as proposed by WP/FP+S, which were not covered by the Convention; 3. After GPG 50, LR confirmed that the WP/MCHs proposed amendment to F30.2.7 (The rooms where the pump mover) was not contained in the Convention, however, it was already contained in LR Rules. LR had no objection to it being a UR on Machinery. Finally, GPG agreed that the proposed amendment to F30.2.7 should be classified as UR M 62 Rooms for emcy fire pumps in cargo ships.
Outcome 1. Deletion of F30. 2. Creation of new UR M62. 3. Creation of three UI SCs 162, 163, and 164.
Information GPG agreed that F30.4.1 should be formulated as a UI if it is not dealt with in the SOLAS text. The text was prepared by WP/MCH with due consideration to practical difficulty for larger ships in meeting M 46 inclination requirements. However, having identified a need to define lightest seagoing condition in the draft UI SC zzz, GPG tasked WP/FP+S to consider Members experience of plan approval work and performance test after installation of emcy fire pump systems in consultation with CG/LSA (Refer to the outcome of WP/FP+S Task 39).
Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat
(submitted on 30 August 2001)
Technical Background for IACS UR M63 (New)
Current Unified requirements address, to a limited extent alarms and safeguards for emergency diesel engines. The purpose of an emergency diesel engine is to act as an alternative source of power for essential services for the safety of the ship in the event of the main source(s) being out of action or unavailable. It was therefore considered that requirements for automatic shutdown of such engines should be investigated to ensure consistent application of requirements regarding provision of automatic safeguards. The WP/MCH has been tasked to investigate, develop and propose Unified requirement for alarms and safeguards for emergency diesel engines, including: requirements for alarms for the engine operating parameters that could affect the prolonged operation of the engine (e.g. high cooling temperature, LO low pressure and leakage of FO injection pipe); requirements for automatic shutdown of the engine when immediate breakdown of the engine (e.g. overspeed) is imminent; requirements for automatic shutdown in other cases (e.g. low cooling water pressure and use of over-ride arrangements).
In addressing the above, the WP reviewed SOLAS requirements applicable to emergency diesel engine operation, has established philosophy for alarms and safeguards for emergency diesel engines, has considered safeguards contained in URs M2, M3.2, M36 and of SOLAS regulation II-1/27.5, as a possible basis when determining safeguards applicable for emergency diesel engines. The initial draft UR had been agreed by the WP, approved by GPG in March 2002 and submitted to Council in May 2002. Subsequently, in light of comments raised by Council Members the draft had been referred to WP/EL and WP/FP&S for their review and comments to WP/MCH. Having received in September 2004 the comments from these two WGs, WP/MCH unanimously agreed the second drat UR which was submitted to GPG on 16 November 2004.
15/12/2004 KP
(IACS UR M64, 2003) Technical background to the adoption of the new IACS UR M64
The scope of this new IACS UR has been derived from the investigations into the IEVOLI SUN casualty and possible lessons to be considered. This chemical tanker had installed an integrated cargo and ballast system driven by a hydraulic power pack. The power supply to the circuit was common with other consumers located in the forecastle space. The flooding of the forecastle space caused short circuit in an electric switch of component of the bow thruster thus determining the automatic shutdown of the integrated system. Due to this emergency stop, both the cargo and ballast pumps became inoperable. The activation of the ballast pumps would have delayed and/or mitigated the consequences of progressive flooding of the double hull spaces through the air vents due to reduction of freeboard.
The IEVOLI SUN had neither the power pack supply nor the control panel located in the fore flooded compartments. However, there are other installations on existing tankers where the power pack or control panels are located in the forward spaces, which might be at risk in the event of damage and flooding of these spaces due to extreme weather conditions. The matter could generally be relevant to any integrated hydraulic or electric system used to drive both cargo and ballast pumps. This type of integrated systems is extensively installed on new tankers. Manufacturers of these systems have been consulted and have agreed the scope and general principles of the IACS UR, which, as intended, is to be applied to new designs of integrated cargo and ballast systems installed on new tankers, irrespective of their size. The identified design features are intended to address designers attention to the fact that in the event of failure of the automatic or remote control system, a secondary means of control is to be made available for the operation of the integrated cargo and ballast system. However, other design features can be found to achieve the same objective. Finally, some of the design features indicated in this IACS UR might be applicable to all remotely controlled cargo and ballast systems and not only integrated systems. Through this IACS UR, designers should become aware that, in general, the operation of remotely controlled cargo and ballast systems may be necessary, under certain emergency circumstances or during the course of navigation, to enhance the safety of tankers. Note: A proposal to establish a lower limit of size application (..tankers of 1,000 DWT and above) in M64.1 was not agreed by GPG.
Submitted by the Chairman of the CG/ICB Date: March 2003
M64-1 IACS Req. 2003
Technical Background Document for new draft UR for Draining and Pumping Forward Spaces in Bulk Carriers 1. Scope and Objective
MSC 76 adopted new SOLAS regulation XII/13 on the availability of pumping arrangements. Thereafter IACS has identified a need for a Unified Interpretation of this regulation that would interpret the arrangements necessary to bring into operation the means for draining and pumping of spaces covered by the regulation. However the argument was put forward, and accepted as valid, that the regulation lacks the requirements for the capacity of dewatering system. Subsequently it was agreed that these requirements are to be additional to the SOLAS regulation, should be applicable to new ships and thus take the form of an IACS UR. The draft UR is written to apply to all new bulk carriers as defined by regulation XII/1.1, of single or double side skin construction, and has no ship length limitations. 2. Points of discussion
The first draft was given to the WP by GPG with a task to review the draft in light of GPG Members comments. These comments had focused on one aspect of the draft UR that had proposed to regulate the capability of the dewatering system by means of specifying the speed of removing water through a piping system. WP Members had reviewed their GPG Members objections to that aspect of the draft. Two Members (ABS and NK) did not consider it necessary to specify a minimum speed for removing the water from the forward spaces, as per item 1. b) of the original draft, in addition to the dewatering rate specified under item 1.a). 3. Source/derivation of proposed amendments
MARIN reports made available to the Derbyshire Formal Inquiry include identification of testing that in typhoon "Orchid" conditions with the ship in its intact state, initial flooding through one open 500mm diameter hole could be as much as 63 tonnes per hour. Once flooding had commenced, the rate could increase rapidly to values between 100 to 650 tonnes per hour. For the purpose of identifying a realistic dewatering rate as a minimum requirement, the 63 tonnes per hour through a 500 mm opening has been used as a basis for any size opening. In round figures, 320 A m3/hr equates to 63 tonnes/hr through a 500 mm opening. 4. Decision
As mentioned in section 2 above, 2 Members have explicitly agreed to the draft UR subject to deletion of the speed of dewatering requirement. With tacit acceptance by the remaining Members the draft was agreed by consensus. KP
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2
GYH
29/11/2005
Page 2 of 2
29/11/2005
Page 1 of 2
GYH
Cc:
24/11/2005
Page 2 of 2
24/11/2005
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Technical Background Document UR M66 Rev.1 (October 2006)

Type Testing Procedure for Crankcase Explosion Relief Valves
Scope and objectives UR M66 is currently issued as Corr.1 with an application from 1 January 2007. During discussions at the joint Machinery Panel/CIMAC meeting in September 2005 it was the common view that UR M66 requires some further improvements/ clarifications. Accordingly, a new task for the Machinery Panel was raised (PM5104) and the Panel tasked to revise M66 with a view to address CIMAC concerns and to remove errors and ambiguities. Points of discussion or possible discussions Changes to UR M66 are mainly of an editorial nature to clarify specific requirements. In the course of the review process comments were received from CIMAC, Penn-Troy Manufacturing and Pyropress (see Appendix). CIMACs comments were discussed at the joint Machinery Panel/CIMAC meeting in September 2005 and again at the CIMAC WG2 meeting on 7 September 2006 and at the joint Machinery Panel/ CIMAC meeting on 19 September 2006. The Panels response is indicated in the attached CIMAC proposal of 22 September 2005. All comments were taken into consideration by the Panel in the review process. Penn-Troy Manufacturing approached IACS with a concern about the applicability of UR M66 to their explosion relief valves which feature internal oil wetting of the flame arrester as part of the design. The Machinery Panel considered this issue and agreed to add a Note under paragraph 1.2 allowing for this feature. Pyropress UK approached IACS with concerns about the M66 requirement for a free area of explosion relief valves of not less than 115 sq cm per cubic metre of crankcase gross volume as their valves are designed for a ratio of typically 700 sq cm per cubic metre. The Panel agreed that as long as the purpose in item 3 of M66 is verified the prescriptive requirements relating to the 115 ratio need not be insisted upon. To that effect a new Note 2 was introduced in paragraph 4.1.11. LR recalled that the origins of the minimum standard of 115 sq cm per cubic metre for crankcase relief stem from work carried out in the late 1940s and 1950s and theory presented by Benson and Burgoyne on ignition in closed spherical vessels with central ignition. The final draft text of M66 was sent to CIMAC on 21 July 2006 with a four week deadline for comments. A corrigendum for item 7.2.1.1 was sent on 17 August 2006. CIMAC reverted on 1 September 2006 with a proposal to modify item 9 Design series qualification (see Appendix). This proposal was discussed at the CIMAC WG2 meeting on 7 September 2006 and at the joint Machinery Panel/ CIMAC meeting on 19 September 2006 and further modified as reflected in the new paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4. The Panel at its 4th meeting (19 22 September 2006) considered whether the new paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4 constitute technical changes rather than clarifications. It was the Panels view that they are relaxations compared with the previous requirements and should therefore not affect the implementation date of 1 January 2007.
Source/derivation of proposed requirements N/A Decision by Voting (if any) The revised text was agreed unanimously by Panel members. Appendix The following comments from industry were received in the course of the revision of M66 (attached): - CIMAC (22 September 2005) - Penn-Troy Manufacturing (26 May 2006) - Pyropress (9 March 2006) - CIMAC (1 September 2006)
Machinery Panel Chairman 25 September 2006
Permanent Secretariat Note: Subject no. 4069g agreed by GPG and Council 16 October 2006 (IGq).
Page 2 von 11
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MACHINES A COMBUSTION
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMBUSTION ENGINES
CIMAC CWG CS-D WG2 Proposal towards IACS Machinery Panel

St. Stutz/Secretary WG2 22.09.2005
Subject: Background
New Unified Requirement IACS UR M66
As the final text in IACS UR M66 has not been discussed with Cimac CWG2 before coming in force and in the light of a usually good cooperation between IACS and Cimac we kindly ask IACS MP to take the below comments into consideration and reconsider the final text and the date for coming in force. For the valve makers it might be difficult to overcome the situation in time as they should get the possibility to prepare themselves (get familiarized) with the new situation. Proposal The date of coming into force of the new UR M66 is strongly recommended to be postponed until a common text has been agreed between IACS, CIMAC and the valve makers and enable the valve makers to prepare themselves. Following M66 items are recommended to be revised taking into consideration the respective comments below: 5.1 We feel that the pressure 0.2 bar is an unnecessary requirement as the valves have to open at 0.05bar and not at 0.2bar (full open at 0.2 bar) Panel: Wording changed to . The pressure in the test vessel is to be not less than atmospheric and is not to exceed the opening pressure of the relief valve. 6.2 The requirements for 0.2bar have been discussed with N. Rattenbury several times. He accepted to specify a lower opening pressure. The IACS requirement 0.2bar means a pressure where the valve is fully open. But it has to be taken into
CIMAC Central Secretariat c/o VDMA e. V. Lyoner Strasse 18 60528 Frankfurt/Germany Tel: +49 69 6603 1567 Fax: +49 69 6603 1566 e-mail CIMAC@vdma.org Internet:www.cimac.com
Page 3 von 11
consideration that these 0.2bar are rather related to the spring characteristic and thus we do not see any inconsistency of a pressure between 0.05 and 0.2bar. -2Furthermore, some trunk engines shall have a higher opening pressure of 0.1bar. For which engines then M66 should be valid? Panel: Wording changed to . demonstrate that the opening pressure is in accordance with the specification within a tolerance of +/- 20 % and The tolerance level of 20% was selected on the basis of the valve manufacturer's published data. It is considered that it is the valve manufacturer rather than the user who should provide the technical data relevant to the product. It is not clear why CIMAC members should wish to re-define the OEM's specification. 7.2.2.3 We propose to revise the text as follows: Provided that the first explosion test successfully demonstrated that there was no indication of combustion outside the flame arrester, a second explosion test without the polythene bag arrangement is to be carried out in as rapid sequence as possible. During the second explosion the valve is to be monitored by video recording and preferably by recording with a heat sensitive camera. Panel: Covered by 7.1.3 and 4.1.5 7.2.2.4 Under this item it is proposed to maintain the valve closed for 10 seconds but under 6.2 a time of 30 seconds is mentioned. Why this discrepancy? Panel: The Panel clarifies that the different time periods required in paragraphs 7.2.2.4 and 6.2 apply to different test conditions (cf. Minutes of joint Machinery Panel/CIMAC meeting, September 2005). 8.1.2 How to check the valve lift? Panel: The Panel clarifies that the objective of this paragraph is to determine the cross sectional area and lift after an explosion (cf. Minutes of joint Machinery Panel/CIMAC meeting, September 2005). 8.1.7 Where do these values come from 0.3bar underpressure for 10 seconds? See also 7.2.2.4.
Page 4 von 11
Panel: These values have been determined from actual field tests/measurements and are considered to provide an acceptable baseline for assessment purposes. The following explanation was provided to CIMAC:
9.1 We propose to revise the text as follows: A series of valves can be approved on the bases of a single test of one device of a medium size if all geometric features of the valve can be scaled linear and that all valves have the same nominal opening pressure and flame arrester fulfil the requirement 9.2. Panel: Propose to keep paragraph 9.1, subject to editorial corrections (cf. Minutes of joint Machinery Panel/CIMAC meeting, September 2005). 9.2 flame screen is to be changed to flame arrester in first and fourth line. Panel: Agreed, the term flame arrester will be used.
Page 5 von 11
IACS Machinery Panel:Email of 21 June 2006 Greg Powers [gwpowers@epix.net]Re: UR M66, Task 5104
Dr. Petersen Thank you for your reply. I too have been traveling and I am sorry for the delay in responding to you. Penn-Troy has done testing some years ago showing the effectiveness of the oil wetted BICERA flame trap. The BICERA Internal Flame Trap was originally researched and patented by BICERA. (now BICERI) In part, their research was in response to a crankcase explosion aboard the REINA DEL PACIFICO. (See link: http://brew.clients.ch/engine.htm ) The oil wetting of the screen comes from the normal splash and spray of oil in a crankcase. It is important that when testing that the oil wetting also be simulated. When Penn-Troy did testing, it was with a small oil pump spraying an oil mist on the screen to simulate a normal crankcase environment. Flame emission was determined by film and direct observations. Regarding the US Coast Guard specifications, they require relief valves with a screen type flame arrestor and also require a minimum of 1.5 in2 of relief area for each cubic foot of crankcase volume. (345 cm2/ 1 Meter3) This is three times the minimum relief area stated in the IACS specifications. One question that has come up is the means of adjusting the volume of the test vessel. In our testing, Penn-Troy regulated the required test vessel volume by adding oil or water to the vessel to reduce the internal air volume of an oversize vessel to match the size valve being tested. I assume that this same method can be used to reduce the internal air volume of the test tanks used for IACS testing. It is a practical way of maintaining the correct volume per section 4.1.12 of M66. Greg Powers ------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Message -----From:MCH-Panel To: gwpowers@epix.net Cc: GYH Sent:Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:52 AM Subject: UR M66, Task 5104
Date: 7 June 2006
Dear Mr Powers, first of all my apologies for the delayed response, I have been out of the office most of the time recently. Regarding your enquiry please be advised as follows: 1. Engines are to be fitted with components and arrangements complying with UR M66 when: a) an application for certification of an engine is dated on/ after 1 January 2007, or b) installed in new ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 January 2007.
Page 6 von 11
IACS Machinery Panel:Email of 21 June 2006 Greg Powers [gwpowers@epix.net]Re: UR M66, Task 5104
1 IACS decided on the application date 1 January 2007 to give industry sufficient time to prepare for the test procedure. Currently the IACS Machinery Panel revises the text of January 2005 to respond to specific feedback from industry. The review is not intended to introduce substantive changes but rather to improve the clarity of certain requirements. The review is due to be completed shortly. 2 The objectives of the test procedure in UR M66 are fourfold:
3.1 To verify the effectiveness of the flame arrester, 3.2 To verify that the valve closes after an explosion, 3.3 To verify that the valve is gas/air tight after an explosion, and 3.4 To establish the level of over pressure protection provided by the valve. The test procedure laid down in UR M66 does not make specific reference to oil wetting of internal flame arresters. In this context it would be of interest to learn which test specification PennTroy Manufacturing uses for its flame arresters, what kind of tests are conducted and how it is verified that no flame passes through the valve. I note from the literature enclosed with your emails that Bicera valves meet specifications from the U.S. Coast Guard, ABS and other classification societies. Which specifications are these? Do they relate to the pressure relief capability or also to the flame arrester? I look forward to hearing from you, Regards, Dr Ulf Petersen IACS Machinery Panel Chairman ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ursprngliche Nachricht----Von: Greg Powers [mailto:gwpowers@epix.net] Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Mai 2006 15:30 An: MCH-Panel Betreff: Fw: Reference: UR M66, Task 5104
Dear Dr. Petersen / Machinery Panel Could you update me with your progress on revisions to M66, Crankcase Relief Valves? Our company is concerned with a couple of issues: 1 UR M66 seems to make no provision in the test for oil wetting of the flame suppression screen of relief valves with internal flame traps. Our Bicera Valve has an internal flame trap. The normal oil splash of a crankcase wets the surface of the flame suppression screen and enhances it's effectiveness substantially. The new testing criteria should make allowance for this feature if internal flame traps are used. 2 The Bicera Valve was designed from the beginning to incorporate an internal, oil wetted flame arrestor as well as an external cover to direct the exhaust. The large, external flame arrestor of some valves make it difficult and cumbersome to add a deflector cover because the external flame arrestor takes up so much area. To give the exhausting gasses room to flow between the flame arrestor and the deflector cover would require a very large cover relative to the valve size. The Bicera Valve
Page 7 von 11
does not have any external flame arresting components to inhibit the flow of the gases. The internal flame arrestor has a large surface area relative to the size of the valve, and it's efficiency is increased by oil wetting from the normal oil splash present in crankcases. Please let me know if I can provide any further information. Gregory Powers Penn-Troy Manufacturing
Page 8 von 11
From: martin@pyropress.com Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:40:23 +0000 To: jennydeedman@iacs.org.uk Subject: explosion relief valve, M66 Jenny Thank you for your e-mail and copy of M66. However I have some additional quires which I have initially directed to Collin Wright as the contact I was passed to ref. my telephone conversation 3.3.06. For the attention of Collin Wright. Collin. Reference our recent telephone conversation I have a query concerning IACS standard M66. I understand you may be more of a tank rather than a case expert however if you can help, I have a project of updating and re-certifying our crankcase explosion relief valves. Our valves originated from BICERI (British Internal Combustion Engine Research Institute) from whom we manufactured under licence, these valves have a long track record and have been shown to be affective within the design parameters laid down. We are now looking for registration with relevant approval and with testing to IACS M66. One major difference between the two standards is the relief area to cubic volume. M66 calls for 115 cm sq /M.cu; this relates to a BICERI figure of 700 cm sq /M.cu. M66 section 4.1.12 gives 115 as a minimum " relief valve to be not less than 115 cm sq/ M cu of the gross volume." This would indicate larger relief areas are acceptable, but the testing volume is then tied down to +15% to 10% from the 115 volume ratio. This effectively restricts all valves designed to BICERI criteria, which are fit for purpose if sized appropriately. I would be grateful if you could give any information on the origins of 115 cm sq/ M cu for flame arresters and whether M66 is likely to be amended to accommodate larger relief area valves.
Regards Martin Elver
Page 9 von 11
CIMAC comment on final draft UR M66, 1 September 2006
To: Dr. Ulf Petersen, Chairman IACS Machinery Panel Subject: IACS UR M66, comments to final draft version of 17 Aug. 2006 Dear Mr. Petersen, Referring to your e-mail of 17 August 2006, we ask you kindly to consider the following (very late) comments. We appreciate your effort to finalize the wording on IACS UR M66, and in general, we agree to the text. However, we believe some areas could be defined more precisely. Our objective is that the tests should result in approved valves to be used on diesel engines. For example, on some two-stroke engines valve sizes from 173 to 735 are used. During the tests in 1999, we tested the two sizes of valves 173 on a 1.6 m3 test vessel, and a valve size 420 on a 10 m3 test vessel. Those tests formed the basis for approval of the whole series of valves. We presume that similar test procedure can be used again; however, in Item 3 (Purpose) on page 1, four purposes are mentioned that is 3.1.1 to 3.1.4. In the present IACS UR M 66 revision of August 2006, only Item 3.1.1 is taken in consideration in Item 9. Therefore, we are suggesting the following modifications of Item 9.1 and 9.2: 9.1 A series of valves can be approved on the basis of a single test of one device of a medium size, if all geometric features of the valves are scaled linear, and that all valves have the same nominal opening pressure. In addition, it has to be documented that the spring characteristics ensure that the valve will be completely open at a pressure of 0.2 bar, and that the flame arrester fulfils the requirement in 9.2 9.2 The qualification of quenching devices to prevent the passage of flame can be evaluated for other similar devices of identical type where one device has been tested and found satisfactory. The quenching ability of a flame arrester depends on the total mass of quenching lamellas/mesh. Provided the materials, thickness of materials, depthetc. Beside our comments to item 9, we have a small whish to change the texts in item 7.2.2.3. We believe that the wording and there are no signs of damage to the flame arrester or valve will course many arguments regarding what is considered a damage (?). Conclusively, if the valve is able to function during the second test, then it should be accepted. Nevertheless, we will recommend our customers to replace the flame arrester after a crankcase explosion. For your further information, Cimac WG 2 will have an ordinary group meeting on 7 September 2006, at MTU in Friedrichshafen.
Page 10 von 11
Mr. C Hardler participates as a Cimac member, and Mr. Norman Rattenbury as an IACS representative. The topic IACS UR M 66 is on the Cimac agenda.
Best regards, Kjeld B Hansen Cimac WG2 Chairman
Page 11 von 11
Technical Background, Internal UR M66, Rev.2 (Sept 2007)

Scope and objectives
UR M66 Corr. 1 as currently published on the IACS website has been used as a basis for tests of crankcase explosion relief valves at FTZU in Ostrava, Czech Republic in April 2007. During the tests it became apparent that the location of the flange at 1/3 distance from the end of the test vessel may lead to unstable and not reproducible conditions inside the test vessel after ignition of the methane in air mixture. Furthermore, the flame arresting capability of the valves could not always be clearly determined from observations and video recordings. It was considered necessary by all parties attending the tests (class representatives from LR, GL and RS, engine designers MAN and Wartsila and experts from the test laboratory) to record tests with a heat sensitive camera to identify any possible flame transmission. Valve manufacturers requested fewer valve sizes of one particular design to be tested in order to obtain a balanced requirement for valve sizes to be tested given the considerable effort involved in the tests. The Panel has addressed the points above and made corresponding modifications in Corr. 2 of M66. In addition, some editorial improvements and clarifications were introduced.
Points of discussion
UR M66 Corr. 2 The RS Panel member made two proposals for changes to the M66 Corr. 2. The first relates to tolerances in 4.1.3 (-2.5% instead of -1%). The second suggestion relates to means of ignition in 5.4 (proposal to add or equal alternative means of ignition). RS indicated that these proposals could also be considered in future revisions of M66 and that they did not insist on their implementation at this point in time (PM7101_RSb of 6 June 2007). Since LR and GL explicitly did not support these proposal and no further comments were received from Panel members it was concluded not to adopt these proposals now but to re-consider them in a future revision of M66. Externally, the changes in M66 Corr. 2 were discussed with representatives from MAN and Wartsila at a meeting arranged by GL on 10th May 2007. Both engine builders supported the changes. Implementation date The implementation date of M66, Corr. 1 as published on the IACS website is 1st July 2007. Hoerbiger in particular has expressed concerns about this date, stating that they require 12 to 18 months to set up a new production line and requesting an unspecified extension for the implementation date (cf. Annex 1). Taking into account these concerns RS, KR, NK, DNV and ABS supported a new implementation date for M66, Corr. 2 of 1 January 2008. In principle LR and GL also agreed to this date, however, there was still some discussion in the Panel about the interpretation of the application statement which would then read: Quote Note: Engines are to be fitted with components and arrangements complying with this UR when: 1) an application for certification of an engine is dated on/after 1 January 2008; or 2) installed in new ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 January 2008. Unquote LR, GL and ABS are anxious to implement M66 Corr. 2 at the earliest possible opportunity. In 2006 GL recorded several instances of crankcase explosions while LR recorded 143 crankcase explosions in its classed fleet in the period 1990 to 2001 and several more since. Other members also report crankcase explosions on vessels classed by them. As further discussions about the interpretation of the above Note remained inconclusive, and in view of the urgency of the matter, it was concluded to
page 1 of 4
revert back to GPG and seek advice about the exact wording of the application statement.
Source/derivation of proposed requirements

Experience gained from tests conducted at FTZU in Ostrava in April 2007.
Decision by voting
The revised text of M66 was supported by all members commenting (with the RS concerns outlined above) Regarding the implementation date the positions were as follows: Support for 1 January 2008: RS, KR, NK, DNV, ABS, LR, GL Support for 1 July 2007: CCS Both dates acceptable: IRS No comments: BV, RINA The wording of the application statement remained inconclusive at the time of writing.
Hamburg, 26 June 2007 Chairman IACS Machinery Panel
Permanent Secretariat note (September 2007):
GPG discussion
By 2/3 majority (RS disagreed, DNV did not reply) GPG decided that the new version of UR M66 should be a Rev.2 rather than a Corr.2 since the technical content of the UR has been changed. The technical content of the revised UR M66 was agreed by all replying members. After discussion GPG agreed on the following implementation statement for UR M66 Rev. 2:
"Engines are to be fitted with components and arrangements complying with this UR when: 1) the engine is installed on existing ships (i.e. ships for which the date of contract for construction is before 1 January 2008) and the date of application for certification of the engine is on or after 1 January 2008; or 2) the engine is installed on new ships (i.e. ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 January 2008)."
ABS proposed to withdraw all previous versions of UR M66 since they all appear to be flawed, however as BV currently has files under review which are being certified against UR M66 Corr.1, it was concluded that this was not possible and UR M66 Rev.2 would simply replace Corr.1 for projects covered by the aforementioned implementation statement. UR M66 Rev.2 was approved 14 September 2007, ref. 4069gIGv.
page 2 of 4
Annex 1
page 3 of 4
page 4 of 4
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR M66, Rev.3 January 2008

1. IACS has received several letters from Industry raising concerns about the application of revision 2 of UR M66. As a result of that GPG members were asked to comment on the following issues: (i) Support or disagreement to CCS proposal to move the date in the application statement to 1 July 2008; (ii) Support or disagreement to NK proposal to substitute "the date of application for certification of the engine" with "application for registration of classification (new construction)" in the application statement. 2. With respect to change of the application statement to 1 July 2008: ABS were very reluctant to put back the application statement for the revision of UR M66, but said that if Members are going to reserve on the application date then the only way to get unanimous, uniform application of the revised UR may be to again set back the application date. GL were also reluctant and not in favour of extending the application date for this safety relevant device in general. But they were prepared to grant a period of grace for flame arresters until 30 June 2008. CCS, NK, DNV, RS, BV, KR, RINA and LR could accept to change the date in the application statement to 1 July 2008. RINA proposed a new text as shown below.
It was therefore concluded to change the implementation note in rev.2 of UR M66 according to RINAs proposal. 3. With respect to NKs proposal to substitute "the date of application for certification of the engine" with "application for registration of classification (new construction)", ABS, RS, GL, KR, LR and RINA explicitly objected. CCS and DNV did not comment upon it, and LR said that "we fail to recognise what "application for registration of classification (new construction)" means contractually. For classification purposes there is only one date that counts - date of "contract for construction" of the ship as defined in PR 29. ABS proposed to define the "date of application for certification of the engine" as the date of whatever document the Society requires/accepts as an application or request for certification of an individual engine. DNV, RS, BV, GL, KR, LR and RINA agreed they could support this. Thus the definition was by majority accepted to be incorporated in RINAs aforementioned proposal for a new implementation note. 4. Therefore the revised Item 1) of the implementation Note, incorporating RINA and ABSs proposals, reads as follows:
1) Engines are to be fitted with components and arrangements complying with this UR when: i) the engine is installed on existing ships (i.e. ships for which the date of contract for construction is before 1 July 2008) and the date of application for certification of the engine (i.e. the date of whatever document the Classification Society requires/accepts as an application or request for certification of an individual engine) is on or after 1 July 2008; or ii) the engine is installed on new ships (i.e. ships for which the date of contract for construction is on or after 1 July 2008). (Ref. GPG Chairmans message 4069gIGza, dated 16 January 2008)
Prepared by Permanent Secretariat 17 January 2008
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2
GYH
29/11/2005
Page 2 of 2
29/11/2005
Page 1 of 2
GYH
Cc:
24/11/2005
Page 2 of 2
24/11/2005
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Technical Background Document UR M67 Rev.1 (October 2006)

Type Testing Procedure for Crankcase Oil Mist Detection and Alarm Equipment
Scope and objectives UR M67 is currently issued as Corr.1 with an application from 1 January 2007. During discussions at the joint Machinery Panel/CIMAC meeting in September 2005 it was the common view that UR M67 requires some further improvements/ clarifications. Accordingly, a new task for the Machinery Panel was raised (PM5105) and the Panel tasked to revise M67 with a view to address CIMAC concerns and to remove errors and ambiguities. Points of discussion or possible discussions Changes to UR M67 are mainly of an editorial nature to clarify specific requirements. In the course of the review process comments were received from Schaller Automation, Maersk and Kidde Fire Protection UK (see Appendix). These were taken into consideration by the Panel in the review process. The following changes of a technical nature were made: 5.1.2 (j) 8.1.3 12.2.4 Delete reference to moving parts as also other fluids in pipes or components may cause problems (Schaller comment) Clarification of orientation and adding reference to equipment manufacturers specification (Schaller and Maersk comment) Clarification of Functionality tests (Maersk comment)
Regarding Maersks comment on paragraph 5.1.1(j) the Panel considered that moving parts are those that are free to move when the equipment is inclined under static and dynamic ship movements. The terminology is consistent with that used for other equipment and stems from IACS UR E10 for inclination testing which is well understood by industry. With respect to the requirement in paragraph 6.3 the Panel clarified the intention as follows: - Paragraph 6.4 stipulates a maximum alarm set point of 5% of the LEL. In paragraph 6.3 the lower and upper detection limits are set to 0% and 10% respectively, the maximum detection limit hence corresponding to twice the maximum alarm set point. - Should a manufacturer design an OMD with an oil mist concentration alarm set point below 5% (e.g. 3%) then the lower and upper detection limits are required to be 0% and twice the alarm set point respectively, in this example 6%. The Panel at its 4th meeting (19 22 September 2006) examined the nature of the changes made and considered that the new requirements in 6.7 and 6.8 are of a technical nature rather than purely editorial. The changes are in response to feedback received from industry (Kidde Fire Protection and Schaller Automation). Consequently, a new Note 3 was added setting the implementation date for paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8 to 1 January 2008. The draft text of the UR was sent to CIMAC on 21 July 2006 with a four week deadline for comments. As of 11 September 2006 no comments were received from CIMAC. Source/derivation of proposed requirements N/A
Decision by Voting (if any) The revised text was agreed unanimously by Panel members. Appendix The following comments from industry were received in the course of the revision of M67 (attached): - Kidde Fire Protection UK (25 April 2006) - Schaller Automation (28 June 2006) - Maersk (15 July 2006)
Machinery Panel Chairman 25 September 2006
Permanent Secretariat Note: Subject no. 4069g agreed by GPG and Council 10 October 2006 (IGp).
Page 2 von 6
Commentary on M67 from Kidde. Kidde is fully in support of the aims of M67 in its aim to test the ability of oil mist detectors for use in monitoring engine crankcases to perform to specification and withstand the expected environment. Kidde does, however, oppose the details of the testing methodology for good technical reasons. All currently approved oil mist detectors operate by detecting the effects of light scattered by the oil mist, either by detecting the scattered light directly or by detecting the reduction in intensity of a light beam projected through the mist. Thus, the detected signal is a measure of the light scattering properties of the oil mist and not a direct measure of the mass density of the oil mist. The relationship between the amount of light scattered and the mass density is a complicated function of particle size distribution in the mist, the physical properties of the oil and the wavelength of light used to make the measurement. In particular, the particle size distribution has a strong effect and this can be changed by the chemical composition of the oil, the temperature of the hot surface from which it is evaporated and the environmental conditions in and around the oil mist detector. The particle size distribution of an aerosol, of which an oil mist is an example, can also undergo changes with time after formation due to evaporation, agglomeration or settling. Testing any detector against an oil mist quantified in terms of mass density, therefore, introduces a number of uncertainties which can change the apparent sensitivity of the detector when its properties have remained stable. This problem has been addressed over many years in the approval testing of smoke detectors (an oil mist detector can be considered as a special class of smoke detector) and the agreed methodology is to use an obscuration meter of defined type as a reference instrument. A suitable device is defined, for example, in BS EN 54-7:2001 Annex C. This has the additional advantage of making calibration measurement much more precise, convenient and with continuous real time output. Apart from the uncertainties described above, aerosol mass density measurements by filter sampling is difficult experimentally, relatively time consuming and only provides an average measurement over the sampling period. Of course, in order to calibrate oil mist detectors against an obscuration meter, an agreed calibration of the meter to oil mist mass density under a set of defined conditions needs to be defined. At present, each manufacturer has their own calibration, obtained under different conditions at different test sites, which have been maintained over long periods. It would be useful to the industry and would increase the confidence of end-users if such a calibration was carried out by an independent laboratory under the direction of the IACS.
Dr Brian Powell
Kidde Fire Protection Thame Park Road Thame Oxfordshire OX9 3RT, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1844 265003 Fax: +44 (0)1844 265156
Page 3 von 6
Page 4 von 6
E-mail
To: Attn.: C.c.:
Dear Sirs, IACS UR M10 & UR M67 We have been studying your unified requirements M10 & M67. We do not feel that these documents are describing their intension sufficiently. We have therefore made some comments and questions to the individual paragraphs where definitions or descriptions need to be improved. Please see attachment. We will appreciate if you can bring these comments to the right forum and look forward to get a feedback. We are at your disposal if further clarification to our comments is needed.
IACS Limited. Mr. Richard Leslie
Date: Our ref.: Your ref.:
14 July 2006 General-05/00738-0084 Oil Mist Detectors
E-mail: permsec@iacs.org.uk
Yours faithfully, for MAERSK SHIP DESIGN A/S
Sren P. Arnberg
/Per Hother Rasmussen
Head Office: Postal Address: 50, Esplanaden, DK-1098 Copenhagen K Office Address: 45 3rd floor, Amaliegade, DK-1256 Copenhagen K Phone: +45 3363 3363 Fax: +45 3363 5830 E-mail: cphmsd@maersk.com
Odense Office: Postal Address: P.O. Box 70, DK-5100 Odense C Office Address: 150, Lindoe Alleen DK-5330 Munkebo Phone: +45 6397 2100 Fax: +45 3363 5830 E-mail: cphmsd@maersk.com
CVR no. DK: 15 23 52 09 Reg. no.: 198644
CVR no. DK: 15 23 52 09 Reg. no.: 198644
Page 5 von 6
IACS Unified Requirements M10 / M67 questions / comments. M10.12 We understand it as one central covering more engines is acceptable, when alarm indication is clearly showing which engine is having the alarm / shut-down condition. M10.13 Acceptable test procedures. We find that the Class Societies shall define / describe the test procedures required in order to ensure uniform acceptance by the various surveyors attending. A smoke test shall be performed at shop trial for every engine equipped with an oil mist detector. M10.15 Provide an alarm indication in the event of a foreseeable functional failure Does that cover the wording used in e.g. LR Part 6, Chapter 1, section 2.4.6 ? The safety system is to be designed to fail-safe. The characteristics of the fail-safe operation are to be evaluated on the basis not only of the safety system and its associated machinery, but also the complete installation. Failure of a safety system is to initiate an audible and visual alarm. M10.19 Please see comments for M10.13 M10.20 Time to be as short as reasonable practicable We find that a maximum time elapsing from mist generation starts until detector reacts on same should be defined. Could e.g. be 10 secs from any point of detection on an engine.
M67-5.1.1 j Static and dynamic inclinations, if moving parts are contained. Kindly specify what is understood as a moving part. M67-8.1.2.1 Operating orientation, detector shall be able to operate in both operating directions. M67-12.2.4 b Maintenance & test manual, Functionality tests. How to make a test as realistic as possible? (M10.19)
Page 6 von 6
Part A
UR M68 Dimensions of propulsion shafts and their permissible torsional vibration stresses
Version no. Corr.1 (Mar 2012) NEW (Feb 2005) Approval date 21 March 2012 20 February 2005 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2006
Corr.1 (Mar 2012)
.2 Main Reason for Change: An error in a formula has been discovered which require correction. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The proposed correction has been unanimously agreed. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: 03 January 2012 Made by: a Member Panel Approval: 16 February 2012 GPG Approval: 21 March 2012 (Ref. 12022_IGe)
New (Feb 2005)
Refer to TB document in Part B Annex 1.
Page 1 of 2
Part B

Annex 1.
TB for New (Feb 2005)

Annex 2. TB for Corr.1 (Mar 2012)
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR M68 New, Feb 2005

WP/MCH Task 41 Technical Justification for revision of M33 M37 M38 M39 M48 and new UR M68 CIMAC established a working group (WG14) for the purpose of getting a unified practice among Classification Societies on the topic of shafting and permissible torsional vibrations. This WG14 concluded the work by the end of 2002, however, with a more restricted scope than the original. The original scope included issues for both 4-stroke and 2stroke plants, but it soon became clear that due to the limited time (all to be within 2002) only 2-stroke plants with fixed pitch propellers could be handled. It was the intention of WG14 that the agreements of 2002 should be reflected in the rules of the participating societies. During the IACS MCH meeting in London 2003, it was agreed that actions should be taken versus very old URs, meaning a) confirm b) revise or c) delete. Among other, the above mentioned URs were chosen because: All 5 UR are interconnected and partly repeat each other Reservations were made Several societies practiced considerable deviations from the UR WG14 had concluded on something different (for 2-stroke) Design features for controllable pitch propellers lacking
After revising the technical contents of the 5 URs, it was intended to merge them into one UR. The 4-stroke issues of WG14 (that were not in the agreement of 2002) had little or no relevance for the revision of these URs which only dealt with shafts. Of that reason the revision should include all relevant kinds of shafts. The draft UR replaces M33, M37, M38, M39 and M48. Note: This UR applies to ships constructed for construction from 1 July 2006.
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for UR M68 Corr.1, Mar 2012

1. Scope and objectives It has been discovered that an error in the formula for stress concentration in slots commonly applied for OD shafts. The formula as stated in IACS UR68.7-3 should be updated accordingly. The consequence is improved estimation of stress concentration in slots. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale The original formula, that was based on/verified by FEM parameter studies is as follows: t=2,3 +0,4 With intention of simplifying the equation, by only using parameters usually applied in shafting the following substitutions were made: e=2r => r=e/2 t= leading to the following equation: t=2,3 +0,4 t=2,3 +0,8 however, by error it was applied 0,4 x , rather than 0,4 x 2.
Consequently the following formula has been stated and applied in the requirements: t=2,3 +0,57 leading to:
scf=
+0,57
The correct formulae should be scf= +0,8
3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution None 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: Replace the original formulae with the amended formulae. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any None
New Unified Requirement M69 (June 2008) for Qualitative Failure Analysis for Propulsion and Steering on Passenger Ships
IACS Machinery Panel Task PM5911 NTSB Report MAR/01-01 Recommendation to IACS
Background: A Project Team was established with a specific aim: To evaluate whether the NTSB recommendation is justified and whether IACS needs to develop a UR for qualitative failure analysis for propulsion systems on new passenger ships. Depending on the results of evaluation: a. Draft a letter to NTSB providing technical justification for why IACS considers a qualitative failure analysis is not necessary or b. Develop a UR for qualitative failure analysis for propulsion systems on new passenger ships. Narrative: 1. After evaluating the documentation relating to the incident, the Project Team decided that the best way of handling the issue was to develop a Unified Requirement specifically dealing with the NTSBs concerns 2. Since the NTSB report was issued, it was noted that the IMO had agreed revisions to SOLAS Chapter II-2, Regulation 21 which included safe return to port requirements for passenger ships having a length of 120 m or having three or more main vertical zones. 3. The task was to respond to a request for a "requirement for systems designers, manufacturers, and/or shipyards to perform and submit qualitative failure analysis to ensure the fail-safe operation of propulsion systems on new passenger ships". 4. The NTSB advised that requirements should "not focus solely on redundant propulsion systems". The NTSB in their findings "did not recommend that redundant propulsion systems be required on new passenger ships, nor that qualitative failure analysis should be limited to redundant propulsion systems". The "requirement would be applicable to all new passenger vessels regardless of the propulsion system used". 5. The NTSB further advised that as for the "meaning of the phrase ensure fail-safe operation of propulsion systems, the critical term was identified as fail-safe". The NTSB "recognised that individual components may fail - however the failure or malfunction of an individual component should not propagate through the entire system, resulting in a complete loss of propulsive power". 6. The NTSB also advised that "they believe that a qualitative failure analysis can be used to identify potential failures that could lead to a complete loss of propulsion. This information could help the designer determine what modifications could increase the reliability of the system. Although redundancy is one method that designers can use to achieve high reliability, improving the robustness of non-redundant components might also be an effective way to achieve this objective". 7. The Objectives stated in the draft UR are the keystone of the requirements and the extent of analysis required for different ships and propulsion arrangements needed to identified for ships needing to comply with the safe return to port and those that do not (outside the scope of SOLAS requirements).
Page 1 of 2
8. During the development process it was agreed to include steering arrangements as well as propulsion noting the interdependence for safe manoeuvring of the ship. 9. It was agreed that it would not be effective to carry out failure analysis at component level if all the equipment in a compartment affected by fire or flooding was not available. In effect, where a ship is designed in accordance with the SOLAS safe return to port concept, the arrangements would be such that there would be at least two independent means for propulsion and steering. In such arrangements, it would only be necessary to carry out an analysis of the effects of failure in all the equipment due to fire or flooding in any space or compartment - i.e., all equipment within a space or compartment affected by fire or flooding would be lost. This is reflected Objective 1 in the revised document. Where the ship is not designed in accordance with the safe return to port concept, it would be necessary to carry out an analysis at component level as reflected in Objective 2. This was accepted as a realistic approach. 10. By taking the analysis to a high level for ships designed in accordance with the safe return to port concept, more components will be analysed at the same time and to repeat the analysis for single components would not add value when the result has to prove the availability of propulsion and steering. 11. For ships which are not designed with the safe return to port concept, single component analysis has been added for single systems. 12. The most severe common cause failures - fire and flooding have been identified for analysis which address the NTSB reported failure mode. It was noted that the Ecstasy did not have the analysis required by the final sentence in the Systems to be considered section of the proposed UR. 13. Under the headings Systems to be considered, the list was based on input from the Project Team and Machinery Panel Members and is considered sufficient to cover the systems that could affect the availability of propulsion and steering arrangements. 14. Under the headings Failure Criteria and Verifications of Solutions, these are considered to represent the current state of the art and which again have had extensive input from Machinery panel Members.
Submitted by Machinery Panel Chairman 10 June 2008
Permanent Secretariat note, June 2008: New UR M69 was approved by GPG on 23 June 2008 (ref. 1125_IGs) with an implementation date of 1 January 2010.
Page 2 of 2
IACS
July 2009
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Navigation (UR N)
Res. No. UR N1 Title One man bridge operated (OMBO) ships Current Rev. 1992 HF/TB? No
IACS
Nov 2012
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Pipes and Pressure Vessels (UR P)
Res. No. UR P1 UR P2 UR P3 UR P4 UR P5 UR P6 Rules for pipes Rules for piping design, construction and testing Air Pipe Closing Devices Production and Application of Plastic Pipes on Ships Ballast water systems. Requirements on ballast water exchange at sea. Shell Type Exhaust Gas Heated Economizers That May Be Isolated From The Steam Plant System Title Current Rev. Rev.5 Nov 2001 Rev.7 Sept 2007 Rev.3 Nov 2012 Rev.4 Dec 2008 Del Apr 2011 May 2005 HF/TB? TB TB HF TB TB TB
1999 AHG/PPV Report -
Annex 2
P.1.2.7 Design pressure
The design pressure P to be considered in formula (2) of P1.2.2 is the maximum working pressure and it is not to be less than the highest set pressure of any safety valve relief valve. For special cases, the design pressure will be specially considered. For pipes o containing heated fuel oil heated above 60 C the design pressure is to be taken not less than 14 bar.

Review of UR P1.2.7 Design Pressure Objective and scope At the 20 Meeting of AHG/PPV ABS informed Members that this requirement was relocated from UR F35 (Rev. 2, 1992) however, further it was preceded by first para 0 addressing fuel oils heated above 60 C. ABS noted that existing formulation of UR is too strict for fuel oil transfer systems and proposed to review it. Source of reviewed requirement IACS UR F F35 and P 1.2.7 Points of discussion Members unanimously agreed amendment of P1.2.7.
th
Page 1 of 1
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping Message continued 1
Technical Background Documents

1. Review of UR P1 P3 Objective and Scope
Review of UR P1.2, P2.1, P2.2, P2.3, P2.5, and P3 has been carried out in line with annual Task 1A. The main goal of this review was elimination of ABS reservation. As has been noted by ABS: P1 & P2 have not been implemented since the ABS Rules are formatted around US standards such as ANSI, ASME, USC Regulations, etc. P 1 & P2 are not conductive (sic) to incorporate in the Rules. With regard to P3, it needed to be changed editorially. Additional ABS comments relative to the UR P:
P 1.2.7:
Do not regard 14 bar as design pressure, otherwise, strainers, filters, heaters will have to be designed for 14 bar which may not be practicable. Also the testing pressure for these components will need to 1.5 the design pressure which may be a contentious issue. Accordingly ABS proposed that the 14 bar pressure should be considered as a special safeguard for the joints (see MSC Circ 647 & 851). Working Group needed to discuss and determine whether the 14 bar pressure was applicable to valves also. Further, ABS has been informed by their office in the Pacific that pressure rating of JIS f 7399-1989 Marine Fuel oil Tank Emergency Shut-off valves, commonly used in that region, states that Maximum working pressure shall be 0.098 MPa [ 1kg/cm2 ], although hydraulic inspection for body will be 0.686 MPa. Accordingly, it would not be possible to apply the 14 bar pressure to the suction side of the pump.
IACS Permanent Secretariat Note: After a considerable length of discussion on the design pressure for the associated fittings in P1.2.7, GPG finally agreed to the Table 8. New P1.4 was developed for valves and fittings in the piping systems. (GPG s/n 0077a)
P 2.2 Table (1): There was a need to define what constitutes special safeguard. ABS observation of member societies Rules indicated that there were no provisions made for application of this in the design, construction or operational matters. ABS requested the WG to develop a list of provisions which may be considered special safeguards for various systems conveying flammable, toxic or corrosive media. The reference to toxic and corrosive fluids may be out of place, as such systems were invariably cargo systems, which were outside the scope of P2. Accordingly considerations should be given to deleting this. Source of Proposed Requirements
ABS proposals on correction the UR P1, P2 and P3 circulated by e- mail dated 13 September 2000 has been used as a basis document for revision.
Unanimous agreement has been achieved. 2. Review of UR P 2.7 Types of Connections Objective and Scope Review of UR P2.7 has been carried out in view that some types of widely used for essential service pipe joints have not been covered by existing URs. Source of Proposed Requirements SOLAS - 74 as amended IMO Res. A753 (18) Guidelines for the application of plastic pipes on ships. ISO/NP - 15837 Standard specification for performance of gasketed mechanical couplings for use in piping systems. DNV Type approval of pipe couplings (Part of Certification Notes No 2.9) GL Regulations for the Performance of Type Tests, section 9 Pipe couplings, section 10 Pipe unions. ASTM F 1476 Standard specification for performance of gasket mechanical couplings for use in piping application. ASTM F1387 Standard Specification for Performance of Mechanically Attached Fittings JIS B 0151 Iron and steel pipe fittings - Vocabulary JIS B 2351 25mpa (25 kg/cm2) bite type tube fittings for hydraulic use Points of discussion
Unanimous agreement has been achieved. 3. Review of UR P2.10 Objective and Scope Shipyards are continuously asking to omit the hydraulic test prescribed for distant pieces by alternative method such as NDT based on their successful records and current practice. Source of Proposed Requirements The existing UR P 2.10 and current practice of the Members.
Point of discussion
It was noted that existing requirements to pipe strength calculation as well as to selection of pipe wall thickness can not be applied for distance pieces because their wall thickness are appointed depend upon the thickness of ship's shell. Some Societies are considering it as the part of ship structure but not the part of piping system. In this regard it was unanimously agreed to exclude distance pieces from P 2.10.
UR P2.2, Table 1
Objective and Scope Review has been carried for harmonization of piping classification with new amendments to SOLAS Reg. II/15 Arrangements for oil fuel, lubricating oil and other flammable oils.
Source of Proposed Requirements SOLAS - 74 with Amendments, Rules of IACS Members.
An unanimous agreement has been achieved.
Date of submission: 13 May 1999 By AHG/PPV Chairman
Technical Background Documents

1. Review of UR P1 P3 Objective and Scope
Review of UR P1.2, P2.1, P2.2, P2.3, P2.5, and P3 has been carried out in line with annual Task 1A. The main goal of this review was elimination of ABS reservation. As has been noted by ABS: P1 & P2 have not been implemented since the ABS Rules are formatted around US standards such as ANSI, ASME, USC Regulations, etc. P 1 & P2 are not conductive (sic) to incorporate in the Rules. With regard to P3, it needed to be changed editorially. Additional ABS comments relative to the UR P:
P 1.2.7:
Do not regard 14 bar as design pressure, otherwise, strainers, filters, heaters will have to be designed for 14 bar which may not be practicable. Also the testing pressure for these components will need to 1.5 the design pressure which may be a contentious issue. Accordingly ABS proposed that the 14 bar pressure should be considered as a special safeguard for the joints (see MSC Circ 647 & 851). Working Group needed to discuss and determine whether the 14 bar pressure was applicable to valves also. Further, ABS has been informed by their office in the Pacific that pressure rating of JIS f 7399-1989 Marine Fuel oil Tank Emergency Shut-off valves, commonly used in that region, states that Maximum working pressure shall be 0.098 MPa [ 1kg/cm2 ], although hydraulic inspection for body will be 0.686 MPa. Accordingly, it would not be possible to apply the 14 bar pressure to the suction side of the pump.
IACS Permanent Secretariat Note: After a considerable length of discussion on the design pressure for the associated fittings in P1.2.7, GPG finally agreed to the Table 8. New P1.4 was developed for valves and fittings in the piping systems. (GPG s/n 0077a)
P 2.2 Table (1): There was a need to define what constitutes special safeguard. ABS observation of member societies Rules indicated that there were no provisions made for application of this in the design, construction or operational matters. ABS requested the WG to develop a list of provisions which may be considered special safeguards for various systems conveying flammable, toxic or corrosive media. The reference to toxic and corrosive fluids may be out of place, as such systems were invariably cargo systems, which were outside the scope of P2. Accordingly considerations should be given to deleting this. Source of Proposed Requirements
ABS proposals on correction the UR P1, P2 and P3 circulated by e- mail dated 13 September 2000 has been used as a basis document for revision.
Unanimous agreement has been achieved. 2. Review of UR P 2.7 Types of Connections Objective and Scope Review of UR P2.7 has been carried out in view that some types of widely used for essential service pipe joints have not been covered by existing URs. Source of Proposed Requirements SOLAS - 74 as amended IMO Res. A753 (18) Guidelines for the application of plastic pipes on ships. ISO/NP - 15837 Standard specification for performance of gasketed mechanical couplings for use in piping systems. DNV Type approval of pipe couplings (Part of Certification Notes No 2.9) GL Regulations for the Performance of Type Tests, section 9 Pipe couplings, section 10 Pipe unions. ASTM F 1476 Standard specification for performance of gasket mechanical couplings for use in piping application. ASTM F1387 Standard Specification for Performance of Mechanically Attached Fittings JIS B 0151 Iron and steel pipe fittings - Vocabulary JIS B 2351 25mpa (25 kg/cm2) bite type tube fittings for hydraulic use Points of discussion
Unanimous agreement has been achieved. 3. Review of UR P2.10 Objective and Scope Shipyards are continuously asking to omit the hydraulic test prescribed for distant pieces by alternative method such as NDT based on their successful records and current practice. Source of Proposed Requirements The existing UR P 2.10 and current practice of the Members.
Point of discussion
It was noted that existing requirements to pipe strength calculation as well as to selection of pipe wall thickness can not be applied for distance pieces because their wall thickness are appointed depend upon the thickness of ship's shell. Some Societies are considering it as the part of ship structure but not the part of piping system. In this regard it was unanimously agreed to exclude distance pieces from P 2.10.
Summary of comments of IACS AHG/PPV on External review of UR P2.7.4 & P2.11.

March 2001
Items of UR
Comments and roposals of external bodies on UR P 2.7.4 & P2.11 drafts
Decisions and proposed answers to external bodies developed by AHG/PPV
CHIBRO COMO FAX No 235/SP/00gc dated 03.07.2000 UR P2.7.4 Table 7
Include drawing of Pressfitting Type connection under heading Compression Couplings
Table 8 Table 9 UR P 2.11 Table 10
Ditto Ditto
Agree. Draft will be modified. Term Press Type will be used instead of term Pressfitting Type. Pressfitting is proprietary name and should not be included. Press Type is to be used as generic description. The use of such connections is to be restricted to Class III piping systems and is not to be accepted in steam systems. As the connections include a rubber seal ring they are to be restricted to service as for slip-on joints Agree. Agree.
Include may be performed simultaneously with vibration test Include column pressfitting joints and similar Replace P2.11.5.3.8 with P2.11.5.5.8
Disagree. Actual situation on board is that vibration and pressure pulsation are presented simultaneously Disagree. Press Type is covered by headline Compression couplings Note 2 will be modified as following: except .press type Agree. Disagree. Comment as comment above to Table 10. Disagree. This proposal contradicts with the existing procedures and common practice of the Classification Societies.
P2.11.2 P2.11.3
First line. Add pressfitting First line. Add phrase or by delegate Company
Page 1 of 10
Add phrase linear thermal expansion related to the fluid temperature P2.11.4 Change the second phrase as following: The manufacturer has to submit the evidencethatall the components are adequately resistant to working the media at declared design pressure and temperature Include (maximum, minimum and intermediate sizes).
Disagree. Relates to specific items only. Specific items should be considered on case by case basis. Agree. Phrase will be changed as following: all the components are adequately resistant to working the media at design pressure and temperature specified.
P2.11.5.2
P2.11.5.3
P2.11.5.5.1a)
P2.11.5.5.2a)
Add as following: Were not specified, the length of pipes/tubing to be connected by means of the joint to be tested will be long at least five time of their diameter. Before assembling the joint it shall be verified the conformity of components to the design requirements. In all cases the assembly of the joint shall be carried out only according to the manufacturers instructions. No adjustment operations on the joint assembly, other than that specified by the manufacturer, are permitted during the test. Change the forth para as following: No visual indication leakage or slip out is permitted. In the event where there is a drop in pressure and there is visual indication of leakage or slip off, the test may be repeated. The first line. Add pressfitting joints after pipe unions
Disagree. This inclusion would implicitly require a test on the minimum size and on the maximum size precisely, which is not necessary. For example, range is ND20 to ND500. Size ND40, ND250 and 450 could be representative of the range. ND20 and ND500 are not necessary to be tested. Agree. Phrase will be changed as following: Where not specified, the length of pipes to be connected by means of the joint to be tested is to be at least five times of pipe diameter. Before assembling the joint, conformity of components to the design requirements, is to be verified. In all cases the assembly of the joint shall be carried out only according to the manufacturers instructions. No adjustment operations on the joint assembly, other than that specified by the manufacturer, are permitted during the test.
Disagree. To leave the initial sentence disregarding the proposal. Reason: since tests refer only to the tightness of joints.
Disagree. Comment as in P2.11.2 above.
The third para : add 1.5 of before the word design Change 5% to +5% P2.11.5.5.3 The first line. Add pressfitting joints after pipe unions The third para, add sentence by phrases; at the maximum pressure. Then the pressure will be increased till the breaking-off. This pressure value will be annotated. Add with an increasing rate of 10% per minute after words test pressure.
Disagree. Not necessary because these are tightness tests and in line with appropriated practice, tightness tests are to be carried out at design pressure. Disagree. Proposal is in contradiction with the text. Disagree. Comment as in P2.11.2 above
P2.11.5.5.4
Agree partially. Text will be added by phrase: a t the maximum pressure. This pressure value will be annotated.
Agree. Text will be added by phrase: with an increasing rate of 10% of test pressure per minute.
The second para. Delete and the manufacturer instructions after reference to P2.11.5.3. P2.11.5.5.6 The second para, first line change 30 to 60. Add 10% after 8000 C The second para. Add (3 min) after words is stabilized. Change 5 to 15 in the end of sentence. 2nd : Include test specimen after mechanical joint assembly Add +5% after 170 mbar
Agree.
To leave the initial wording as it is. Reference is made to IACS Unified Requirements UR F42 that is accepted as fire proof test. Disagree. No use in applying such changes. Agree.
P2.11.5.5.7 P2.11.5.5.7
Disagree. To leave the initial sentence as it is. No use in applying such changes.
Tailor Kerr Engineering Ltd, FAX No? Dated 23.07.00 and 24.07.00 1 It is proposed to use definition of AS TM 1476 for Disagreed.
identification of different kind of pipe connections 2 Use symbol from DIN 86128 for identification the Gripe type MJ Adopt fireproof test as prescribed by DIN 86230BS ISO EN 1155140:1999 accept the existing test. Change recommended pressure pulsation test to simple on/of pump test as less expensive. It is proposed to point out position of the measuring thermocouple and place it on 50 mm directly below the specimen. Noted that specimen should be completely engulfed in the flame envelope. Ihara Science corp., FAX No 00033 dated 16.07.00 P2.11.5.5.2 (1) Usage of oil as test fluid is proposed. (2) This proposal is not clear understood. (3) Distance identified as 30 mm has to be differ depending upon the OD of tested specimen P2.11.5.5.3 (1) Trapezoidal waveform diagram with maximum pressure of 1.33 rated pressure in line with ISO 6803 is recommended for pressure pulsation test (2) Reason for adoption of test pressure equal 1.5 of rated pressure is requested (3) Usage of oil as test fluid is proposed.
Definition of ASTM 1476 can not be used due to contradictions both accepted classification of joints and terminology. Disagreed. Each Society has the right to accept any National or International standard, which has not contradictions with URs. Disagreed. Comment as above. Disagree. Actual situation on board is that vibration and pressure pulsation are presented simultaneously. Disagree. The sentence is clear enough. This temperature is temperature on the surface of joint. The 2nd sentence agree. Text will be changed.
3 P2.11.5.5.3 P2.11.5.5.6
Agree. Oil, as testing fluid will be specified. The specimen shown is not intended to depict any specific type of joint. The diagram will be changed to avoid misunderstanding. Disagree. Figure 1 is to be corrected. Distance of 30 mm will be indicated as distance till nearest edge of the joint. Disagree. Connections are intended to marine service is to meet to stricter standard. Systems are required by the rules to withstand pressure 1.5 design pressure i.e. relief valves setting. Accordingly all components within a system should be designed for the same parameters. Agree. Oil as testing fluid will be specified
P2.11.5.5.4 P2.11.5.5.5
(4) Separation of pressure pulsation and vibration test is requested Usage of oil as test fluid is proposed Usage of inert gas as alternative selective option for sealed pressurized fluid is proposed Point out acceptable level of temperature tolerance
Disagree. Actual situation on board is that vibration and pressure pulsation present simultaneously. Agree. Oil as testing fluid will be specified To leave the text as it is. Detection of gas leakage requires specialist equipment and the stored energy in large connections may introduce hazard. Disagree. Reference is made to IACS Unified Requirements UR F42 that is accepted as fire proof test. Disagree. Connections are intended to marine service are to meet stricter standard.
P2.11.5.5.6
P2.11.5.5.8
Reduce number of assembling - disassembling to 8 times.
Straube Werke, FAX dated 24.07.00 UR P2.7.4 P2.7.4.2
First line. Add the phrase or the pipe can get crushed after ...wall thickness Cancel. This problem exists with every pipe joining method. Cancel. If P2.7.4 is followed, there is no supplementary danger on oil systems. Change as following Slip-on joints can be used in pipe lines in cargo holds, tanks, and other spaces which are not easy accessible, limitation of use can be made by the Classification Society.
Disagree. Crushed implies pipe destruction, which is not the intent of the requirement. Disagree. This is contained in every Classification Society Rules.
P2.4.7
P2.4.7.9
Disagree Ditto.
P2.7.4.11
Disagree. Ditto.
Table 8
P2.11.5.5.6
Change footnote 2 as following: Has to be approved by Classification Society for use inside machinery spaces of category A. Is accepted in other Machinery spaces providing the joints are located in easily visible and accessible positions. Fire endurance test installation and accomplishment has to be identical to ISO 19921 respectively DIN 86232
Disagree. Ditto
Disagree. Ditto
RASMUSSEN GMBH FAX No WB / uu dated 12.07.2000 UR P2.7.4. P2.7.1 P2.7.4.9 P2.7.4.10 P2.7.4.11
1) Knob out test is recommended 2) Rasmussens couplings are suitable for this type of application 3) Rasmussens couplings able to compensate some defects cause by incorrect mounting 4) Rasmussens couplings can be used in this condition provided there are fixed points and supports for each pipe lengths. 5) Include the drawing of Flex type connection 6) Make some changes in application of Slip-on joints 7) The wall thickness should be added for Class I, II and III as well as for materials steel, stainless steel and CuNi10Fe The axial forces should be defined by manufacturer.
Disagree. P2.7.1.2 is not connected with P2.7.4. Noted. Noted. Noted.
Table 7 Table 8
Agree. Table 7 will be added by the drawing under heading Slip Type. Disagree. To leave it as it is. Proposed changes of application of Slipon joints are in contrary with requirements of each Society Rules. Disagree. To leave it as it is. Comment as a.m.
Table 9
P2.11 P2.11.5
Disagree. Contradicts with the common practice of IACS Members.
VICTAULIC FAX dated 02.10.2000, e-mail of 29.09.2000 UR P2.7.4 & P2.7.11 P2.11.5.5.6 To make clear distinction between Grooved Type and Grip/Slip Type joints couplings and include Grooved Type Joints in the figures contained in the drafts Victaulic grooved couplings should be accepted for all areas requiring fire resistant pipe connections without additional testing Agree. Text of UR P2.7.4 and P2.11 will be corrected taking into account Victaulics proposals. Disagree. Contradicts with the common practice of IACS Members.
Parker Hanfin Corporation, e-mail of 13.10.2000 1) Parker Hannifin Corporation is submitting suggestions, questions and clarification only for mechanical joints falling into: Compression Coupling category. A) Bite-Type B) Flared Type No comments are targeted at the Welded/Brazed, Grip or Slip type categories. The document uses the terms pipe and piping. Recommend: A) replace pipe with tube/pipe B) replace piping with tubing/piping Most bite-type and flared type Compression Couplings are designed for use with tube. Separation of pressure pulsation and vibration test is requested Noted
2)
Disagree .IACS Requirements as well as Classification Society Rules do not differentiate between tubing and piping. Terminology pipe uses through out a.m. documents. Usage of another terminology in one specific documents may cause confusion
3)
It is our understanding that O-Ring Face Seal (ISO8434-3) tube fittings and tube connection methods (Silver Braze and Mechanical Flange) would be categorized in the Compression Coupling Flared Type. O-Ring Face Seal Fittings are used extensively in hydraulic systems and are currently meet the demanding performance testing mandated by ABS and DNV classed vessels. The Examples of Mechanical Joints Table 7 within P.2.7.4 is not clear as to the inclusion of aforementioned fittings. Most manufacturers of compression and flare fittings currently rely on ISO-8434 as the governing body for dimensional, performance and testing requirements. ISO 8434-5 currently mandates performance testing of these types of mechanical connections. Many of the IACS proposed unified testing requirements are already addressed in ISO-8434-5. It is our recommendation that IACS adopt these industry standard testing requirements where appropriate. A copy has been attached for IACS technical body/expert review. 1st sentence: change intending to intended Why is flare type excluded from the repeated assembly test? Is 150% PD considered an instantaneous spike pressure? If yes, is it a targeted spike or just a permissible aberration?
The opinion of IACS expert group is that where joints imply flanges whether the sealing is by means of joints or O rings, these will be considered as a non standard flange connections, which are covered by UR P2.7.2.
4)
Disagree. Each Society has the right to accept any National or International standard, which has stricter testing requirements.
UR P2.11 P2.11.1 Table 10
Agree. Agree. Note 2 of Table 10 will be corrected.
Fig. 1 and Fig. 3
This is an instantaneous spike pressure. It is a targeted spike. Corresponding changes will be made in Fig.3.
P2.11.5.5.2 a)
S on 0.25 of the yield stress: change stress to strength 1st sentence, 3rd line: change assembles to assemblies 3rd paragraph: change 5 minutes to 0.5 minute What is the rationale behind the equation L ? 1st sentence, 2nd line: change to encounter to to be encountered
Disagree. Stress is common appropriate term when are speaking about the allowable yield sress. Agree. Disagree. Time period of 0.5 min is considered as too short time for visual inspection. Agree. It will be replaced with phi/4. Agree.
P2.11.5.5.3 P2.11.5.5.4 P2.11.5.5.5 P2.11.5.5.7
DEUTSCH METAL COMPONENTS, FAX of 10.06.2000 P2.11 Question: What specification . 107 cycles based on ? This value is specified by ISO 8434-5.
THERMO SEALED CASTINGS/LOKRING TECH., 23.11.2000 Table 7 and 8 Include Mechanically Attached Fittings MAF considered to be equivalent to welding. Table 9 P2.11.5. 5.2 Include separate line for MAF Use of doc. QUALIFICATION OF NONSTANDARD PIPING , B31 APPLICATIONS as an alternative for vibration tests. Agree. Tables 7 & 8 will be modified and added by Machine grooved Type connections. Disagree. In accordance with IACS UR P2.7 welded connections are considered as separate type with other scope of application. Agree. Table 9 will be modified. Disagree. Each Society has the right to accept any National or International standard, which has stricter testing requirements. Disagree. Comments as above.
P2.11.5. API 607 considered as alternative. 5.6 TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, FAX of 04.10.2000 P 2.7.4, Table 7 Add picture of grooved coupling connection
Agree. Tables 7 and 8 will be modified and added by Machine grooved Type connection.
10
P 2.7.4, Table 8
Disagree. Scope of application of Machine grooved Cut/Roll Grooved Add grooved couplings only for use with the items listed Type connections are considering in long term are not to be restricted so in seawater category. far. ISO 6182-12 standard should be referenced for testing and qualification of the couplings. Disagree. Each Society has the right to accept any National or International standard, which has stricter testing requirements.
P2.11
UR M44 Rev.6 and P2 Rev.5

The UK MAIB report on its investigation of the causes of an engine fire in the high-speed ferry 'Stena Explorer' concluded that it was due to the incorrect reassembly of a compression fitting in a high pressure fuel line. IACS did not concur in the MAIB recommendation to discontinue the use of such fittings, and so advised the MAIB in a letter from the GPG Chairman on 15 September 2003 (3051_IGb). However WP/MCH proposed amendments to UR M44 and P2 to enhance relevant requirements for approval and maintenance. They are:
UR M44:
i) Add suffix 7 to Item 33,
ii) Add FOOTNOTE 7. 7. operation and service manuals are to contain maintenance requirements (servicing and repair) including details of any special tools and gauges that are to be used with their fitting/settings together with any test requirements on completion of maintenance. iii) Add NOTE 5. 5. Where the operation and service manuals identify special tools and gauges for maintenance purposes (see footnote 7.) refer to UR P2.7.4.14.
UR P2:
i) add P2.7.4.14: The installation of mechanical joints is to be in accordance with the manufacturer's assembly instructions. Where special tools and gauges are required for installation of the joints, these are to be supplied by the manufacturer. ii) Add sentence above P2.7.4.1 : The application and pressure ratings of different mechanical joints are to be approved by the Classification Society. The approval is to be based on Type Approval procedure in P2.11. The amendments were approved by GPG on 30 September 2003 (3051aIGb)
Technical Background document for draft UR P2.8 on Flexible hoses (WP/MCH task 12) 1. Scope and objective
The Flexile Hoses both metallic and non-metallic materials widely used in machinery spaces of ships for connection between fixed piping system and items of machinery or equipment that is subject to movement. Taking into account that use of non-standard hoses or their improper installation connect with risk of fire or flooding at the 19th Meeting of AHG/PPV it was decided to unify the requirements and test procedures for flexile hoses. 2. Points of discussion
Permissible of use the Flexile Hoses for thermal oil systems, requirements to end connections as well as requirements to fire resistant and pressure impulse testing have been discussed. The draft UR was accepted by the WP without reservations. 3. Source of proposed requirements
1. Reg. II-2/2.2.5.1, II-2/2.3.1, II-2/2.4 2. Rules in force of IACS Members 3. ISO 6802 - Rubber and plastic hoses and hose assemblies - Hydraulic pressure impulse test without flexing 4. ISO 6308 - Rubber and plastic hoses and hose assemblies - Hydraulic pressure impulse test with flexing 5. ISO 15540 - Ships and marine technology - Fire resistance of hose assemblies - Test method 6. ISO 15540 - Ships and marine technology - Fire resistance of hose assemblies Requirements for test bench 7. ISO 7840- Small craft - Fire resistant of fuel hoses 8. ISO 10380 PipeworkCorrugated metal hoses and hose assemblies
4.
Notes by the Permanent Secretariat
GPG added the following changes to the draft UR P2.12: 1) P2.12.2.2: The following new sentence was added: Flexible hoses in high pressure fuel oil injection systems are not to be accepted 2) P2.12.5.3: With regard to the 5 minutes testing period, the following reference to the international standards was added: The international standards, e.g. EN or SAE for burst testing of non-metallic hoses, require the pressure to be increased until burst without any holding period at 4 x MWP
TB submitted by the WP/MCH Chairman.
Technical Background UR P2.7.4 (Rev.6, May 2006) and UR P2.11(Rev.1, May 2006)
1.
Background:
ABS reported to Council on 13 Feb 06 as follows: In reviewing the latest UR Implementation Matrix distributed by Perm Sec's 5059_IAf, it is noted that besides ABS, three other Societies (KR, LR and IRS) had not indicated that they have implemented UR P2.7.4 (Rev. 5/Nov 2003). It is further noted that these Societies also did not indicate an expected date of implementation on their Form 2. Further UR P2.11 (Rev.2/Nov 2001) was adopted for type appproval of mechanical (pipe) joints in 2001, but was made mandatory for all mechanical (pipe) joints by the amendment to P2.7.4.1 in 2003. Again, looking at the UR Implementation Matrix distributed by 5059_IAf, we note that seven other Societies (BV, CCS, DNV, GL, KR, LR and IRS) had not indicated that they have implemented UR P2.11 (Rev.2/Nov 2001) and that none of these Societies, except IRS, indicated an expected date of implementation on its Form 2. Therefore, this message is to declare an ABS reservation against UR P2.7.4 (Rev.5/Nov 2003) and P2.11 (Rev.2/Nov 2001) until such time as Members agree to a uniform implementation date for these requirements.
Council tasked GPG to establish a uniform application date for these requirements and ascertain the implementation status.
2.
Discussion
2.1
Implementation status All GPG members provided information relative to their status of implementation for IR P2. P2.7.4.1 GPG Chairman assessed: In reading P2.7.4.1, it does not appear to me that the requirement is intended to mandatorily require Type Approval of the subject fittings; it appears to require compliance with the same type testing requirements
2.2
Page 1 of 2
as would be required for type approval of the fitting, i.e., pipe unions, compression couplings and slip-on joints are not required to be type approved, but must be approved based on the Type Approval procedure in P2.11. Renewal of approval is only associated with type approval.
2.3
P2.11.1 DNV pointed out that the General Part of P2.11.1 has a vague expression (Individual Societies may specify more severe testing conditionsand also accept alternative testing).
2.4
A uniform implementation statement was developed and approved. Approved on 12 May 2006 (5059bICa)
Submitted by Permsec 28 April 2006
Page 2 of 2
IACS Machinery Panel Task PM6303
UR P2.12 (Rev.1) August 2007 Revision of UR P2.12.3.1
In the current UR P2.12.3.1, it is prescribed that "Flexible hoses constructed of rubber or plastics materials and intended for use in bilge, ballast, compressed air, oil fuel, lubricating, hydraulic and thermal oil systems are to incorporate a single, double or more, closely woven integral wire braid or other suitable material reinforcement". However, according to flexible hose manufacturers, flexible hoses made of plastic materials such as Teflon and Nylon are not able to be incorporated by closely woven integral wire braid or other suitable material reinforcement. Because, fluorine rein has property of bad wet ability and bad adhesion to other substances, therefore, the incorporated woven wire braid easily peels off from fluorine rein. UR P2.12 was established in order for the use of non-standard hoses or improper installation not to cause the fire or flooding. Member societies agreed that it was sufficient as flexible hose that plastic hoses such as Teflon and Nylon hoses were satisfied with National or International standard, e.g. ISO mentioned in UR P2.12, even if closely woven integral wire braid or other suitable material reinforcement was not incorporated. The changes to UR P2.12.3.1 were adopted unanimously by Panel members.
Hamburg, 3 July 2007 IACS Machinery Panel Chairman
Permanent Secretariat note (September 2007): The changes to UR P2.12.3.1 were approved by GPG on 24 August 2007 (ref. 6216_IGe) with an implementation date of 1 July 2008.
Technical Background UR P2.7.4 (Rev. 7, Sept 2007) (PM6304)

Scope and objectives The aim of this task was to resolve the reservation by NK in respect of slip-on joints for steam pipes on deck (item 33 in Table 7) and to ensure a uniform application of this requirement. Points of discussion There was agreement amongst Panel members that slip type joints should be allowed on restrained pipes in steam piping systems on deck. GL and NK pointed out that the gasket material must be suitable for the temperature and pressure range in question. A footnote 7) is added to table 7 and a corresponding entry made in item 33 Steam in the column for Slip-on joints. Decision by voting (if any)
The UR was adopted unanimously.
Machinery Panel Chairman Hamburg, 13 July 2007
Permanent Secretariat note (October 2007):

Approved by GPG 21 September 2007, ref. 7630_IGb.

Version no. Rev.3 (Aug 2012) Corr.1 (Apr 2007) Rev.2 (Nov 2006) Rev.1 (May 2006) New (Nov 2001) Approval date 09 11 28 12 17 August 2012 April 2007 November 2006 May 2006 November 2001 Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2014 1 January 2007
Part A
UR P2.11 Type Approval of Mechanical Joints
Rev.3 (Aug 2012)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To specify realistic axial forces and specify range of test objects. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The test 2.11.5, pull-out, is revised to reflect the industrial practise. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 02 March 2011 Made by a Member Panel Approval: 15 November 2011 GPG Approval: 09 August 2012 (Ref: 11042_IGi)
Corr.1 (Apr 2007)
GPG Reference: 5059a See TB document in Part B.
Rev.2 (Nov 2006)
Page 1 of 3
GPG Reference: 5059a See TB document in Part B.
Rev.1 (May 2006)
GPG Reference: 5059b See TB document in Part B.
NEW (Nov 2001)
AHG/PPV submitted the draft new UR P2.11 to GPG 48 for approval. It requested GPG to refer the draft to external review (9099d). AHG completed reviewing external bodies comments and submitted final text to GPG 50 (0077a, 18/1/2001). No TB document available.
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR P2.11: Annex 1. TB for Rev.1 (May 2006)

Annex 2. TB for Rev.2 (Nov 2006)

Annex 3. TB for Corr.1 (April 2007)

Annex 4. TB for Rev.3 (Aug 2012)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (Nov 2001)
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background UR P2.7.4 (Rev.6, May 2006) and UR P2.11(Rev.1, May 2006)
1.
Background:
ABS reported to Council on 13 Feb 06 as follows: In reviewing the latest UR Implementation Matrix distributed by Perm Sec's 5059_IAf, it is noted that besides ABS, three other Societies (KR, LR and IRS) had not indicated that they have implemented UR P2.7.4 (Rev. 5/Nov 2003). It is further noted that these Societies also did not indicate an expected date of implementation on their Form 2. Further UR P2.11 (Rev.2/Nov 2001) was adopted for type appproval of mechanical (pipe) joints in 2001, but was made mandatory for all mechanical (pipe) joints by the amendment to P2.7.4.1 in 2003. Again, looking at the UR Implementation Matrix distributed by 5059_IAf, we note that seven other Societies (BV, CCS, DNV, GL, KR, LR and IRS) had not indicated that they have implemented UR P2.11 (Rev.2/Nov 2001) and that none of these Societies, except IRS, indicated an expected date of implementation on its Form 2. Therefore, this message is to declare an ABS reservation against UR P2.7.4 (Rev.5/Nov 2003) and P2.11 (Rev.2/Nov 2001) until such time as Members agree to a uniform implementation date for these requirements.
Council tasked GPG to establish a uniform application date for these requirements and ascertain the implementation status.
2.
Discussion
2.1
Implementation status All GPG members provided information relative to their status of implementation for IR P2. P2.7.4.1 GPG Chairman assessed: In reading P2.7.4.1, it does not appear to me that the requirement is intended to mandatorily require Type Approval of the subject fittings; it appears to require compliance with the same type testing requirements
2.2
Page 1 of 2
as would be required for type approval of the fitting, i.e., pipe unions, compression couplings and slip-on joints are not required to be type approved, but must be approved based on the Type Approval procedure in P2.11. Renewal of approval is only associated with type approval.
2.3
P2.11.1 DNV pointed out that the General Part of P2.11.1 has a vague expression (Individual Societies may specify more severe testing conditionsand also accept alternative testing).
2.4
A uniform implementation statement was developed and approved. Approved on 12 May 2006 (5059bICa)
Submitted by Permsec 28 April 2006
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for Revision of UR P2.11.5.5.6 and UR P2.11.5.5.1 (UR P2.11, rev. 2, November 2006) UR P2.11.5.5.6 For mechanical joints, the fire endurance test is to be conducted according to the procedures specified in UR P2.11.5.5.6. The current UR P2.11.5.5.6. states that Mechanical joint assembly test specimen is to be subjected to fire for 30 min at a temperature of 800 degrees centigrade, while water at the design pressure of the joints is circulated inside. Specimen is to be completely engulfed in the flame envelope. However, it has come to member societies attention that there have been cases where tests were conducted using a furnace without apparent flame under the consent of several member societies. Whereas other societies were insisting on the flame engulfing the test specimen, which often resulted in the use of increased number of flame burners, these additional burners in turn required additional fire-retardant packing due to higher heat input. This inconsistent implementation of the fire test requirements among member societies has prompted the review of the current UR P2. Member societies agreed to remove the wording Specimen is to be completely engulfed in the flame envelope as this requirement is contained in the referenced standard ISO 19921:2005 (E), paragraph 7.1 and 7.8, and does not need to be duplicated. Meanwhile, it was pointed out that: the subject UR would need to specify detailed test procedures as well as test acceptance criteria, and ISO 19922 (2005) was found to be the appropriate international standard for this purpose. ISO 19921 (2005) specifies nearly identical test conditions and acceptance criteria compared with the current UR, and therefore it would be best to adopt established international standard in its entirety. This reference to ISO 19921 in the UR can eliminate the current wording, i.e., Mechanical joint assembly test specimen is to be subjected to fire for 30 min at a temperature of 800 degrees centigrade, while water at the design pressure of the joints is circulated inside. Specimen is to be completely engulfed in the flame envelope. The panel agreed with the above points, and concluded that the final draft should reflect the same.
UR P2.11.5.5.1 Changes to UR P2.11.5.5.1 (a) were made to bring it in line with the ISO standards referenced in UR P2.11.5.5.6. Hamburg, 14 November 2006 IACS Machinery Panel Chairman
Permanent Secretariat note: Subject no. 5059a, agreed by GPG and Council 28/11/2006 (IGf)
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background for Revision of UR P2.11.5.5.6 and UR P2.11.5.5.1 (UR P2.11, Rev. 2, November 2006 and Corr.1, April 2007)
Rev.2, November 2006

UR P2.11.5.5.6 For mechanical joints, the fire endurance test is to be conducted according to the procedures specified in UR P2.11.5.5.6. The current UR P2.11.5.5.6. states that Mechanical joint assembly test specimen is to be subjected to fire for 30 min at a temperature of 800 degrees centigrade, while water at the design pressure of the joints is circulated inside. Specimen is to be completely engulfed in the flame envelope. However, it has come to member societies attention that there have been cases where tests were conducted using a furnace without apparent flame under the consent of several member societies. Whereas other societies were insisting on the flame engulfing the test specimen, which often resulted in the use of increased number of flame burners, these additional burners in turn required additional fire-retardant packing due to higher heat input. This inconsistent implementation of the fire test requirements among member societies has prompted the review of the current UR P2. Member societies agreed to remove the wording Specimen is to be completely engulfed in the flame envelope as this requirement is contained in the referenced standard ISO 19921:2005 (E), paragraph 7.1 and 7.8, and does not need to be duplicated. Meanwhile, it was pointed out that: the subject UR would need to specify detailed test procedures as well as test acceptance criteria, and ISO 19922 (2005) was found to be the appropriate international standard for this purpose. ISO 19921 (2005) specifies nearly identical test conditions and acceptance criteria compared with the current UR, and therefore it would be best to adopt established international standard in its entirety. This reference to ISO 19921 in the UR can eliminate the current wording, i.e., Mechanical joint assembly test specimen is to be subjected to fire for 30 min at a temperature of 800 degrees centigrade, while water at the design pressure of the joints is circulated inside. Specimen is to be completely engulfed in the flame envelope.
The panel agreed with the above points, and concluded that the final draft should reflect the same. UR P2.11.5.5.1 Changes to UR P2.11.5.5.1 (a) were made to bring it in line with the ISO standards referenced in UR P2.11.5.5.6. Hamburg, 14 November 2006 IACS Machinery Panel Chairman Permanent Secretariat note: Subject no. 5059a, agreed by GPG and Council 28/11/2006 (IGf)
Correction 1, April 2007

After publication of the revised UR the RS Panel member pointed out that the addition of the requirement in UR P2.11.5.5.1 For services other than flammable fluids, leakage rate is not to be more than 0.2 l/min is not appropriate as this requirement relates to the fire endurance test only. At the 5th Machinery Panel (March 2007) meeting this was considered by Panel members and it was agreed that this sentence should be deleted from UR P2.11.5.5.1. Hamburg, 29 March 2007 IACS Machinery Panel Chairman Permanent Secretariat note: During GPG discussion, ABS (5059aABc & ABd) asked Machinery Panel to confirm whether the sentence being deleted from P2.11.5.5.1 would be added to P2.11.5.5.6. Machinery Panel (5059aPMd) confirmed that they felt it was not necessary since P2.11.5.5.6 refers to ISO standard ISO 19921: 2005(E), which includes a Note in Section 8 - Assessment - "For services other than flammable fluids, a leakage rate of not more than 0.2 l/min is considered acceptable".
Part B, Annex 4
Technical Background for UR P2.11 Rev.3, Aug 2012

1. Scope and objectives Update of pull-out test in 2.11.5.5.5. The panel is in the opinion that this test as specified, where merely the internal pressure is causing the axial force, is not sufficient for proving the coupling's ability to withstand axial forces encountered in actual service. There is no safety factor included for situations where thermal expansion, vibrations etc. will require the coupling to have increased ability to withstand axial forces. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale The test requirement is altered such that the test pressure and external axial force are to be applied simultaneously in order to achieve a more realistic situation. According to experience this amended test procedure is what the manufacturers in the market are already enforcing on their products. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution None 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: Update of pull-out test in 2.11.5.5.5. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any None

UR P3 Air Pipe Closing Devices
Version no. Rev.3 (Nov 2012) Rev.2 (March 2004) Corr.1 (April 2002) Rev.1 (May 2001) Corr.1 (May 1998) New (1991) Approval date 02 November 2012 04 March 2004 30 April 2002 17 May 2001 20 May 1998 No records Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2014 -
Part A
Rev.3 (Nov 2012)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To clarify the type-test method of P3 for tightness test and to evaluate tests to prove the ability to handle vacuum and criteria for the relationship area requirement and flow characteristics. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: Form A was agreed in May 2011. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 10 March 2011 Made by a Member Panel Approval: 24 September 2012 GPG Approval: 02 November 2012 (Ref: 11068_IGd)
Rev.2 (March 2004)
The review by AHG/FDG of BEA/mer technical report on air vent arrangements recommended amending the UR P3. All recommendations arising from AHG/FDF review were accepted by the WP and introduced into the draft revision.
Page 1 of 3
Original Proposal was made on 12 February 2004 and GPG Approval was given on 04 March 2004 (GPG subject No: 3003cIGb). See separate TB document in Part B Annex 2.
Corr.1 (April 2002)
A member suggested editorial refinements to the UR P3 on 29 April 2002 and done on 30 April 2002. No TB document available.
Rev.1 (May 2001)
AHG/PPV submitted proposed revision replacing the existing P3 to GPG 50 (0077a, 18/1/2001). Review of UR P1.2, P2.1, P2.2, P2.3, P2.5, and P3 has been carried out in line with annual Task 1A. The main goal of this review was elimination of IACS member reservation. As has been noted that: P1 & P2 have not been implemented since the Rules are formatted around US standards such as ANSI, ASME, USC Regulations, etc. P 1 & P2 are not conductive (sic) to incorporate in the Rules. With regard to P3, it needed to be changed editorially. Members unanimously agreed to the revision. See separate TB document in Part B Annex 1.
Corr.1 (May 1998)
P.3.2.1 contained editorial error i.e. inclination of 40 deg. C, which should read 40 degrees. The error was corrected No TB document available.
NEW (1991)
History files and TB documents are not available.
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR P3: Annex 1. TB for Rev.1 (May 2001)



Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1991), Corr.1 (May 1998) and Corr.1 (April 2002).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
TB submitted on 6 Feb 2001 by AHG/PPV Chairman
P 3 (Rev.1) Technical Background Documents

1. Review of UR P1 P3 Objective and Scope Review of UR P1.2, P2.1, P2.2, P2.3, P2.5, and P3 has been carried out in line with annual Task 1A. The main goal of this review was elimination of a Members reservation. As has been noted by the Member: P1 & P2 have not been implemented since the Rules are formatted around US standards such as ANSI, ASME, USC Regulations, etc. P 1 & P2 are not conductive (sic) to incorporate in the Rules. With regard to P3, it needed to be changed editorially. Members additional comments relative to the UR P: P 1.2.7: Do not regard 14 bar as design pressure, otherwise, strainers, filters, heaters will have to be designed for 14 bar which may not be practicable. Also the testing pressure for these components will need to 1.5 the design pressure which may be a contentious issue. Accordingly the Member proposed that the 14 bar pressure should be considered as a special safeguard for the joints (see MSC Circ 647 & 851). Working Group needed to discuss and determine whether the 14 bar pressure was applicable to valves also. Further, the Member has been informed by their office in the Pacific that pressure rating of JIS f 7399-1989 Marine Fuel oil Tank Emergency Shut-off valves, commonly used in that region, states that Maximum working pressure shall be 0.098 MPa [ 1kg/cm2 ], although hydraulic inspection for body will be 0.686 MPa. Accordingly, it would not be possible to apply the 14 bar pressure to the suction side of the pump. P 2.2 Table (1): There was a need to define what constitutes special safeguard. A Members observation of other Member societies Rules indicated that there were no provisions made for application of this in the design, construction or operational matters. Member requested the WG to develop a list of provisions which may be considered special safeguards for various systems conveying flammable, toxic or corrosive media. The reference to toxic and corrosive fluids may be out of place, as such systems were invariably cargo systems, which were outside the scope of P2. Accordingly considerations should be given to deleting this. Source of Proposed Requirements A Members proposals on correction the UR P1, P2 and P3 circulated by e- mail dated 13 September 2000 has been used as a basis document for revision. Points of discussion Unanimous agreement has been achieved.
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background document for the revision of UR P3 1. Scope and Objective
The review by AHG/FDF of BEA/mer technical report on air vent arrangements recommended to amend the UR P3. 2. Points of discussion
All recommendations arising from AHG/FDF review were accepted by the WP and introduced into the draft revision. 3. Source/derivation of proposed amendments
AHG/FDF Report to GPG as attached. 4. Decision
The draft was agreed by consensus. No Member requested any issue to be reflected in the TB. KP 12/02/04 5. GPG
Approved by GPG 4 March 2004, 3003cIGb, as submitted.
IACS AHG/FDF Report dated 27th May 2002 to IACS on: Task 03: Review of the BEA/mer technical report on air vent arrangements 1. IACS Directive Following discussion on the FRAMO system installed on the IEVOLI SUN, GPG decided to task AHG/FDF to review the recommendations contained in the BEA/mer technical report on air vent arrangements and advise GPG. (0233_Igc, 29 August 2001). No Form A. 2. The BEA/mer Recommendations A free translation of the recommendations contained within the BEA/mer report "Technical note on vent arrangements in ballast tanks and other spaces", dated 7 may 2001 is as follows. IACS and classification societies should circulate a technical note about the problems identified on automatic vent arrangements, installation precautions, frequency of inspections, maintenance and replacement of elements subject to deterioration. Include the inspection of vent arrangements in the technical specification of the shipowner for repair works during ship stops. Frequency of inspections. Follow instructions assigned by manufacturers (it is recommended to make an inspection every two years and a complete replacement of the vent arrangement between 8 to 10 years). For new ships, take into account a better protection of the vent arrangements against green seas at the time of their installation on board. Improve the means of protection against corrosion (treatment, coating) and ensure proper preparation of sampling. Improve the seal between the vent arrangement and seat (appropriate floating ball / joint coupling) and smooth the seating arrangements of the ball. Improve the design to facilitate inspection and maintenance of the parts mostly exposed to corrosion (the connecting pipe inside of the casing and the air vent pipe, which should be as short as possible). It seems that some manufacturers have already taken into account some modifications. 3. Review of the BEA/mer recommendations The seven recommendations listed above have been considered by AHG/FDF and are commented as below: i) The first recommendation calls for IACS to circulate a technical note describing problems identified with automatic air pipe heads, installation, inspection and maintenance. Members of AHG/FDF reported that many
types of problems had been found on survey, but that the most prevalent were those due to corrosion and/or lack of maintenance. Air pipe heads constructed from galvanised steel were considered to be more prone to problems caused by corrosion. It was therefore concluded that the most effective approach to combat these problems was through a defined survey regime. A draft UR Z[ ] for automatic air pipe heads is in development. ii) Include the inspection of vent arrangements in the technical specification of the ship owner for repair works during ship stops. This is interpreted to refer to the owners/managers repair specification for docking/dry docking. Deficiencies should be identified and reported, ISM paragraph 5.1.5 refers. Frequency of inspections. AHG/FDF agreed that annual external inspections should continue as at present. In addition the draft UR Z[ ] is proposing requirements for the dismantling and survey of air pipe heads at each Special (Renewal) Survey. This is to provide for the internal inspection of air pipe heads, which for some types requires its removal from the air pipe. Better protection against green seas. Members considered those proposals for strength requirements under Task 01 if extended to the remainder of the ship length could address this item. Improve the means of protection against corrosion. The meaning of ensure proper preparation for sampling is not clear, but is interpreted as a reference to the quality control for the corrosion protection (e.g. galvanising). As for the mechanism that may have caused the particular type of corrosion found in the air pipe head from the Ievoli Sun, AHG/FDF postulated the following. During the ballasting of tanks, it is common practice to press the tanks up by filling until water is flowing through the air pipe heads onto the deck. This means that quite a high velocity of water is impacting on the lower part of the inner chamber for some types of head. As ballast is usually taken on in fairly shallow water it is quite likely to contain some sediment. The action of water containing particles of sand, earth, etc will then tend to erode the zinc coating particularly over the area where the flow up the pipe is diverted around the outer chamber. This is the area where heavy corrosion was found on the recovered air pipe head from the Ievoli Sun. Once the thin coating has worn through, the steel is locally exposed and corrosion commences. AHG/FDF also found from results of surveys that corrosion can occur beneath the ball where this is normally resting on a galvanised steel surface. This may also be attributed to erosion. It is therefore recommended that a resting bar or bars or other device be introduced such as to prevent the ball from touching the inner chamber in its normal position. AHG/FDF considered that zinc coating should be deposited on the air pipe head by the hot method, and should have a thickness of 70 100 microns.
iii)
iv)
v)
For heads constructed from cast iron, a suitable epoxy or equivalent coating should be applied. For both types it was considered that a harder coating should be used in areas which could be susceptible to erosion when ballast water is pumped through. AHG/FDF further considered that a minimum thickness of 6 mm should be specified for the inner and outer chambers of an automatic air pipe head. vi) vii) Improve the seal between the vent arrangement and seat. Members considered UR P3.2.3 and P3.2.7 covered this. Improve the design to facilitate inspection and maintenance. Members considered UR P3.2.2 covered this. Recommendations for consideration into UR P3 AHG/FDF suggest that consideration be given to the following items for possible inclusion into UR P3: i) provision of bars or cage or other device for preventing the ball or float from contacting the inner chamber in its normal state, ii) for galvanised steel air pipe heads, the zinc coating to be applied by the hot method, and the thickness to be 70 to 100 microns. iii) for areas of the head susceptible to erosion (e.g. those parts directly subjected to ballast water impact when the tank is being pressed up, for example the inner chamber area above the air pipe, plus an overlap of 10 or more either side) an additional harder coating should be applied. This may be an aluminium bearing epoxy, or other equivalent, coating, applied over the zinc, and iv) a minimum thickness of 6 mm for the inner and outer chambers of an automatic air pipe head.
4.
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background for UR P3 Rev.3, Nov 2012

1. Scope and objectives To clarify the type-test method of P3 for tightness test and to evaluate tests to prove the ability to handle vacuum and criteria for the relationship area requirement and flow characteristics. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 2.1 With respect to the type tests of air pipe closing devices, the tightness tests for such devices, in principle, should be performed under strict conditions such as having the opening facing upward, etc. based upon design requirements. Since the UR does not clarify any test method regarding the above, certain classification societies only require type test examinations to be carried out at an inclination of 40 degrees in a single fixed direction. However, performing the required testing for the device under such less restrictive conditions might influence the test outcome in a negative way. Therefore, in order to carry out unified type tests for such devices under strict conditions, new specific type test conditions based upon the direction in which the opening of the device faces are needed as shown in Figure 1 to 4.
Vertical
Opening
Fig 1: Normal position
Vertical
Opening
40 degrees
Fig 2: Inclination 40 degrees opening facing upward
Vertical
Opening
40 degrees
Fig 3: Inclination 40 degrees opening facing downward
Vertical
Opening
40 degrees
Fig 4: Inclination 40 degrees opening facing sideways 2.2 A problem exists in which the float of an air pipe closing device is sucked into the opening by the negative pressure in the tank. As a result, the float is blocking the flow of air resulting from the typical emptying of tanks and may become damaged under these conditions. Therefore, a new test item related to reverse flow is needed. These are reflected in the revision of P3. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution None 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: The original requirement in UR P3 is to be amended by revising the original paragraph P3.4.1 b) iii) and adding a new paragraph P3.4.1 c) as follows: Discharge / Reverse flow test is added The air pipe shall allow the passage of air to prevent excessive vacuum developing in to the tank. A reverse flow test shall be performed. A vacuum pump or another suitable device shall be connected to the opening of the air pipe leading to the tank. The flow velocity shall be applied gradually at a constant rate until the float gets sucked into the inlet of the air pipe and blocks the flow. The velocity at the point of blocking shall be recorded. 80% of the value recorded will be stated in the certificate. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions All of the proposals were agreed to unanimously except for deleting P3.2.5, where several members argued that this general criterion which has been working well should be kept in order not to carry out the flow characteristic evaluation on each air pipe.
One member argued that as P3.2.5 does not take into consideration the effect of grids and the inner geometry of the vent head it was proposed to delete P3.2.5 and include the following under P3.5. Product documentation: Every vent head shall be delivered with the flow characteristic curve recorded during Type Testing (ref P3.4.1.a). However, this was not supported by the majority of the members. 6. Attachments if any None
P 4.3.3 Impact Resistance
Objective and Scope Review of UR P4.3.3 has been carried out in view of the test method stipulated by ASTM D2444 - 93 is not applicable in Classification Society practice.
Source of Proposed Requirements IMO Res. A 753 (18) Guidelines for the application of plastic pipes on ships. ASTM D2444 - 93 Standard test method for determination of the impact resistance of thermoplastic pipe and fittings by means of a tup (falling weight). ASTM F 1173 - 95 Standard specification for thermosetting resin fibreglass pipe and fittings to be used for marine application.
An unanimous agreement has been achieved.
Date of submission: 13 May 1999 By AHG/PPV Chairman
Technical Background For UR P4(Rev.3)
1.
Technical background for revision of P4.1. 4.2 and 4.5
In conjunction with the approval of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polybutylene(PB) plastic pipes it was realized that there appears to be a discrepancy between the requirements in UR P4.3.4 and common industrial practice. These types plastic pipes are well established and have been widely used for many years, for service temperatures up to 80C, in potable, sanitary and water heating systems in shore and marine applications. Many of the Member Societies have issued type approvals for these pipe types and services. However, by the nature of PE, PP and PB materials these pipe types cannot comply with the requirements of UR P4.3.4. Actually, the heat distortion temperatures (HDT) of such pipe materials, as determined by ISO 75 A or equivalent, and specified in UR P4.3.4, would be much less than 80C. Plastic pipe manufacturers commonly claim that the raw materials' heat distortion temperatures according to these standards are usually not even determined since they are not considered relevant in order to justify plastic pipes' long-term hydrostatic strength under relevant service temperatures. These HDT values would, at best, be indicative of plastic materials' short-term behaviour related to stiffness and relevant plastic pipe standards, as DIN 8077/ 8078, do not even refer to HDT. Rather, the methods commonly used in this regard are specified in industry established, dedicated standards, as predominately ISO 9080 (Determination of long-term hydrostatic strength of thermoplastic materials in pipe form by extrapolation) or ISO 15874 (Plastic piping systems for hot and cold water installations, PP). Results of long term endurance tests, usually carried out in accordance with these standards, show that PE, PP or PB type plastic pipes could last for more than twenty years under specified pressure and temperature loads, while under the current UR P4.3.4 they would not even be acceptable.
Page 1 of 3
2.
Technical background for new UR P4.7

(Test Specification For Plastic Pipes)
1. Scope and objective Development of Unified Requirements / Recommendation and Type Test Procedure for Plastic Pipes has been initiated by LR and supported by IXX AHG/PPV Meeting and GPG. The main goal of development was to unified test requirements and testing procedures of plastic pipes. 2. Points of discussion or possible discussion Relevant provisions of IMO Res. A753(18), national and international standards have been discussed. 3. Source/derivation of proposed requirements .1 IMO Res. A 753(18) Guidelines for the application of plastic pipes on ships. .2 ISO 15493:2003 Plastic piping systems for industrial applications. .3 ISO 75: 2004 Plastics. Determination of temperature of deflection under load. .4 ISO 2507: 1995 Thermoplastic pipes and fittings. Vicat softening temperature. .5 ISO 8361:1991 Thermoplastic pipes and fittings. Water absorption. .6 ISO 9142:1991 Adhesives. Guide to the selection of the standard laboratory ageing conditions for testing bonded joints. .7 ISO 9653:1998 Adhesives. Test method for shear impact strength of adhesive. .8 ISO 9854: 1994 Thermoplastic pipes for the transport of fluids. Determination of pendulum impact strength by the Charpy method. .9 ASTM C 581-03 Standard practice for determination shemical resistance of thermosetting resins used in glass fiber reinforced structures intended for liquid service .10 ASTM D 257-99 Standard test method for DC resistance of conductance of insulating materials .11 ASTM D 1599-99 Standard test method for resistance to short time hydraulic pressure of plastic pipe, tubings and fittings. .12 ASTM D 2412-02 Standard test method for determination of external loading characteristics of plastic pipe by parallel plate loading .13 ASTM D 2444-99 Standard test method for determination of impact resistance of thermosetting pipe and fittings by means of a tup (falling weight) .14 ASTM D 2992-01 Standard practice hydrostatic or pressure design basis for fiberglass (glass fiber reinforced thermosetting resin) pipe and fittings .15 ASTM F 1173-95 Thermosetting resin fiberglass pipe and fittings to be used for marine application Note: Refer to REC 86.
Page 2 of 3
Notes by the Permanent Secretariat Implementation Date
1.1
P4.2.3
Members agreed: The changes in P4.2.3 are being made to corrrect a problem, so Members will want to effect changes to their rules/procedures in line with P4.2.3 as quickly as possible. Therefore, a uniform application date is not needed.
1.2
P4.7
ABS proposed: P4.7 is new and should have a uniform application date agreed by Members so as to obviate problems were Members to try to start implementing P4.7 at different times and run into resistance. Therefore, we propose that the requirements of UR P4.7 be uniformly implemented by IACS Societies from 1 Jan 2007. However, NK disagreed and advised that: It should not be compulsory for exiting type approved plastic pipes to be re-evaluated in accordance with P4 (Rev.3) not later than 1 Jan 2007. NK has already issued the type approval certificates for existing plastic pipes with 5 year validity (4069nNKb, 18/02/2005). Finally, Members agreed to the following statement: The requirements of UR P4.7 are to be uniformly implemented by all IACS Societies to any new plastic pipe submitted for approval from 1 January 2007 and to any existing plastic pipe from the date of the first renewal of approval after 1 January 2007.
***
Submitted by WP/MCH Chairman 20/12/2004
Page 3 of 3
Technical Background UR P4 (Rev.4, Dec 2008)

Machinery Panel Task PM7302 - Revision of UR P4.5.4
1. Clause P4.3 of the UR P4 Rev.3 (February 2005), stipulates as follows: The specification of piping is to be in accordance with a recognised national or international standard acceptable to Classification Society. In addition, the following requirements apply: P4.3 then lists additional requirements. These additional requirements are related to the application of pipes, rather than the manufacturing process of pipes itself. Therefore these additional requirements may not contradict that of selected national or international standards to which the pipes are manufactured. 2. Whereas P4.5.4 stipulates as follows: P4.5 Material approval and Quality Control During Manufacture .4 Each pipe and fitting is to be tested by the manufacturer at a hydrostatic pressure not less than 1.5 times the normal pressure. Contrary to the requirements of the P4.3, in many cases, the requirement of P4.5.4 (i.e., 100% hydrostatic pressure test at 1.5 times the rated pressure as a routine test) is not consistent with the selected national or international standard to which pipes are manufactured. The hydrostatic pressure test requirement of P4.5.4 is thought to be over and above the industry standards. However, the rationale for such an additional requirement is not apparent. The following table shows the requirements of hydrostatic pressure test during manufacturing stipulated in five industry standards that the present study cited.
Standard ASTM D 1785 Standard specification for Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Plastic Pipe, Schedule 40, 80 and 120 Manufacturing process Continuouslyextruded pipe Test Requirements 1. Prototype test: Sustained pressure test at 2.1 times the pipe pressure rating for 1000 hours, and Burst pressure test: 3.2 times the pipe pressure rating. 2. No routine hydrostatic pressure test requirement during production. 1. Prototype test: Sustained pressure test at 2.1 times the pipe pressure rating for 1000 hours, and Burst pressure test: 3.2 times the pipe pressure rating. 2. No routine hydrostatic pressure test requirement during production.
ASTM F 441/F 441M Standard specification for Chlorinated Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (CPVC) Plastic Pipe, Schedule 40 and 80
Continuouslyextruded pipe
Page 1 of 3
Standard ASTM F 1412 Standard specification for Polyolefin Pipe and Fittings for Corrosive Waste Drainage Systems
Manufacturing process Continuouslyextruded pipe
Test Requirements 1. As prototype test, randomly selected fused joints are to be tested to 50 psi for 5 minutes. No pressure test requirements for pipe itself. 2. No routine hydrostatic pressure test requirement during production. 1. Burst test, one sample per 150 joints during production. 2. 5% of pipe joints to be tested to 1.5 times the rated pressure during production. 1. As prototype test, long-term cyclic hydrostatic pressure test. 2. One sample per lot (5,000 feet) to be tested to 1.5 times the rated pressure during production.
ASTM F 1173 Standard specification for thermosetting Resin Fiberglass Pipe Systems to Be Used for Marine Applications API 15LR Specification for Low Pressure Fiberglass Line Pipe and Fittings
Filament wound and centrifugally cast
Filament wound and centrifugally cast
While routine pressure testing is imposed on produced FRP pipes on a sampling basis, no routine pressure test is required for PVC or CPVC pipes. 3. The level of quality assurance and quality control in production is as follows. Typically, pipes and fittings are made automatically by computerized processes, including optical measurements on line and automatic rejection of products out of tolerance. Furthermore scheduled spot checks and additional mechanical tests are made manually several times per shift to control the process itself. Typically these pipes and fittings are designed for at least a short term hydrostatic failure pressure at 4 times the MAWP, and a long term hydrostatic failure pressure at 2.5 times the MAWP. It should be noted that the production processes based on continuous extrusion (as in PVC and CPVC pipes) and those based on centrifugal casting with wound filament (as in FRP pipe) are very different. It is thought that the difference in the testing requirements for these two manufacturing processes is simply reflecting the fact that the chance of quality failure of continuously extruded PVC or CPVC pipes is remote, and also the fact that the 100% hydrostatic test on every produced pipe, even FRP pipes, may not be warranted. From the historically satisfactory testing results that are reported, it seems that 100% hydrostatic pressure testing at the factory on every pipe produced is not necessary. 4. Note that IMO Resolution A.753(18) Guidelines for the application of plastic pipes on Ships has a similar requirement to that currently in IACS UR P4. Clause 3.5 of this resolution however reads as follows: Each length of pipe should be tested at the manufacturers production facility to a hydrostatic pressure not less than 1.5 times the rated pressure of the pipe. Other test criteria may be accepted by the Administration. It seems that the last sentence Other test criteria may be accepted by the Administration is echoing the view expressed in 2 and 3 above. 5. In conclusion, IACS Members have agreed that when plastic pipes are designed and manufactured to recognized industry standards acceptable to the Society, the
Page 2 of 3
requirement of 100% hydrostatic test for every produced pipe as per the UR P4.5.4 may not be necessary, accordingly the following wording has been added at the end of the clause P4.5.4: Alternatively, for pipes and fittings not employing hand lay up techniques, the hydrostatic pressure test may be carried out in accordance with the hydrostatic testing requirements stipulated in the recognized national or international standard to which the pipe or fittings are manufactured, provided that there is an effective quality system in place.41
Submitted by Machinery Panel Chairman 1 December 2008
Permanent Secretariat note (January 2009): Rev.4 of UR P4 was approved by GPG on 22 December 2008 with an implementation date of 1 January 2010 (ref. 7761_IGc).
Page 3 of 3
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
UR P5
1.
Ballast water systems. Requirements on ballast water exchange at sea.
Scope and objectives
Draft of UR on ballast water systems suitable for providing for the exchange of ballast water at sea has been developed in accordance with Task 62 and 69 of WP/MCH Work Programme. Presented UR contains measures ensuring safe operation of ballast systems that used for BWE at sea. UR includes requirements to main components of ballast system such as piping, pumps, ballast tanks, sea chests and openings, as well as to control features. 2. Points of discussion
Focus of discussion was concentrate on evaluation of acceptable requirements to the sizes of air pipes and ballast water escapes from ballast tanks as well as on evaluation of capacity of pumping equipment. The draft was approved by Members unanimously and submitted to GPG. GPG have returned the draft to WP to address concerns expressed by ABS and BV GPG Members. The WP carried out a review of the draft and accommodated these concerns. To assure ourselves of the completeness of the work, the draft was given to ABS and BV Members to liaise with their GPG Members for their comments. ABS accepted the draft with minor amendments. BV have not responded. With this status of agreements the WP approved the draft for submission to GPG. In GPG discussion, BV proposed and GPG agreed an addition to para 3.1 and /or emptying purposes. A further proposed amendment The number of valves and the arrangement shall be suitable for the BWE method which will be applied. was not agreed, being considered unsuitable for a UR. Approved by GPG 16 April 2004, 8067_IGs (TB corr 13/05/04). 3. Source of proposed requirements
Reference is made to the following relevant documents: Rules of the Classification Societies IACS Members IACS Hazard Identification (HAZID) of Ballast Water Exchange at Sea Bulk Carrier. IACS Requirements Concerning Mobile Offshore Units. MEPC 42/11/1 Technical Analysis of the Dilution Method by the Experts on Ship Design, Safety and Environmental Aspects MEPC 45/2/10 Evaluation of Safety Aspects in Relation to Ballast Water Exchange MEPC 46/3/2 Draft Consolidated Text of International Convention for Control and Management of Ships, Ballast Water and Sediments. MSC 74/WP.14 Design Suggestion for Ballast Water and Sediment Management Options. IMO Res. A.868(20) Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water to Minimize the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens. MEPC 49/INF.6 Harmful Aquatic Organisms in Ballast Water. Draft International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments MEPS/Circ.389 MSC/CIRC.1021 Design suggestion or ballast water and sediments management options in new ships MEPS49/2/8 Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange. Submitted by UK
TB for UR P5 Del (April 2011)

Machinery panel report to GPG70 states that: PM5301 (4069f) a) The 12th Machinery Panel Meeting agreed to close this task and establish a new task with the aim of developing a UI related to unclear items related to ballast water exchange at sea in the MO Resolution MEPC.124(53) Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange (G6). b) On IACS home page under Unified Requirement is stated: P5 (May 2004) Ballast water systems. Requirements on ballast water exchange at sea. Withdrawn (Dec 2004), pending revision to take further account of operational matters. Actions from GPG: 1. The Panel request that P5 is removed from the list of Unified Requirement 2. The Panel requests that task 4069f is closed. GPG70 accepted the report from Machinery Panel during GPG70 and hence, approved UR P5 Del (April 2011)
Technical Background to UR P6 (New, May 2005) SHELL TYPE EXHAUST GAS HEATED ECONOMIZERS THAT MAY BE ISOLATED FROM THE STEAM PLANT SYSTEM WP/MCH Task 66 1. Background: Following an incident involving a severe explosion on an exhaust gas heated economiser on the Island Princess, the UK MAIB issued a Report with recommendations to IACS, LRS, MCA and IMO. 1. Develop guidelines for the examination of crack defects in shell-to-flat-endplate and furnace-to-flat endplate welded joints in shell-type boilers, similar to the guidelines published by the Safety Assessment Federation Ltd. The guidelines should be submitted to ship owners associations and IMO. 2. Extend the scope of periodical surveys to cover examination for cracking in the region of circumferential weld joints between shell and flat-end plates. 3. Require classification surveyors and ship owners to report: (i) Cases where shell boiler or economiser repairs are necessary because of cracking; (ii) Cases where boiler or economiser safety valves are found to have seized. The above should be submitted to IACS for the purpose of trend analysis and the identification of problem types. 4. Review procedures and frequency of testing of safety valves of fully flooded economisers. 5. Review the requirements for remote monitoring of economisers pressure. 6. Encourage ship owners to develop a boiler installation portfolio. 2. Issues addressed by WP/MCH: All classification societies were requested to review their records of similar installations The following points were addressed in the development of requirements. The design and construction details with particular reference to the welding, heat treatment and inspection arrangements at the tube plate connection to shell. Design of safety relief devices for shell type exhaust gas heated economisers that can be isolated from the steam plant system and that be subject to the accumulation of solid matter in-way of the relief valves. Requirements for pressure indication. Requirements for removable lagging to enable ultrasonic examination of the tube plate to shell connection. Requirements for feed water arrangements to address pre-heating and deaeration. Requirements operating instructions covering feed water treatment and sampling periodic checks on the system. Classification survey requirements. The draft unified requirements incorporate all these points.
(Ref:: The Survey Panel Task no.7 Amend Z18 to consider surveys of Exhaust Gas Heated Economizers. Target date 4Q-2005. UK MAIB REC nos 1, 2 and 4(Island Princess) will be addressed)
(Submitted by WP/MCH, 2004)
Page 1 of 3
Annex to TB. GPG comments: 1. General
DNV, on 31 January 2005, invited GPG to further consider the draft UR P6, stating that operational aspects and/or consequences thereof seemed not to have been included in the original draft. DNV provided GPG with a modified draft. Following a considerable length of discussion, ABS provided a summary of GPG comments on 11 March 2005 as follows (4069jABi). Most of the ABS proposals was agreed. 4069jABi is copied hereunder: Quote 1. P6.1 CCe (25 Feb) and NKd (3 Mar) recommended that the practicability of applying UR P6 to shell economizers fitted on existing ships should be evaluated before its implementation. ABS agrees with this recommendation and requests other members' opinions. This statement has been placed in square brackets. 2. P6.1 With the delays in finalizing this UR, ABS will now not be able to implement this UR from 1 January 2006. We suggest a new implementation date of 1 January 2007 (which will also allow for the practicability of application to existing ships, raised above, to be dealt with.) 3. P6.3.1 There appears to be agreement with NVh (1 Mar) that one safety valve must be provided if the total heating surface is less than 50 m2 and two safety valves must be provided if the total heating surface is 50m2 or more. This should satisfy item 4 of CCe (25 Feb). ABS supports this proposal. 4. P6.3.2 NKe (3 Mar) and LRj (7 Mar) added a requirement for the guide bush of safety valves, which was not supported by RIe (7 Mar). ABS agrees with RIe that such a requirement cannot be uniformly enforced and should be deleted. This statement is included in square brackets. (GPG: deleted. However, an additional item was added to P6.7 Procedures for maintenance and overhaul of safety valves) 5. a) P6.3.1 CCe (25 Feb) further suggested that the two safety valves should not be installed in one chest. This was not supported by NKe (3 Mar) since the bursting disk would provide an additional level of protection. However, resolution of this item is dependent upon item (b) below. This statement is included in square brackets. b) P6.3.3 CCe (25 Feb) contends that a bursting disk or alternative means is redundant if the economizer is fitted with two safety valves. ABS suggests a revision to apply P6.3.3 only for cases where a single safety valves is provided (i.e., total heating surface below 50 m2). This revision is shown in square brackets. c) If members agree that a bursting disk is only required when a single safety valve is fitted, then a case may be made for the suggestion in CCe that the safety valves should not be installed in one chest since there would be no bursting disk. If, however, members decide to require a bursting disk even when two safety valves are fitted, then the comments raised in NKe would be valid and the bursting disk would provide suitable protection, permitting the two safety valves to be fitted on the same chest. d) ABS supports the idea that a bursting disk is not required if there are two safety valves. Accordingly, we recommend that the text in square brackets in P6.3.1
Page 2 of 3
shown in attached file, should be deleted and that the text in square brackets at the beginning of P6.3.3 should be retained. 6. P6.3.3.2 BVe (23 Feb) has advised that they do not consider a high pressure warning device to be an acceptable alternative to a bursting disk or additional safety valve. Further, RIe does not support the automatic reduction of engine load. The entire P6.3.3.2 is included in square brackets. ABS recommends that the entire P6.3.3.2 be deleted. 7. P6.3.8 - CCe (25 Feb) proposed new text concerning acceptance of exceptions, alterations or equivalence. ABS does not believe that this additional text can be uniformly applied. It has not been included in the draft UR. ABS suggests that the Chairman invite members' positions on each of the points raised above with a view to finding for which items at least 2/3 majority support exists. Regards, S. R. McIntyre ABS IACS GPG Member
Unquote
2.
Council decided that: P6.1: Delete both options and task MCH Panel to evaluate the applicability of this UR to existing economizers(MCH Panel was so tasked); P6.3.3: Where no safety valves incorporating the features described in P6.3.2 are fitted, a bursting disc according to P6.3.3 is to be provided.
end
Page 3 of 3
IACS
Oct 2012
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Strength of Ships (UR S)
Res. No. UR S1 UR S1A Title Requirements for Loading Conditions, Loading Manuals and Loading Instruments Additional Requirements for Loading Conditions, Loading Manuals and Loading Instruments for Bulk Carriers, Ore Carriers and Combination Carriers Definition of ship's length L and of block coefficient Cb Strength of end bulkheads of superstructures and deckhouses Criteria for the use of high tensile steel with minimum yield stress of 315 N/mm2, 355 N/mm2 and 390 N/mm2 Calculation of midship section moduli for conventional ship for ship's scantlings Use of steel grades for various hull members - ships of 90m in length and above Minimum longitudinal strength standards Bow doors and inner doors Side shell doors and stern doors Rudders, sole pieces and rudder horns Longitudinal strength standard Side Structures in Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers Strength of bottom forward in oil tankers Current Rev. Rev.7 May 2010 Rev.6 May 2010 HF/TB? HF HF
UR S2 UR S3 UR S4 UR S5 UR S6 UR S7 UR S8 UR S9 UR S10 UR S11 UR S12 UR S13
Rev.1 May 2010 Rev.1 May 2010 Rev.3 May 2010 Rev.1 May 2010 Rev.6 May 2010 Rev.4 May 2010 Rev.4 Dec 2010 Rev.6 Dec 2010 Rev.3 Mar 2012 Rev.7 Nov 2010 Rev.5 May 2010 Rev.2 May 2010
HF HF HF HF HF HF HF HF HF HF HF HF
Res. No. UR S14 UR S15 UR S16
Title Testing Procedures of Watertight Compartments Side shell doors and stern doors Retrospective application of UR-S9 to existing ro-ro passenger ships Bow Doors and Inner Doors Retrospective Application of UR-S8, as amended to 1995, to existing Ro-Ro Passenger Ships Longitudinal Strength of Hull Girder in flooded condition for Bulk Carriers (Rev.7) Evaluation of Scantlings of Corrugated Transverse Watertight Bulkheads in Bulk Carriers Considering Hold Flooding Evaluation of Scantlings of the Transverse Watertight Corrugated Bulkhead between Cargo Holds Nos. 1 and 2, with Cargo Hold No. 1 flooded, for Existing Bulk Carriers Evaluation of Allowable Hold Loading for Bulk Carriers Considering Hold Flooding Evaluation of Scantlings of Hatch Covers and Hatch Coamings of Cargo Holds of Bulk Carriers, Ore Carriers and Combination Carriers (Rev.4) Evaluation of Scantlings of Hatch Covers and Hatch Coamings and Closing Arrangements of Cargo Holds of Ships Evaluation of Allowable Hold Loading of Cargo Hold No.1 with Cargo Hold No.1 Flooded, for Existing Bulk Carriers Implementation of IACS Unified Requirements S19 and S22 for Existing Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers Detection of Water Ingress into Cargo Holds Harmonised Notations and Corresponding Design Loading Conditions for Bulk Carriers Strength and Securing of Small Hatches on the Exposed Fore Deck Strength Requirements for Fore Deck Fittings and Equipment Requirements for the Fitting of a Forecastle for Bulk Carriers, Ore Carriers and Combination Carriers No record Cargo Hatch Cover Securing Arrangements for Bulk Carriers not Built in Accordance with UR S21(Rev.3)
Current Rev. Rev.4 Aug 2012 Rev.1 Nov. 2003 Rev.1, Corr.1 Aug 2004 Rev.8 May 2010 Rev.8 May 2010 Rev.5 July 2004
HF/TB? HF No No
UR S17 UR S18 UR S19
HF HF TB
UR S20 UR S21
Rev.5 May 2010 Rev.5 May 2010
HF HF
UR S21A
Corr.1 Oct 2011 Rev.3 July 2004 Rev.4 Aug 2007 Deleted (Jan 2004)
Superseded by UI SC179 & SC180
HF TB TB TB HF HF HF HF
UR S22 UR S23 UR S24 UR S25 UR S26 UR S27 UR S28 UR S29 UR S30
Deleted (May 2010) Rev.4 May 2010 Rev.5 May 2010 Rev.3 May 2010
Rev.1 Aug 2003
TB
Res. No. UR S31
Title Renewal Criteria for Side Shell Frames and Brackets in Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers and Single Side Skin OBO Carriers not Built in accordance with UR S12 Rev.1 or subsequent revisions Local Scantlings of Double Side Skin Structure of Bulk Carriers (DRAFT)
Current Rev. Rev.4 April 2007
HF/TB? TB
UR S32
DRAFT Deleted (May 2010)
HF
Part A
UR S1 Requirements for Loading Conditions, Loading Manuals and Loading Instruments

Version no. Rev.7 (May 2010) Rev.6 (July 2004) Rev.5 (June 2001) Rev.4 (1997) Rev.3 (1995) Rev.2 (1983) Rev.1 (1981) NEW (1971) Approval date 24 May 2010 5 July 2004 4 June 2001 28 May 1997 No record No record No record No record Implementation date when applicable 1 July 1998 -
Rev.7 (May 2010)
.1 Origin for Change: Based on IACS Requirement (Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that the requirements of UR S1 apply to CSR ships in addition to those of the Common Structural Rules. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.6 (July 2004)
Addition of Contracted for Construction footnote no TB document available.
Rev.5 (June 2001)
Rev.4 (1997)
Rev.3 (1995)
Rev.2 (1983)
Rev.1 (1981)
NEW (1971)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S1: Annex 1. TB for Rev.5 (June 2001)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1971), Rev.1 (1981), Rev.2 (1983), Rev.3 (1994), Rev.4 (1997), Rev.6 (July 2004) and Rev.7 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
IACS Unified Requirement S 1 (Rev.5 June 2001)
Requirements for Loading Conditions, Loading Manuals and Loading Instruments

Technical Backgrounds:
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to eliminate Members reservations:
b)
Source of Proposed Requirements WP/S was not able to find a way to accommodate Members reservations in S 1 and invited GPG to consider the matter which was seen to be a policy issue.
c)
Points of Discussion NKs reservation against S1.2.1 (NK did not consider that a loading instrument should be required for existing Chemical and Gas Carriers. ABS and others reservation (ABS did not require a loading instrument for Category I ships less than 122 meters in length built before the last revision of UR S 1 was issued (Rev.4 1997). In particular, S 1 (Rev.2, 1983) required loading instruments for certain categories of ships subject to ILLC 1966 regardless of length for which class request was received on or after 1 July 1984. However, Members implementation of S 1 (Rev.2, 1983) was not in uniform. GPG decided that to remove NKs reservation, the application length required for Category I ships shall be changed to 100 m in length in S1.2.1. to resolve Members inconsistent implementation of the prior edition of S 1 (Rev.3, 1983), the following wording shall be added to the Note: For ships constructed before 1 July 1988, the relevant revisions of this UR as well as Members reservations to those revisions of this UR apply.
Date: 15 May 2001, Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat
Part A
UR S1A Additional Requirements for Loading Conditions, Loading Manuals and Loading Instruments for Bulk Carriers, Ore Carriers and Combination Carriers
Version no. Rev.6 (May 2010) Rev.5 (Jul 2004) Rev.4 (Nov 2001) Rev.3 (Sept 2000) Rev.2 (May 1998) Rev.1 (Apr 1998) NEW (1997) Approval date 24 May 2010 5 July 2004 9 November 2001 7 September 2000 28 May 1998 17 April 1998 28 May 1997 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2001 1 January 1999/1 July 1999*1, 2 1 July 1998*1
* Notes: 1. The latest date for implementation of requirements in S1A.2.1(f), S1A.2.2(b) and S1A.4(d) is 1 July 1999. 2. See resolution for full details of implementation dates.
Rev.6 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR bulk carriers the requirements of UR S1A are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply. UR S1A is not applicable for CSR oil tankers.
Page 1 of 3
.5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Rev.5 (Jul 2004)
Rev. 4 (Nov 2001)
Rev.3 (Sept 2000)
Rev.2 (May 1998)
Rev.1 (Apr 1998)
NEW (1997)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S1A: Annex 1. TB for Rev.3 (Sept 2000)

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1997), Rev.1 (Apr 1998), Rev.2 (May 1998), Rev.5 (July 2004) and Rev.6 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background to changes proposed in respect of URs S1A, Annex 2 to S1A, S12, S17, S18, S19, S20 and S22
The objective of the proposal is to reflect the IMO interpretation of single side skin construction in the above mentioned Unified Requirements for bulk carriers. The Working Party on Strength discussions were unable to yield unanimous agreement and the following matters remain unresolved: The titles for URs S17, S18, S19, S20 and S22 include the wording single side skin. It was generally considered that this wording should now be deleted as the text clearly defines the scope of application and refers additionally to arrangements with double side skin construction. The GL Member does not support this view on the basis that the expression single side skin appears in the text of SOLAS Chapter XII. In view of this difference, the wording single side skin has been enclosed in square brackets pending further consideration by GPG. In order to clarify how the breadth of the side shell should be measured, the phrase between topside tank and hopper tank has been used in S17.1(ii) and (iii), S18.1(ii) and (iii), S19.1(ii), S20.1(ii) and (iii), and S22(ii). This was not supported by the ABS member who considers that the IMO definition of single side skin construction does not necessarily refer only to the location between topside and hopper tanks. Also this was not supported by the CRS Member who considers that MSC 89(71), which identifies that measurements are to be made perpendicular to the side shell, provides sufficient guidance. For these reasons, the text has been enclosed in square brackets pending further consideration by GPG.
In addition to the above, two other issues have been raised as follows: The ABS Member has requested that the following be considered in respect of the deletion of reference to damage stability requirements from paragraph S17.1 of URS17. It is noted that the reference was originally included in order to cover a six months difference in implementation timetables between SOLAS and IACS. Although both implementation dates have now passed and the need for this provision is limited, there could still be cases where it is relevant due to a change of Class from a non-IACS Society to an IACS Society. It is, therefore, proposed that the present clause in URS17 be replaced by an alternative clause within a unified requirement more specifically related to stability requirements. Support for this proposal has been indicated by PRS, DNV, KR, RINA, CRS and LR. The GL Member has requested that consideration be given to amending URS20 and URS22 such that these requirements are only applicable when corrugated bulkheads are fitted. This matter has not received support from the other WP/S Members and is considered to be outside the scope of the present Task.
Submitted by WP/S Chair on 31 May 2000 (Note: For GPG action, refer to GPG Chairs message 0064dIGa, 31/7/00)
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background to changes proposed with respect to UR S1A & S11 The objective of the attached proposals is to prohibit the practice of using partially filled ballast tanks, in design conditions, to control longitudinal strength. To accomplish this, it is proposed that appropriate changes be incorporated into the portion of UR S11.2.1.2 that describes items related to the load conditions that are considered in longitudinal strength calculations. This change also necessitates deletion of a conflicting reference in S1A.3c), which deals with partial filling of peak tanks. The change was agreed unanimously and no unresolved issues remain. Submitted by WP/S Chairman on 28 August 2001.
Part A
UR S2 Definition of ships length L and of block coefficient Cb

Version no. Rev.1 (May 2010) NEW (1973) Approval date 24 May 2010 No record Implementation date when applicable -
Rev.1 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR ships the requirements of UR S2 are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
NEW (1973)
Page 1 of 2
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S2:
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1973) and Rev.1 (May 2010).
Page 2 of 2
Part A
UR S3 Strength of end bulkheads of superstructures and deckhouses

Rev.1 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR bulk carriers the requirements of UR S3 are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply. However for CSR oil tankers the requirements of UR S3 are still valid. Additionally the opportunity was taken to correct a couple of typos in the equations in S3.2. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Page 1 of 3
NEW (1973)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

Page 3 of 3
Part A
UR S4 Criteria for the use of high tensile steel with minimum yield stress of 315 N/mm2, 355 N/mm2 and 390 N/mm2
Version no. Rev.3 (May 2010) Rev.2 (Apr 2007) Rev.1 (1974) NEW (1973) Approval date 24 May 2010 2 April 2007 No record No record Implementation date when applicable -
Rev.3 (May 2010)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.2 (Apr 2007)
Addition of criteria for HTS with min yield Stress of 390N/mm2 see TB document in Part B.
Rev.1 (1974)
NEW (1973)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S4: Annex 1. TB for Rev.2 (Apr 2007)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1973), Rev.1 (1974) and Rev.3 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF UR S4 (REV.2)

1. Scope and objective To revise UR S4 to give criteria for high tensile steel with specified minimum yield stress of 390 N/mm2 2. Background Raised by NK in PH6018bNKa of 6 October 2006. Different values of the material factor k for high tensile steel with specified minimum yield stress of 390 N/mm2 are used among IACS member societies, although one unified value has been implemented into the Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers. To obtain a unified criterion for the use of such high tensile steel, it was agreed to revise UR S4 during the 5th Hull Panel meeting without any objection. In addition, LR pointed out the inconsistency of terminology regarding Yield stress:

URS4 uses the term Minimum Upper Yield Point ; CSR Oil Tankers uses the term Specified Minimum Yield Stress ; and CSR Bulk Carriers uses the term Minimum Yield Stress.
3. Points of discussions 1. It is recognized that IACS member societies have used different values varied between 0,66 to 0,70 as a material factor k for high tensile steel with specified minimum yield stress of 390 N/mm2 in the application of the hull girder bending strength standard specified in UR S11.3, which would be based on technical and experimental backgrounds of each societies. 2. On the other hand, it is unanimously agreed by all IACS member societies that the unified material factor of 0,68 should be used for such high tensile steel as specified in Ch.3 Sec.1 2.2.1 of the Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Sec.6/1.1.4 of the Common Structural Rules for Double Hull Tankers. 3. It is considered therefore that UR S4 should be revised for the uniform application of the hull girder bending strength standard and also being in line with the Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers. 4. Regarding the consideration for the usage of such high tensile steel in other IACS URs, it is also agreed that the material factor of 0,68 is applied to the following URs which have already used the material factor k. (Any amendment is not necessary.) S7 : Minimum longitudinal strength standards S8 : Bow doors and inner doors S9 : Side shell doors and stern doors S10 : Rudders, sole pieces and rudder horns (except for non-welded part as specified in S10.1.3.1 which uses material factor K (capitol letter)) S11 : Longitudinal strength standard S12 : Side Structures in Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers (only for web height to thickness ratio and flange width to thickness ratio) S31 : Renewal Criteria for Side Shell Frames and Brackets in Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers and Single Side Skin OBO Carriers not Built in accordance with UR S12 Rev.1 or subsequent revisions (only for web height to thickness ratio)
5. It is recognized that for other URs such as S18, S20, S21, etc., material characteristics for high-tensile steels are considered by using the yield stress of the material directly, and for future developed UR such consideration will be discussed separately from the agreed material factor. 6. The consideration for the local strength requirements in the usage of such high tensile steel, other than those specified in the above, still remains at each societys discretion. 7. For the terminology regarding Yield stress, it is agreed that those in S4 are changed to minimum yield stress which is used in the most of URs concerning Strength of Ships (S) and Materials and Welding (W), including UR S11, temporally, those used in all URs of S Series should be reviewed and corrected if necessary, after the harmonization of CSR. 4. Amendment. The Hull Panel agreed to revise UR S4 so as to implement new material factor k of 0,68 for high tensile steel with minimum yield stress of 390 N/mm2. 5. Source/Derivation of proposed interpretation N.A. 6. Decision by voting N.A.
Submitted by Hull Panel Chairman 13 March 2007
Permanent Secretariat Note (3 April 2007): During GPG discussion KR reminded GPG of a previous proposal to delete with respect to longitudinal strength from the title of UR S4 and this was agreed. UR S4 (Rev.2) was adopted on 2 April 2007 (6221_IGd).
Part A
UR S5 Calculation of midship section moduli for conventional ship for ship's scantlings
Rev.1 (May 2010)
NEW (1975)
Page 1 of 2
Part B

Page 2 of 2
Part A
UR S6 Requirements for Loading Conditions, Loading Manuals and Loading Instruments

Version no. Rev.6 (May 2010) Rev.5 (Sept 2007) Rev.4 (July 2003) Rev.3 (May 2002) Rev.2 (1996) Rev.1 (1980) NEW (1978) Approval date 24 May 2010 18 September 2007 16 July 2003 6 May 2002 No record No record No record Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2008 -
Rev.6 (May 2010)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.5 (Sept 2007)
Hull Panel Task 17 Review of UR S6 for side shell plating exposed to low temperatures. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.4 (July 2003)
Rev.3 (May 2002)
Rev.2 (1996)
Rev.1 (1980)
NEW (1978)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S6: Annex 1. TB for Rev.3 (May 2002)


Annex 3. TB for Rev.5 (Sept 2007)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1978), Rev.1 (1980), Rev.2 (1996) and Rev.6 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
(UR S6, Rev.3, May 2002) Technical Background to changes proposed with respect to Table 1 of UR S6
The objective of the attached proposal is to clarify the application of the Notes of Table 1 in UR S6, in order to avoid different interpretations on their application, in particular for what concerns the plating at corners of large hatch openings. It is now clarified that large hatch openings are to be intended as the cargo hatch openings in the strength deck and the relevant requirements are now specified. A distinction is made between ships such as container carriers and bulk/ore carriers. For these latter, less stringent requirements may be applied in the region outside 0,6L amidships based on the fact that lower hull girder stresses occur in this area. The application to continuous hatch coamings has been clarified by introducing a length criterium (0,15L, above which coamings are considered as being subjected to hull girder stresses). Requirements for the steel grades of end brackets and deck house transition of longitudinal cargo hatch coamings have been introduced, based on damage statistics results. The change was agreed unanimously and no unresolved issues remain..
Submitted by WP/S Chairman Date: 14 March 2002
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background S6.1 in Rev. 4 of UR S6 The objective of the attached proposal is to clarify that the minimum width requirement of single strakes (800 + 5*L mm, need not be greater than 1800 mm) applies to those strakes located at the four corners of the ships cross section, plus deck strakes on top of longitudinal bulkheads. In addition, the fact that ships geometry may impose limitations to the width of the above strakes (e.g. in some containerships), is taken into account.
Part B, Annex 3
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR S6, REV.5 (SEPT 2007)

IACS HULL PANEL TASK 17 - Review of UR S6 for side shell plating exposed to low temperatures
1. Scope and objective Consider requirements on selection of steel grades, with a view to preventing brittle fracture in the side shell plating of ships operating in areas with low air temperatures.
2. Background Transportation Safety Board of Canada reports and correspondence with IACS concerning hull fractures in the Lake Carling and its sister ship Ziemia Gornoslaska. The TSB expressed concern over the current requirements of UR S6 for side shell plating which it did not consider adequate for ships operating near or below 0C.
3. Points of discussions/Analysis 3.1 General The brittle fracture damage of MV Lake Carling and analyses done in connection to this incident have been pointing at the following main issues: Application of material for side shell Material grade requirements for materials subjected to lower temperatures Stress level Consequence of brittle failure
3.2 Analysis The issue of steel toughness requirements, or to be more accurate lack of measured steel toughness requirements for normal strength ship steel grade A ship steel, has been raised as a major issue within both IACS and IMO by the Transport Safety Board of Canada. They based there assumptions on the brittle fracture that occurred in 19 mm grade A plate of the side shell of MV Lake Carling which initiated at a temperature of approximately 0C (fracture initiated below the water line and is therefore assumed to be near 0C, air temperature was minus 6C). Earlier, IACS WP/MW was asked to review the IACS testing requirements for normal strength ship steel grade A, which presently has no requirement for Charpy V-notch impact testing the steel mill. The working party reported back and quite rightly confirmed that there is no need to change the current test arrangements. It is more correct to consider changes to the requirements selecting the grade of material to be used, in this case IACS UR S6.
Lloyds Register has recently taken the opportunity, with the kind permission of the Transport Safety Board of Canada, to carry out further tests on steel plate taken from the Lake Carling and its sister ship the Ziemia Gornoslaska; these have not been too encouraging, see the table shown below. Z Gornoslaska1 L= +20C
Steel Source Charpy V-notch 27J transition temperature
Lake Carling L= +10C T= +10C
Fracture appearance transition temperature FATT (50% Crystalline)
L= +10C T= +15C
L= +15C
FATT (70% Crystalline) Minimum CTOD (BS 7448) @ -19C Minimum CTOD (BS 7448) @ 0C
L= -5C 0.01 mm 0.25 mm
L= +5C
Note 1, Z Gornoslaska is a sister ship to the Lake Carling.
IACS UR S6.1 was developed based on world wide service using a lowest mean daily average temperature of -10C. Areas of navigation to this temperature are given in statistical tables and charts such as the Pilot series of publications published by Hydrographer of the Navy or other authoritative reference, see Figure 1 as an example. This temperature for example, allows for navigation in the Northern Baltic and the St. Lawrence. Therefore IACS UR S6, will allow the use of grade A steel as follows; Class I, grade A up to 30 mm at temperatures down to -10C Class II, grade A up to 20 mm at temperatures down to -10C and grade B up to 25 mm at temperatures down to -10C Class III, grade A up to 15 mm at temperatures down to -10C and grade B up to 20 mm at temperatures down to -10C. This indicates that the current rule IACS UR S6 allows the use of non-impact tested steel in greater thicknesses and to a lower temperature than that involved in the Lake Carling incident. Thickness increase and lower temperature each increase the risk of brittle fracture.
Chart based on temperature data points from Admiralty Pilot Books, published by HMSO
Figure 1 Example of Navigation Chart based on Temperature
4. Proposed upgrading In the proposed revision Table 1 is revised into Tables 1 to 5 for easier interpretation. The following areas are upgraded to minimum grade B/AH regardless of Class: a) For ships with length exceeding 150 m and with single strength deck and without inner continuous longitudinal bulkhead(s) between bottom and the strength deck, single side strakes in way of cargo hold: - High shear stresses - Serious consequences (flooding/reduced hull girder capacity) of brittle failure b) Shell strakes in way of ice strengthening: - High ice pressures and impacts from collision with ice resulting in high stresses, high strain rates and possible plastic deformation at temperatures close to (below or equal) 0 C. c) For vessels with length exceeding 150 m and with single strength deck, within 0.4L amidships, for longitudinal strength members of strength deck plating and continuous longitudinal members above strength deck, excluding hatch coamings, as these members may be: - Subjected to high hull girder tensile stresses - Subjected to temperatures down to -10 C - critical / brittle fracture may have serious consequences for the hull girder integrity
In addition is the new requirement for single side shell strakes and lower bracket in way of single side (D/DH) as given in CSR for bulk carriers also included.
S6.1 Ships in normal world wide service Materials in the various strength members are not to be of lower grade than those corresponding to the material classes and grades specified in Table 1 through Table 6. General requirements are given in Table 1, while additional minimum requirements for ships with length exceeding 150m and 250m, bulk carriers subject to the requirements of SOLAS regulation XII/6.5.3, and ships with ice strengthening are given in Table 2 through Table 5. The material grade requirements for hull members of each class depending on the thickness are defined in Table 6. Table 1 Material Classes and Grades for ships in general Structural member category SECONDARY: A1. Longitudinal bulkhead strakes, other than that belonging to the Primary category A2. Deck plating exposed to weather, other than that belonging to the Primary or Special category A3. Side plating PRIMARY: B1. Bottom plating, including keel plate B2. Strength deck plating, excluding that belonging to the Special category B3. Continuous longitudinal members above strength deck, excluding hatch coamings B4. Uppermost strake in longitudinal bulkhead B5. Vertical strake (hatch side girder) and uppermost sloped strake in top wing tank SPECIAL: C1. Sheer strake at strength deck (*) C2. Stringer plate in strength deck (*) C3. Deck strake at longitudinal bulkhead, excluding deck plating in way of inner-skin bulkhead of double-hull ships (*) C4. Strength deck plating at outboard corners of cargo hatch openings in container carriers and other ships with similar hatch opening configurations C5. Strength deck plating at corners of cargo hatch openings in bulk carriers, ore carriers, combination carriers and other ships with similar hatch opening configurations Material class/grade - Class I within 0.4L amidships - Grade A/AH outside 0.4L amidships
- Class II within 0.4L amidships - Grade A/AH outside 0.4L amidships
- Class III within 0.4L amidships - Class II outside 0.4L amidships - Class I outside 0.6L amidships
- Class III within 0.4L amidships - Class II outside 0.4L amidships - Class I outside 0.6L amidships - Min. Class III within cargo region - Class III within 0.6L amidships - Class II within rest of cargo region
C6. Bilge strake in ships with double bottom over the full breadth and length less than 150m (*) C7. Bilge strake in other ships (*)
- Class II within 0.6L amidships - Class I outside 0.6L amidships - Class III within 0.4L amidships - Class II outside 0.4L amidships - Class I outside 0.6L amidships - Class III within 0.4L amidships - Class II outside 0.4L amidships - Class I outside 0.6L amidships - Not to be less than Grade D/DH
C8. Longitudinal hatch coamings of length greater than 0.15L C9. End brackets and deck house transition of longitudinal cargo hatch coamings (*)
Single strakes required to be of class III within 0.4L amidships are to have breadths not less than 800+5L (mm), need not be greater than 1800 (mm), unless limited by the geometry of the ships design.
Table 2 Minimum Material Grades for ships with length exceeding 150m and single strength deck Structural member category Longitudinal strength members of strength deck plating Continuous longitudinal strength members above strength deck Single side strakes for ships without inner continuous longitudinal bulkhead(s) between bottom and the strength deck Material grade Grade B/AH within 0.4L amidships
Grade B/AH within 0.4L amidships
Grade B/AH within cargo region
Table 3 Minimum Material Grades for ships with length exceeding 250m Structural member category Material grade Shear strake at strength deck (*) Grade E/EH within 0.4L amidships Stringer plate in strength deck (*) Grade E/EH within 0.4L amidships Bilge strake (*) Grade D/DH within 0.4L amidships (*) Single strakes required to be of grade E/EH and within 0.4L amidships are to have breadths not less than 800+5L (mm), need not be greater than 1800 (mm), unless limited by the geometry of the ships design.
Table 4 Minimum Material Grades for single-side skin bulk carriers subjected to SOLAS regulation XII/6.5.3 Structural member category Lower bracket of ordinary side frame (*),(**) Side shell strakes included totally or partially Material grade Grade D/DH Grade D/DH
between the two points located to 0.125l above and below the intersection of side shell and bilge hopper sloping plate or inner bottom plate (**) (*) The term of "lower bracket" means webs of lower brackets and webs of the lower part of side frames up to the point of 0.125l above the intersection of side shell and bilge hopper sloping plate or inner bottom plate. (**) The span of the side frame, l, is defined as the distance between the supporting structures.
Table 5 Minimum Material Grades for ships with ice strengthening Structural member category Shell strakes in way of ice strengthening area for plates Material grade Grade B/AH
Table 6 Material Grades Requirements for Classes I, II and III .................
5. Source/Derivation of proposed interpretation N.A.
6. Decision by voting N.A. Submitted by Hull Panel Chairman 20 July 2007
Permanent Secretariat note (September 2007): Adopted by GPG 18 September 2007, ref. 7632_IGb, with an effective date of 1 July 2008.

Version no. Rev.4 (May 2010) Rev.3 (1989) Rev.2 (1978) Rev.1 (1976) NEW (1973) Approval date 24 May2010 No record No record No record No record
Part A
UR S7 Minimum longitudinal strength standards
Implementation date when applicable -
Rev.4 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR ships the requirements of UR S7 are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply. Additionally the opportunity was taken to correct an alignment error in S7.1. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.3 (1989)
Rev.2 (1978)
Rev.1 (1976)
NEW (1973)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1973), Rev.1 (1976), Rev.2 (1978), Rev.3 (1989) and Rev.4 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3

UR S8 Bow Doors and Inner Doors
Version no. Rev. 4 (Dec. 2010) Rev. 3 (Nov 2003) Corr. (1997) Rev. 2 (1995) New (1982) Approval date 13 December 2010 7 November 2003 No record No record No record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2012 -
Part A
Rev.4 (Dec 2010)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Request by Hull Panel
.2 Main Reason for Change: Since the manual mentioned in Rev.3 S8.8.1 to be kept on board the vessel was required to include a copy of the certificate, each time the certificate was renewed the whole manual also had to be updated. However, noting that the vessel also has to have a copy of the certificate on board it was deemed to be a duplication of information and not necessary to keep updating the whole manual just to include a copy of the certificate that is already available on board. In addition, Statutory Panel Chairman suggested the editorial amendment to UR S8.1.2b, to make it in line with the SOLAS 2005 Amendments adopted by MSC.194(80). .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The Hull Panel agreed to the proposal and created the modifications to no longer require a copy of the certificate in the manuals. This was in turn agreed by the GPG. Editorial amendment to UR S8.1.2b, which was unanimously agreed by Statutory Panel members was approved by GPG .5 Other Resolutions Changes UR S9
Page 1 of 3
.6 Dates: Original Proposal: 14 November 2008 Panel Approval: 14 October 2010 GPG Approval: 13 December 2010 (Ref: 10146_IGc)
Rev. 3 (Nov. 2003)
According to CG/RRS Task 98-1, CG/RRS prepared draft amendments to S8 /S9 /S15 /S16 (also IG No.8) which were then revised by WP/S. The scope of application in S8 /S9 /S15 /S16 were revised and confirmed by GPG and Council (2081a). No TB document available.
Corr. (1997)
Minor editorial corrections - S.8.2.1c normal to nominal; S8.7.2d indiction to indication. No TB document available.
Rev.2 (1995)
New (1982)
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S8: Annex 1. TB for Rev.4 (Dec 2010)

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents available for New (1982), Rev.2 (1995), Corr.1 (1997) and Rev.3 (Nov 2003).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR S8 Rev.4, Dec 2010

1. Scope and objectives To address the issue that since the list of information to be placed in the Manual for bow, inner, side and stern doors includes the Certificate, if the Certificate change then the Manual has to be updated. In addition, Statutory Panel Chairman suggested the editorial amendment to UR S8.1.2b, to make it in line with the SOLAS 2005 Amendments adopted by MSC.194(80). 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Since the manual mentioned in Rev.3 S8.8.1 to be kept on board the vessel was required to include a copy of the certificate, each time the certificate was renewed the whole manual also had to be updated. However, noting that the vessel also has to have a copy of the certificate on board it was deemed to be a duplication of information and not necessary to keep updating the whole manual just to include a copy of the certificate that is already available on board. The Hull Panel agreed to the proposal and created the modifications to no longer require a copy of the certificate in the manuals. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution UR S8 Rev.3 (Nov 2003) SOLAS 2005 Amendments adopted by MSC.194(80). 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: S8.1.2b An inner door is to be fitted. The inner door is to be part of the collision bulkhead. The inner door needs not be fitted directly above the bulkhead below, provided it is located within the limits specified for the position of the collision bulkhead, refer to regulation II-1/12 II-1/10 or II-1/11 of the SOLAS Convention, as appropriate to the type of ship. A vehicle ramp may be arranged for this purpose, provided its position complies with regulation II-1/12 II-1/10 or II-1/11 of the SOLAS Convention, as appropriate to the type of ship. If this is not possible a separate inner weathertight door is to be installed, as far as practicable within the limits specified for the position of the collision bulkhead. S8.8.1 An Operating and Maintenance Manual for the bow door and inner door is to be provided on board and is to contain necessary information on: main particulars and design drawings special safety precautions details of vessel, class, statutory certificates equipment and design loading (for ramps) key plan of equipment (doors and ramps) manufacturers recommended testing for equipment description of equipment for
bow doors inner bow doors bow ramp/doors side doors stern doors central power pack bridge panel engine control room panel 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The necessity of reporting the revision to IMO was considered since IMO resolutions and documents referred to IACS URs S8 and S9. Finally it was agreed not to submit the revision to URs S8 and S9 to IMO. 6. Attachments if any None

UR S9 Side Shell Doors and Stern Doors
Version no. Rev. 6 (Dec. 2010) Rev. 5 (Nov. 2003) Rev. 4 (1996) Rev. 3 (1996) Rev. 2 (1993) Rev. 1 (1990) New (1984) Approval date 13 December 2010 7 November 2003 Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2012 1 July 1997 -
Part A
Rev.6 (Dec 2010)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Request by Hull Panel
.2 Main Reason for Change: Since the manual mentioned in Rev.5 S9.7.1 to be kept on board the vessel was required to include a copy of the certificate, each time the certificate was renewed the whole manual also had to be updated. However, noting that the vessel also has to have a copy of the certificate on board it was deemed to be a duplication of information and not necessary to keep updating the whole manual just to include a copy of the certificate that is already available on board. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The Hull Panel agreed to the proposal and created the modifications to no longer require a copy of the certificate in the manuals. This was in turn agreed by the GPG. .5 Other Resolutions Changes UR S8 .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 14 November 2008 Panel Approval: 14 October 2010 GPG Approval: 13 December 2010 (Ref: 10146_IGc)
Page 1 of 3
Rev. 5 (Nov. 2003)
According to CG/RRS Task 98-1, CG/RRS prepared draft amendments to S8 /S9 /S15 /S16 (also IG No.8) which were then revised by WP/S. The scope of application in S8 /S9 /S15 /S16 were revised and confirmed by GPG and Council (2081a). No TB document available.
Rev.4 (1996)
Rev.3 (1996)
Rev.2 (1993)
Rev.1 (1990)
New (1984)
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S9: Annex 1. TB for Rev.6 (Dec 2010)

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents available for New (1984), Rev.1 (1990), Rev.2 (1993), Rev.3 (1996), Rev.4 (1996) and Rev.5 (Nov 2003).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR S9 Rev.6, Dec 2010

1. Scope and objectives To address the issue that since the list of information to be placed in the Manual for bow, inner, side and stern doors includes the Certificate, if the Certificate change then the Manual has to be updated. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Since the manual mentioned in Rev.5 S9.7.1 to be kept on board the vessel was required to include a copy of the certificate, each time the certificate was renewed the whole manual also had to be updated. However, noting that the vessel also has to have a copy of the certificate on board it was deemed to be a duplication of information and not necessary to keep updating the whole manual just to include a copy of the certificate that is already available on board. The Hull Panel agreed to the proposal and created the modifications to no longer require a copy of the certificate in the manuals. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution UR S9 Rev.5 (Nov 2003) 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: S9.7.1 An Operating and Maintenance Manual for the side shell doors and stern doors is to be provided on board and is to contain the necessary information on: main particulars and design drawings special safety precautions details of vessel, class, statutory certificates equipment and design loading (for ramps) key plan of equipment (doors and ramps) manufacturers recommended testing for equipment description of equipment for bow doors inner bow doors bow ramp/doors side doors stern doors central power pack bridge panel engine control room panel
5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The necessity of reporting the revision to IMO was considered since IMO resolutions and documents referred to IACS URs S8 and S9. Finally it was agreed not to submit the revision to URs S8 and S9 to IMO. 6. Attachments if any None

Version no. Rev.3 (March 2012) Rev.2 (May 2010) Corr.2 (July 2003) Corr.1 (July 1999) Rev.1 (1990) NEW (1986) Approval date 15 March 2012 24 May 2010 16 July 2003 13 July 1999 No record No record
Part A
UR S10 Rudders, sole pieces and rudder horns
Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2013 -
Rev.3 (March 2012)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by IACS member
.2 Main Reason for Change: Members have been contacted a number of times by designers who asked if the bearing clearance of S10.8.3 could be smaller for non-metallic bearings. Designers noted that some IACS societies had approved smaller clearances based on special considerations. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided by the Hull Panel that for non-metallic bearing materials a smaller clearance could be considered. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 15th Hull Panel meeting (October 2011) Panel submission to GPG: 02 December 2011 GPG Approval: 15 March 2012 (Ref. 12027_IGc)
Page 1 of 4
Rev.2 (May 2010)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Based on IACS Requirement (Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR bulk carriers the requirements of UR S10 are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply. However for CSR oil tankers the requirements of UR S10 are still valid. Additionally the opportunity was taken to correct a couple of equations in S10.1 and S10.3. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Corr.2 (July 2003)
Corr.1 (July 1999)
Editorial correction to equation for dt in Section S10.3 no TB document available.
Rev.1 (1990)
Page 2 of 4
NEW (1986)
Page 3 of 4
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S10: Annex 1. TB for Rev.3 (Mar 2012)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1986), Rev.1 (1990), Corr.1 (July 1999), Corr.2 (July 2003) and Rev.2 (May 2010).
Page 4 of 4
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR S10 Rev.3, March 2012

1. Scope and objectives This revision is limited to S10.8.3 and the change in bearing clearance associated with non-metallic bearing materials. The consequence of this change is that reduced bearing clearances may be seen for non-metallic bearings. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale As stated in the S10.8.3, smaller clearances may be permitted considering the materials swelling and thermal expansion properties upon the discretion of the Society, when supported by the manufacturers recommendation and documented evidence of satisfactory service history with reduced clearances. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution None. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: The change to S10.8.3 entails deleting the text in no way from the third sentence and adding the fourth sentence. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions This change was agreed by the Hull Panel during the 13th and 14th meetings which took place in late 2010 and early 2011. In mid-2012, the following clarification was requested regarding the type approval of bearings with no service history: In case of products for which no service history can be provided (such as brand new model of bearing from an experienced manufacturer, a product from a new manufacturer, or any equivalent situation), the following options may be considered: (a) The Society may refer to the service history of similar type bearings manufactured by the same manufacturer during the type approval process. (b) The Society may request the manufacturer to use the bearing in question with 1.5mm or more clearance. A lesser clearance may be accepted when enough service history is available. (c) The Society may request additional testing and information, such as: 1. Submission for approval by the Society of a detailed test program dedicated to justify the acceptance of the proposed lower values of clearance,
2.
Upon approval of item (c)1 above, performance of relevant tests and submission of a technical document reporting on satisfactory results for all relevant tests of the approved program.

UR S11 Longitudinal Strength Standard
Version no. Rev.7 (Nov 2010) Rev.6 (May 2010) Rev.5 (Jan 2006) Rev.4 (July 2004) Rev.3 (June 2003) Rev.2 (Nov 2001) Rev.1 (1993) NEW (1989) Approval date 16 November 2010 24 May 2010 26 January 2006 5 July 2004 20 June 2003 9 November 2001 No record No record
Part A
Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2011 1 July 2006 1 July 2003 / 1 July 2004* -
* Note: For bulk carriers with notation BC-A, BC-B or BC-C, as defined in UR S25, UR S11 is to be complied with by ships contracted for construction on or after 1 July 2003. For other ships, this revision of UR S11 is to be complied with by ships contracted for construction on or after 1 July 2004.
Rev.7 (Nov 2010)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by an IACS member (Action initiated to address UK MAIB recommendations following the MSC Napoli incident)
.2 Main Reason for Change: The main technical reason for the change is to clarify strength requirements during sequential ballast water exchange and to include recommendations made in the UK MAIB report on the MSC Napoli incident. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The revisions were made through discussions and e-mails within the Hull Panel. A Hull Panel Member incorporated the comments and drafted a final revision. Hull Panel members reviewed and accepted the revisions. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: 12 April 2010 Made by: An IACS member
Page 1 of 4
Panel Approval: 5 October 2010 GPG Approval: 16 November 2010 (Ref. 8566_IGq)
Rev.6 (May 2010)
Rev.5 (Jan 2006)
Rev.4 (July 2004)
Rev.3 (June 2003)
Page 2 of 4
Rev.2 (Nov 2001)
Rev.1 (1993)
NEW (1989)
Page 3 of 4
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S11: Annex 1. TB for Rev.2 (Nov 2001)

Annex 2. TB for Rev.3 (June 2003)

Annex 3. TB for Rev.5 (Jan 2006)


Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1989), Rev.1 (1993), Rev.4 (July 2004) and Rev.6 (May 2010).
Page 4 of 4
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background to changes proposed with respect to UR S1A & S11 The objective of the attached proposals is to prohibit the practice of using partially filled ballast tanks, in design conditions, to control longitudinal strength. To accomplish this, it is proposed that appropriate changes be incorporated into the portion of UR S11.2.1.2 that describes items related to the load conditions that are considered in longitudinal strength calculations. This change also necessitates deletion of a conflicting reference in S1A.3c), which deals with partial filling of peak tanks. The change was agreed unanimously and no unresolved issues remain. Submitted by WP/S Chairman on 28 August 2001.
Part B, Annex 2
Technical background of UR S11 rev. 3(June 2003)

S11.1 Application As S11 applies to other ship types than bulk carriers with notation BC-A, BC-B or BC-C, two application dates are specified for the requirements in the new revision of UR S11: for the bulks with notation BC-A, BC-B or BC-C, the application date is 1 July 2003, for other ships is 1 July 2004. S11.2.1.2 Design loading Conditions In addition to departure and arrival conditions, transitory conditions are to be considered, where the amount and disposition of consumables are considered more severe. The objective is to increase the safety at the design stage, reducing the risk to have loading conditions during the voyage that could be critical for the longitudinal strength. The WP/S agreed that, as the possibilities of transitory loading conditions can be very many, only those supposed to be more critical are to be checked at the design stage. The matter of safe operations must be left to the ship staff after ensuring that the operational limits fixed at the design stage are not too narrow or impractical. Nevertheless, the safety at the design stage can be increased, requiring checks and planning of ballast change during the transitory conditions between the departure and arrival conditions. Therefore calculations of longitudinal strength of the intermediate conditions just before and just after ballasting and/or deballasting any ballast tank are required. Loading conditions according to UR S25 are explicitly included. S11.2.1.3 Partially filled ballast tanks in ballast loading conditions The old revision was not clear about the applicability of UR S17 to the ballast conditions, involving partially filling tanks. The text in revision 3 clarifies that these conditions can be used as design conditions provided that UR S17, as applicable, is complied with. It is also clarified that the ballast conditions, involving partially filling tanks, can be used as design conditions, provided that calculations of longitudinal strength are performed for all filling levels between empty and full In order to have a manageable number of investigations, for the purpose of design, it is sufficient that the partially filled tanks are assumed to be empty and full, in departure, arrival conditions and any other condition required in S11.2.1.2. S11.2.1.4 Partially filled ballast tanks in cargo loading conditions
The requirements for the partial filling are extended to cargo loading condition and not only to ballast condition, as cargo loading conditions involving partially filled peak tanks are to be well controlled in terms of hull girder strength.
Notes by the IACS Permanent Secretariat. 1) Council agreed that the last sentence of S11.1 be revised to read for clarity: For other ships types, this revision of this UR is to be.. 2) Council decided that the implementation date of S11(Rev.3) and S17(Rev.5) should be aligned with that of UR S25 1 July 2003. NK will implement UR S25 from 1 January 2004. In the interim period between 1 July 2003 and 1 January 2004 NK will recommend that Owners/Builders stipulate in their contract compliance with URs S11 Rev.3 and S17 Rev.5 when UR S25 is applied.
Adopted on 20 June 2003.
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background UR S11 (Rev.5, Jan 2006)
1. Scope and objective 1.1 Application of UR S11.2.1.3 and S11.2.1.4 to Ballast Water Exchange Ballast water exchange sequences are to be included in the LM as per UR S1, UR S1A and S11.2.1.2 and are to be approved. However there is no need to check that the longitudinal strength is complied with for any filling levels between full and empty. Therefore IACS Hull Panel proposes to insert a new sub-section S11.2.1.5 in order to clarify the application of UR S11.2.1.3 and UR S11.2.1.4 with regard to sequential ballast water exchange. 1.2 Application of UR S11.2.1.3 and S11.2.1.4 to Ore carrier In case of ore carriers defined in UR Z11.2.3 as given below, which have large wing ballast tanks, design loading conditions may include two pairs of partially filled ballast tanks. There are loading limits, other than full and empty, due to reasons other than longitudinal strength such as propeller immersion and bridge visibility. Where these limits exist, they will serve as alternate limits to full or empty condition in S11.2.1.3. The current text of S11.2.1.3 and S11.2.1.4 might require longitudinal strength check for the unrealistic virtual ballast/cargo loading conditions, which are far beyond the above-mentioned limits. Therefore IACS Hull Panel proposes to modify sub-section S11.2.1.3 to solve this problem by introducing criteria which give the thresholds of loading conditions.
Page 1 of 3
2.
Points of discussions or possible discussions
2.1 Application of UR S11.2.1.3 and S11.2.1.4 to Ballast Water Exchange Review the applicability of S11.2.1.3 and S11.2.1.4 to ballast tank during ballast water exchange and resolve the problem arising from the current text. 2.2 Application of UR S11.2.1.3 and S11.2.1.4 to Ore carrier When the design stress limit cannot be achieved with empty / full condition for one or two pairs of Wing Ballast Tanks, the longitudinal strength check is performed for partial filling of these tanks within the filling limitations. The pair of tanks is understood to be similar and symmetrical along the centre line. The filling limitations correspond to 3 extreme conditions of trim as follows: Trim by stern of 3% of ships length Trim by bow of 1.5% of ships length Any trim that cannot maintain propeller immersion (I/D) not less than 25%, where; I = the distance from propeller centerline to the waterline D = propeller diameter (see the following figure)
Page 2 of 3
3. Source/ derivation of proposed requirement Hull Panel 4. Decision by voting N.A. Submitted by Hull Panel Chairman 26 Oct 2005
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 4
Technical Background for UR S11 Rev.7, Nov 2010

1. Scope and objectives Revisions are being made to clarify documentation of hull girder strength during sequential ballast water exchange and to incorporate recommendations made by the UK MAIB in their report on the investigation into the structural failure of the MSC Napoli. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Evaluation of hull girder longitudinal strength during a sequential ballast water exchange process and the inclusion of this information in the loading manual or ballast water management plan are considered important and necessary. Among the recommendations from the UK MAIB investigations into the MSC Napoli incident, it asks for a review of UR S11 to ensure that hull girder and buckling strength checks are carried out at all critical sections along the entire length of a vessel. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution The source of the information was obtained through the input of the Hull Panel members. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: New text describing requirements covering items mentioned in 2 above are introduced in this revision of the UR. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The revisions were made through discussions and e-mails within the Hull Panel which involved mainly incorporating individual comments and accepting the consolidated text. 6. Attachments if any None
Part A
UR S12 Side Structures in Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers

Version no. Rev.5 (May 2010) Rev.4 (July 2004) Rev.3 (Sept 2000) Rev.2.1 (1997) Rev.1 (1997) NEW (1992) Approval date 24 May 2010 5 July 2004 7 September 2000 10 December 1997 8 September 1997 No record Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2001 -
Rev.5 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR bulk carriers the requirements of UR S12 are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply. UR S12 is not applicable for CSR oil tankers. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.4 (July 2004)
No TB document available addition of Contracted for Construction footnote.
Rev.3 (Sept 2000)
Rev.2.1 (1997)
Rev.1 (1997)
NEW (1992)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S12: Annex 1. TB for Rev.3 (Sept 2000)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1992), Rev.1 (1997), Rev.2.1 (1997), Rev.4 (July 2004) and Rev.5 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1

Version no. Rev.2 (May 2010) Rev.1 (1993) NEW (1993) Approval date 24 May 2010 2 December 1993 No record
Part A
UR S13 Strength of bottom forward in oil tankers
Rev.2 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR oil tankers the requirements of UR S13 are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply. UR S13 is not applicable for CSR bulk carriers. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Rev.1 (1993)
Addition of mandatory implementation date no TB document available.
Page 1 of 3
NEW (1993)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

Note: There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document for the original resolution (1993), Rev.1 (1993) and Rev.2 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3

UR S14 Testing Procedures of Watertight Compartments
Version no. Rev.4 (August 2012) Rev.3 (May 2010) Rev.2 (May 2001) Rev.1 (Feb 2001) NEW (1996) Approval date 20 August 2012 24 May 2010 30 May 2001 12 February 2001 No record
Part A
Rev.4 (August 2012)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Request by Hull Panel and the GPG.
.2 Main Reason for Change: To place the testing updates made in the IACS PROCEDURES FOR TESTING TANKS AND TIGHT BOUNDARIES (the PROCEDURES) into a new update of UR S14. The following is a roadmap showing changes made to arrive at Rev. 4. Roadmap for the Rev. 4 of UR S 14
Section in UR S14 (Rev. 3, May 2010) 14.1.1 Shop primer and final coating Structural test Hydropneumatic testing Leak testing Hose testing Application - Test conditions Purpose Stage of construction at which to test and general testing requirements Not applicable to CSR BC/OT Structural testing and coating Leak testing air pressure Indicating Liquid Test pressure verification (Utube and gauge) Location in UR S14 (Rev. 4, Aug 2012) 4.5 Application of Coating 3.1 Structural test 3.1 Leak test, 3.2 Definition, Hydropneumatic test 3.1 Leak test 3.2 Definition, Hose test 2.1 Application 1 General 4.1 General test procedure
14.1.2
14.2.1 14.2.2
(Statement no longer valid) 4.5 Application of coating, Table 3 4.4.4 4.4.6 (Tank air test, compressed air fillet weld test, and vacuum box test) 3.2 Definition - Air test, Compressed air fillet weld test, and vacuum box test 4.4.4 U-tube, Master gauge
Page 1 of 5
Section in UR S14 (Rev. 3, May 2010) Leak testing and coating Other recognized methods 14.2.3 Hose Testing (pressure, nozzle and distance) 14.2.4 Hydropneumatic 14.2.5 Other Testing Methods 14.3 General Testing Requirements 14.4 Additional Requirements for special type vessels/tanks Table 1 General Testing Requirements Table 2 Additional testing requirements for spaces within the cargo area of certain types of ships LNG Carriers Additional testing requirements for spaces within the cargo area of certain types of ships Other vessel types N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Based Sec. 14.2.1 and 14.2.2
Location in UR S14 (Rev. 4, Aug 2012) 4.5 Application of coating, Table 3 4.4.9 Other Test 4.4.3 Hose test (pressure, nozzle and distance) 4.4.2 Hydropneumatic test 4.4.9 Other Test 4.1 General test procedure, Table 1 Table 2 (although no text as in 14.4) Table 1 General Testing Requirements (Direct reference to URs G1 and G2 not made)
Table 2 Additional Test Requirements for Special Service Ship/Tanks
2.3 Testing of structures not listed in Table 1 or 2 4.2.1 Type and time of test 4.2.2 Number of Structural Tests 4.3 Leak Test Procedures 4.4.1 Hydrostatic Test 4.4.3 Hose test practicability 4.4.7 Ultrasonic Test 4.4.8 Penetration Test 4.6 Safe Access to Joints Table 3 Application of Leak Test, Coating and Provisions for Safe Access for Type of Welded Joints
.3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: The Hull Panel created the PROCEDURES based on Rev. 3 of the UR S14 and then IACS (with the Cook Islands and the Marshall Islands) submitted the PROCEDURES to IMO MSC86 meeting held in May/June 2009 (Ref. Paper MSC 86/23/13, dated 25 February 2009). The reason for developing the PROCEDURES was to document well established and proven practices used for testing the integrity of watertight compartments intended to contain liquids which are at variance to certain degrees with both the previous requirements of SOLAS (which addressed the testing of subdivision boundaries for
Page 2 of 5
watertightness) and the new requirements contained in resolution MSC.194(80) that entered into force on 1 January 2009, which include additional requirements for testing the structural strength of tanks intended to contain liquids. The PROCEDURES were developed to remove variances which will impact all ships to which the requirements of SOLAS chapter II-1 apply. With the Rev. 4 update, the requirements of UR S14 are confirmed to be applicable to ships to which the Common Structural Rules apply, reversing the application note previously in Rev. 3. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: GPG72 FUA 5 Panel submission to GPG: 10 July 2012 (By Hull Panel) GPG Approval: 20 August 2012 (Ref. 11178aIGc)
Rev.3 (May 2010)
Page 3 of 5
Rev.2 (May 2001)
Rev.1 (Feb 2001)
NEW (1996)
Page 4 of 5
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S14: Annex 1. TB for Rev.1 (Feb 2001)


Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1996), Rev.3 (May 2010) and Rev.4 (Aug 2012).
Page 5 of 5
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background to changes proposed in respect of UR S14.1.2 (Rev. 1, 2001) The attached change is proposed in order to eliminate the ABS reservation on UR S14 Testing Procedures of Watertight Compartments. It was considered by ABS that application of the requirements of S14.1.2 should not extend to pressure tanks and small gravity tanks. To accommodate this, WP/S agreed that the wording tanks, including independent tanks should be replaced by gravity tanks including independent tanks of 5m3 or more in capacity as shown on the attached. The change was agreed unanimously and no unresolved issues remain.
Submitted by WP/S Chairman on 9 January 2001
Part B, Annex 2
IACS Unified Requirement S 14 (Rev.2 May 2001)
Testing Procedure of Watertight Compartments

a)
Objective/Scope Further to adoption of Rev.1 (February 2001) to eliminate ABS reservation on S14.1.2, there was a need to remove the ambiguity of the changes made in Rev.1, thereby achieving uniform implementation in practice.
b)
Source of Proposed Requirements ABS provided an editorial improvement to S14.1.2.
c)
Points of Discussion NK further proposed that all types of gravity tanks under 5 m3 (small integral gravity tanks inclusive) should be exempted from S 14. No discussion was pursued by GPG. However, ABS pointed out that SOLAS II-1/Reg.14.4 requires hydrotesting of double bottom testing and II-1/14.5 requires tanks forming part of subdivision bulkheads to be likewise tested. This revision was limited to achieve the clarity of S14.1.2. After exchange of alternative wordings for the first bullet of S14.1.2, the following wording was finally agreed by GPG: S 14.1.2 gravity tanks, excluding independent tanks of less than 5 m3 in capacity . Remark: When incorporating the revisions of UR S 14 into their Rules, Member Societies are to ignore Rev.1 (February 2001). *****
Date: 13 June 2001, Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat
IACS
History File + TB
Part A
UR S17 Longitudinal Strength of Hull Girder in flooded condition for Bulk Carriers
Version no. Rev.8 (May 2010) Corr.1 (Oct 2009) Rev.7 (Feb 2006) Rev.6 (July 2004) Rev.5 (June 2003) Rev.4 (June 2002) Rev.3 (Sept 2000) Rev.2 (1998) Rev. 1 (1997) NEW (1997) Approval date 24 May 2010 15 October 2009 1 February 2006 5 July 2004 20 June 2003 20 June 2002 7 September 2000 28 May 1998 4 November 1997 8 September 1997 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2006 1 July 2003 1 July 2001 1 July 1998
Rev.8 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR bulk carriers the requirements of UR S17 are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply. UR S17 is not applicable for CSR oil tankers. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31.
Page 1 of 4
.6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Corr.1 (Oct 2009)
.1 Origin for Change: Suggestion by IACS member
.2 Main Reason for Change: In January 2006, GPG did not reach consensus on a single uniform application date for the revisions of URs S17, S18 and S20, but did agree, by 2/3 majority, to an application statement reading "Revision [x] of this UR is to be applied by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction from a date commencing not later than 1 July 2006" that was intended to mean that the revised URs S17, S18 and S20 were to be applied by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction on or after a date dd/mm/2006 (to be chosen by each Society) that had to be not later than 1 July 2006. However, the application statement, as it was written, was not clear because it could be understood that the revised URs were applicable to ships contracted for construction before 1 July 2006 only and not on or after 1 July 2006. In order to make the application statement clearer and user-friendly, in October 2009 when the circumstances that brought to the adoption of that peculiar wording were no longer valid - GPG agreed to change it to read: "Revision [x] of this UR is to be applied by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction on or after 1 July 2006". .3 History of Decisions Made: See .2 above. .4 Other Resolutions Changes URs S18 and S20 .5 Any dissenting views None .6 Dates: GPG Approval: 15 October 2009 (ref. 9628_IGb)
Page 2 of 4
Rev.7 (Feb 2006)
Rev.6 (July 2004)
Addition of Contracted for Construction statement. No TB document available.
Rev.5 (June 2003)
Rev.4 (June 2002)
Rev.3 (Sept 2000)
Rev.2 (1998)
Introduction of early implementation of damage stability requirements with a view to synchronising with the implementation of UR S18 and S20. No TB document available.
Rev. 1 (1997)
NEW (1997)
Page 3 of 4
Part B



Annex 3. TB for Rev.7 (Feb 2006)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1997), Rev.1 (1997), Rev.2 (May 1998), Rev.4 (Sept 2000), Rev.6 (July 2004), Corr.1 (Oct 2009) and Rev.8 (May 2010).
Page 4 of 4
Part B, Annex 1
Part B, Annex 2
UR S17 (Rev. 5, June 2003) Technical background

The new revision specifies more in detail which loading conditions are to be considered in UR S17, among those required in UR S1 and S1A. Intermediate loading conditions encountered during ballast water exchange not to Part B, need Annex 1 be considered in UR S17, as they are very transient conditions, and normally they occur in the normal and not extreme conditions. For clarification, a note is added to the proposed implementation date of [1 July 2003] stating that such bulk carriers contracted before [1 July 2003] are to comply with the applicable version of S17. The second paragraph of S17.1 is relocated to S17.2.1 "Floodable holds". The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of S17.3 is relocated to S17.2.2 "(Floodable conditions) Loads". The second sentence of the fourth paragraph of S17.3 is combined with the third paragraph (with "intermediate" deleted). The last paragraph of S17.1 is deleted as this is not applicable to bulk carriers defined in S17 (Rev.5). SOLAS itself takes care of damage stability. S17.2 is divided into S17.2.1 and S17.2.2 each with a title appropriate to the contents. In the definition of fsfc in S17.4, "alternate loading condition" is changed to "loading conditions with empty hold(s)" to agree with S25.
Note by the IACS Permanent Secretariat Council (C 47, 10-12 June 2003) decided that the implementation date of S11(Rev.3) and S17(Rev.5) should be aligned with that of UR S25 1 July 2003. NK will implement UR S25 from 1 January 2004. In the interim period between 1 July 2003 and 1 January 2004 NK will recommend that Owners/Builders stipulate in their contract compliance with URs S11 Rev.3 and S17 Rev.5 when UR S25 is applied. Adopted on 20 June 2003
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background UR S17(Rev.7), UR S18(Rev.7) and UR S20(Rev.4)

(February 2006) 1. Objective These revisions are proposed to extend the application of URs S17, S18 and S20 to bulk carriers of double side skin construction. 2. Background The Maritime Safety Committee in the IMO, at its 76th session (MSC 76), agreed that new ships of 150 m in length and upwards, which would be of double-side-skin construction, should also comply with all the structural strength provisions of regulation XII/5 of SOLAS requiring that the ship shall have sufficient strength to withstand flooding of any one cargo hold. DE Sub-Committee, at its 47th session (DE 47), prepared a final draft text for The amendments to SOLAS XII mainly by removing the words which refer to single-side skin construction from this regulation after having discussed about hold flooding scenarios. agreed hold flooding scenario or assumption was a hypothetical one in which only a cargo hold would be flooded to the water level outside the ship in that flooded condition without flooding the double side skin spaces. Finally the amendments of SOLAS XII were approved at MSC 78 and adopted at MSC 79. IACS UR S17, S18 and S20 have been referred to in SOLAS 1997 Conference Resolution 3, Recommendation on compliance with SOLAS regulation XII/5. Therefore GPG decided to revise these URs in line with the above-mentioned IMO decision on 10 Jan 2003 and tasked WP/S to effect the revision. Hull Panel took over the task after the reorganization of IACS in 2005.
3. Amendment Hull Panel prepared a draft revision. In the application of these three URs, the exemption of cargo holds of double side skin construction was deleted or explicit inclusion of double side skin construction was described. The definition of bulk carrier is referred not to the new definition of the SOLAS XII but to the definition in UR Z11.2.2. 4. Additional Note 4.1 S17.4 Strength Assessment. The requirements regarding the shear stress in the rev 6 were relative to the side shell only of a single side skin vessel. These requirements are to be applied to the side shell and the inner
hull in case of a double side skin bulk carrier. These requirements refer to the corresponding requirements of URS11.4 (Rev 4 in force today) in which the formulations are given for ships with and without longitudinal bulkheads. Moreover the door is open in UR S11.4.1 to the possible use of a method of direct stress calculation. 4.2 S18.6 Corrosion addition and steel renewal and S20.3 Shear Capacity of the double bottom Attention is drawn on the fact that it will be necessary to update UR S18 and S20 after the entry into force of the JBP Rules. The corresponding corrosion additions and criteria for steel renewal will be changed. 5. Source/ derivation of proposed requirement Hull Panel 6. Decision by voting N.A. 26 October 2005
Prepared by Hull Panel
Notes: 2248eIGj, 8 Jan 2006: GPG concluded that the following be added to the TB.
"GPG unanimously approved the amended URs and TB. After several rounds of correspondence, GPG did not reach concensus on a single uniform application date for these revisions but did agree, by 2/3 majority, to an application statement to the effect that these revisions of these URs are to be applied by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction from a date commencing not later than 1 July 2006. GPG Chairman also encouraged all Members to endeavor to apply the requirements of the amended URs in conjunction with their approval of double hull bulk carriers subject to amended SOLAS XII/5.2 by one means or another."
***
IACS
History File + TB
Part A
UR S18 Evaluation of Scantlings of Corrugated Transverse Watertight Bulkheads in Bulk Carriers Considering Hold Flooding
Version no. Rev.8 (May 2010) Corr.1 (Oct 2009) Rev.7 (Feb 2006) Rev.6 (July 2004) Rev.5 (July 2003) Rev.4 (Nov 2001) Rev.3 (Feb 2001) Rev.2 (Sept 2000) Rev.1.1(March 1998) & Rev.1.1(March 1998)/Corr.11 Rev.1 (1997)2 NEW (1997) Approval date 24 May 2010 15 October 2009 1 February 2006 5 July 2004 16 July 2003 9 November 2001 12 February 2001 7 September 2000 12 March 1998 4 November 1997 8 September 1997 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2006 1 July 2001 1 July 1998
Notes: 1 The change made in Rev.1.1 was not properly reflected in the clean version in the Blue Book CD-ROM and so Corr.1 of the clean version was issued on 26 February 1999. 2 There were editorial errors in the first version of Rev.1 circulated and so a corrected version was circulated on 28 November 1997.
Rev.8 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR bulk carriers the requirements of UR S18 are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply.
Page 1 of 5
UR S18 is not applicable for CSR oil tankers. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Corr.1 (Oct 2009)
.2 Main Reason for Change: In January 2006, GPG did not reach consensus on a single uniform application date for the revisions of URs S17, S18 and S20, but did agree, by 2/3 majority, to an application statement reading "Revision [x] of this UR is to be applied by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction from a date commencing not later than 1 July 2006" that was intended to mean that the revised URs S17, S18 and S20 were to be applied by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction on or after a date dd/mm/2006 (to be chosen by each Society) that had to be not later than 1 July 2006. However, the application statement, as it was written, was not clear because it could be understood that the revised URs were applicable to ships contracted for construction before 1 July 2006 only and not on or after 1 July 2006. In order to make the application statement clearer and user-friendly, in October 2009 when the circumstances that brought to the adoption of that peculiar wording were no longer valid - GPG agreed to change it to read: "Revision [x] of this UR is to be applied by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction on or after 1 July 2006". .3 History of Decisions Made: See .2 above. .4 Other Resolutions Changes URs S17 and S20 .5 Any dissenting views None
Page 2 of 5
.6 Dates: GPG Approval: 15 October 2009 (ref. 9628_IGb)
Rev.7 (Feb 2006)
Rev.6 (July 2004)
Rev.5 (June 2003)
Rev.4 (Nov 2001)
Rev.3 (Feb 2001)
Rev.2 (Sept 2000)
Rev. 1.1 (March 1998) & Rev. 1.1 (March 1998)/Corr.1*
The last paragraph of S18.2.1 with regard to the cargo filling height was changed to read the upper deck level at centreline.* No TB document available.
* This change was not properly reflected in the clean version in the Blue Book CD-ROM and so Corr.1 of the clean version was issued on 26 February 1999.
Page 3 of 5
Rev. 1 (1997)
NEW (1997)
Page 4 of 5
Part B





Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1997), Rev.1 (1997), Rev.1.1 (March 1998)/Corr.1, Rev.6 (July 2004), Corr.1 (Oct 2009) and Rev.8 (May 2010).
Page 5 of 5
Part B, Annex 1
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background to changes proposed in respect of UR S18.4.1(a) (Rev. 3, 2001) The attached change is proposed in response to a problem raised by a shipbuilder and reported by DNV in respect of the distance requirement from the edge of the stool top plate to the surface of the corrugation flange, as given in S18.4.1(a). The need for a distance of this magnitude was questioned, particularly for cases where the lower stool top plate is inclined, as this detail could encourage accumulation of dirt and moisture leading to excessive corrosion at the bulkhead to stool interface. The matter was debated by WP/S and it was concluded that the specified distance could be reduced to alleviate the above problem while maintaining a sufficient distance to form a satisfactory weld and avoid lamella tearing of the stool top plate. The change was agreed unanimously and no unresolved issues remain.
Submitted by WP/S Chairman on 9 January 2001
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background to changes proposed with respect to UR S18.4.1(a) & S18.4.1(c)

The attached changes are proposed to achieve greater uniformity in practice among IACS members with respect to the welding requirements at the lower end of vertically corrugated bulkheads. These changes affect: (a) connections between the corrugations and the stool top plate or inner bottom plating; (b) connections between the stool side plating and the stool top and inner bottom plating; and (c) connections between the floors and the inner bottom plating in-way-of transverse corrugated bulkheads. In the proposal, the text has been modified to remove the non-specific phrase generally to be connected to. by full penetration welds and to replace it with more specific requirements for each of the above mentioned locations.
Submitted by WP/S Chairman on 28 August 2001.
Part B, Annex 4
Technical Background S18.4.1 in Rev. 5 of UR S18 The objective of the attached proposal is to avoid any misinterpretation of the lower stool requirement for ships less than 190 m in length. As presently written, the requirement could be interpreted that for ships less than 190 m in length a stool not complying with the requirements in S18.4.1 itself is allowed and its presence taken into account when defining the corrugation spans according to Figure 2 of UR S18. This is not the intention of the requirements. With the occasion, the specifications of bottom and top stool have been unified to lower and upper as used in other parts of UR S18.
***
Part B, Annex 5

***
IACS
History File + TB
Part A
UR S20 Evaluation of Allowable Hold Loading for Bulk Carriers Considering Hold Flooding
Version no. Rev.5 (May 2010) Corr.1 (Oct 2009) Rev.4 (Feb 2006) Rev.3 (July 2004) Rev.2 (Sept 2000) Rev.1 (1997) NEW (1997) Approval date 24 May 2010 15 October 2009 1 February 2006 5 July 2004 7 September 2000 4 November 1997 8 September 1997 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2006 1 July 2001 1 July 1998
Rev.5 (May 2010)
Page 1 of 4
Corr.1 (Oct 2009)
.2 Main Reason for Change: In January 2006, GPG did not reach consensus on a single uniform application date for the revisions of URs S17, S18 and S20, but did agree, by 2/3 majority, to an application statement reading "Revision [x] of this UR is to be applied by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction from a date commencing not later than 1 July 2006" that was intended to mean that the revised URs S17, S18 and S20 were to be applied by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction on or after a date dd/mm/2006 (to be chosen by each Society) that had to be not later than 1 July 2006. However, the application statement, as it was written, was not clear because it could be understood that the revised URs were applicable to ships contracted for construction before 1 July 2006 only and not on or after 1 July 2006. In order to make the application statement clearer and user-friendly, in October 2009 when the circumstances that brought to the adoption of that peculiar wording were no longer valid - GPG agreed to change it to read: "Revision [x] of this UR is to be applied by IACS Societies to ships contracted for construction on or after 1 July 2006". .3 History of Decisions Made: See .2 above. .4 Other Resolutions Changes URs S17 and S18 .5 Any dissenting views None .6 Dates: GPG Approval: 15 October 2009 (ref. 9628_IGb)
Rev.4 (Feb 2006)
Page 2 of 4
Rev.3 (July 2004)
Rev.2 (Sept 2000)
Rev. 1 (1997)
NEW (1997)
Page 3 of 4
Part B


Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1997), Rev.1 (1997), Rev.3 (July 2004), Corr.1 (Oct 2009) and Rev.5 (May 2010).
Page 4 of 4
Part B, Annex 1
Part B, Annex 2

***
Part A
UR S21 Evaluation of Scantlings of Hatch Covers and Hatch Coamings of Cargo Holds of Bulk Carriers, Ore Carriers and Combination Carriers
Version no. Rev.5 (May 2010) Corr.1 (Oct 2004) Rev.4 (July 2004) Rev.3 (Apr 2003) Rev.2 (Nov 2002) Rev.1 (2002) NEW (1997) Approval date 24 May 2010 25 October 2004 5 July 2004 7 April 2003 17 December 2002 1 June 2002 No record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2004 -
Rev.5 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR bulk carriers the requirements of UR S21 are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply. UR S21 is not applicable for CSR oil tankers. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50
Page 1 of 3
Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Corr.1 (Oct 2004)
Pontoon hatch covers corrected to read double skin hatch covers no TB document available.
Rev.4 (July 2004)
Rev.3 (Apr 2003)
Rev.2 (Nov 2002)
Rev.1 (2002)
NEW (1997)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S21: Annex 1. TB for Rev.3 (Apr 2003)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1997), Rev.1 (2002), Rev.2 (Nov 2002), Rev.4 (July 2004), Corr.1 (Oct 2004) and Rev.5 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1 IACS WP/S - Task 70 Revision 3 of UR S21 April 2003
UR S21 Rev. 3 Technical background

Background Following the hearings of the Re-Opened Formal Investigation into the loss of the m.v. Derbyshire, held in the U.K., the Court recommended that UR S21 should be re-appraised in the light of the latest sea-keeping model tests, and that this new standard be made applicable both to new ships and retrospectively to existing vessels. Later, in March 2002, IACS announced a series of eight initiatives to improve the safety of bulk carriers. UR S21 Rev. 2 was firstly developed by AHG/EBC, working in association with members of WP/S to address the application of measure number 6 to new ships. In addition to the green sea load model, this Revision incorporates changes to the strength formulation for hatch covers, strength standards for the design of hatch coamings, and for the securing of hatch covers to resist horizontal green sea loads. At its 46 Meeting in December 2002, the Council assigned a new task to the WP/S, to amend UR S21 Rev.2 as submitted to MSC 76) to incorporate loads, allowable stress (0,8 yielding) and deflection criteria as adopted in the revisions to Load Line Convention adopted by IMO at MSC 76. S21(Rev.3) has been so developed. The new WP/S task was then labelled as Task 70. Application Hatch cover secondary stiffeners are required to be continuous in order to have the necessary buckling strength against the compressive loads induced by the bending of primary supporting members. Hatch coaming secondary stiffeners are required to be continuous in order to be able to sustain the plastic bending moment distribution assumed for these elements. Hatch cover primary supporting members are required to be continuous to ensure their load carrying capacity and an adequate transmission of forces when grillage effects are taken into account. For similar reason, a maximum spacing of the primary supporting members parallel to the direction of secondary stiffeners is included. Hatch cover load model According to the decisions taken by IACS after MSC 76, as reflected in the Task 70 Form A, the load model adopted in Rev. 2 of UR S21 is the one adopted by IMO in Regulation 16-1 of the revised Load Line Convention. The value formula reported in Regulation 16-1 of the revised LLC for ships less than 24 m in length is not included since it is not applicable to the bulk carriers to which UR S21 applies. However, the relevant values are used to interpolate the pressure values for ships length less than 100 m. Hatch cover strength criteria Following the assumptions stated in the 1988 LL Protocol, the hatch covers are assumed to behave in the elastic domain under the assigned loads. Consequently, the allowable stresses are:
S21R3TB.doc
Page 1 of 5
08/04/03
IACS WP/S - Task 70 Revision 3 of UR S21 April 2003 0,8 and 0,46 times the minimum upper yield stress for normal and shear stresses, respectively, 0,8 times the critical buckling stress for normal compression and shear stresses.
The stress response of the hatch cover primary supporting members is generally to be determined through a grillage or a Finite Element calculation, beam models are adopted only for hatch covers that are not designed as a grillage of longitudinal and transverse primary supporting members. Prescriptive requirements for the hatch cover top plate thickness and secondary stiffener section modulus are given. Based on the elastic approach used for the strength criteria of secondary stiffeners and plating, the effective width of the primary supporting members is equal to the spacing of primary supporting members, to be taken not greater than 0,165 times the member side span, on each side of it. However, since the formula for the secondary stiffener required section modulus does not account for the stresses induced by the bending of primary supporting members, the attached plate flange area of the primary supporting members is to be calculated without any contribution from the secondary stiffener area. In the S21 requirement for minimum plate thickness, the coefficient 15,8 used in the expression applies for plates under pressure with clamped edges that are free to pull in and with plastic hinges at the edges and at mid-span. An additional factor of 1,5 is introduced to account for co-existing compressive membrane stress in the hatch cover top plate as well as the possibility that the lateral pressure loading may locally exceed the UR S21 value. Considering the combined effects of the local plate bending stress and the flange stress of primary supporting members, the 1,5 factor is increased linearly to 1,90 for the attached plate flange of primary stiffening members stressed above 80% of the allowable stress limit. The 1,90 factor gives a plate flange thickness consistent with hatch cover designs that have been assessed with respect to their lateral load capacity by non-linear FE analysis. The requirements for hatch cover plate thickness include a buckling check of the compression stress induced by the bending of primary supporting members either parallel or perpendicular to the secondary stiffeners. The formulae adopted for these buckling checks are taken from UR S11. For secondary stiffeners, the elastic section modulus is derived from the elastic bending moment at the fixed end. Only the lateral pressure is considered, while the second order bending moment caused by the combined effect of stiffener deflection (by the lateral pressure load) and the membrane stress in the plate (from the bending of the primary supporting member) is disregarded. In order to ensure the elastic behaviour of the hatch cover structures, it is required that buckling checks are carried out for secondary stiffeners parallel to primary supporting members, subjected to the compression stresses induced in the top plate flange by the bending of primary supporting members. The formulae adopted for these buckling checks are taken from UR S11. For flat bar secondary stiffeners, a limit on the web depth to net thickness ratio is introduced, based on typical Society criteria, to prevent their local buckling.
S21R3TB.doc
Page 2 of 5
08/04/03
IACS WP/S - Task 70 Revision 3 of UR S21 April 2003 The breadth of the primary supporting member flanges is to be at least 40% of their depth, in association with a laterally unsupported span not greater than 3,0 m, in order to avoid tripping. The critical buckling stress check for the web panel of the primary supporting members is based on the formula valid for simply supported plate. The criteria adopted for calculating the actual shear stress to be compared with the critical buckling stress are the following. Primary supporting members parallel to the direction of secondary stiffeners do not directly support such stiffeners, which are the load carrying elements. Therefore, the shear is uniform in each panel bounded by the crossing with other primary supporting members, the face plate (or the bottom cover plate) and the cover plate. In this case, the web panels bounded by the above elements, subjected to uniform shear stresses, are to be considered in the buckling check. Primary supporting members perpendicular to the direction of secondary stiffeners are subjected to an almost linearly varying shear force distribution, induced by the vertical loads transmitted through the secondary stiffeners. In this case, the buckling check is to be carried out for an assumed square panel with sides equal to the primary supporting member web height. This assumption is based on the 45 orientation of the principal compressive stresses in the web subjected mainly to shear (at least in the vicinity of the neutral axis), which allows square panels to be idealised in which the shear stress may be assumed to be uniform.
A deflection limit and closing requirements between hatch cover panels are included with the intention of ensuring weathertightness of the hatch cover under extreme green sea loads. The limit of 0,0056 l (where l is the greatest span of the primary supporting members) included in the revised Load Line Convention is assumed. Hatch coamings Load and strength criteria The values for the pressure pcoam were provided by the IACS AHG/WD-SL study on the assessment of UR S21 based on the MARIN model test results. The pressure of 290 kN/m2 on the No. 1 forward transverse hatch coaming is the upper bound of the measured longitudinal loads appropriate to a 20-year North Atlantic storm excluding flooding. The pressure of 220 kN/m2 on the other coamings is the upper bound obtained for transverse loads on side coamings. The pressure reduction from 290 kN/m2 to 220 kN/m2, due to the protection provided to the forward transverse hatch coaming by a forecastle complying with UR S28, is also derived from the IACS study based on the MARIN model test results. Although these tests were carried out on models not fitted with a forecastle, the effect of the forecastle protection on the No. 1 forward hatch coaming was estimated to be equivalent to the protection given by the No. 1 hatch cover to the No. 2 forward hatch coaming. It is to be noted that the pressures on hatches aft of 0,25 L from the forward perpendicular have not been exhaustively investigated during the MARIN tests. However, the following considerations are to be taken into account.
S21R3TB.doc
Page 3 of 5
08/04/03
IACS WP/S - Task 70 Revision 3 of UR S21 April 2003 The investigations carried out by the AHG/WD-SL have shown that the maximum transverse pressures on transverse hatch coamings occur in beam sea conditions. In these conditions, it is deemed that the pressures on transverse hatch coamings are largely the same for all hatches, irrespective of their location along the ships length. The maximum longitudinal pressures, acting on the front hatch covers, are surely lower for aft hatches, with respect to No. 2 hatches, due to the protection offered by the forward hatches. For practical design purposes, the horizontal forces are conservatively assumed to be the same for hatch No. 2 and for hatches aft of hatch No.2.
In the formula for the local net plate thickness, the coefficient 14,9 appropriate for plates not subjected to in-plane stresses is adopted. Considering the low probability of load occurrence a plastic approach is adopted for secondary stiffeners, although, for consistency with the hatch cover formulation, an allowable stress rather than a yield stress limit is used. A safety factor equal to 1,15 is then included in the formulae to arrive at an overall safety margin of 1,2 with respect to the development of plastic hinges. As a plastic bending moment distribution is specified for secondary stiffener, the required elastic section modulus is evaluated by introducing the term cp, which is the ratio of the plastic section modulus to the elastic section modulus. Again a safety factor of 1,15 is incorporated to establish an overall margin of 1,2 against yield. Formulae for the thickness and elastic minimum section modulus of the coaming stays were derived for the elastic shear force and bending moment appropriate to a cantilever under a uniformly distributed pressure. For stays of non-cantilever design the same allowable stress limits apply, but prescriptive scantlings have not been formulated. Securing devices The criteria of Recommendation No. 14 are explicitly required to be complied with. Stoppers No credit is given for the friction forces between the covers and the coamings. The stoppers are to be dimensioned against longitudinal and transverse forces arising from a pressure of 175 kN/m2. For the hatch coaming of hatch No.1, a pressure equal to 230 kN/m2 is to be considered, unless a forecastle is fitted in accordance with UR S28. In this case, a value of 175 kN/m2 may be considered. Compared with the pressures on the hatch coamings, these values take into consideration the local reduction of pressure that occurs at the upper edge of the vertical boundary created by the coaming and hatch cover side or end plate.
S21R3TB.doc
Page 4 of 5
08/04/03
IACS WP/S - Task 70 Revision 3 of UR S21 April 2003 Corrosion addition and steel renewal criteria The corrosion addition of 1,5 mm for the hatch coaming and coaming stays is based on the results of the NK report "Corrosion Analysis for Bulk Carriers and Determination of Corrosion Margin (Part 3)" of January 2002, prepared in relation to WP/S Task No. 22. Steel renewal criteria are defined consistently with the corrosion addition values. Remarks made by some Member Societies 1. GL has repeated its reservation on the adopted buckling check formulae, also placed on the previous Rev. 2 of UR S21, which reflects the GL reservation on UR S11. 2. LR has accepted the present revision of UR S21 on a majority basis, but they supported a different approach in which the strength criteria were the same as those adopted in the previous Rev. 2 prepared by the AHG/EBC, with the permissible stresses changed from 0,95 to 0,8 times the yielding stress. In the LRs view, when Regulation 16-1 states that the product of the maximum stress determined in accordance with the above loads and the factor 1,25 shall not exceed the critical buckling strength in compression, it does not say how the critical buckling strength is to be calculated. According to LR, the criteria of Regulation 16-1 are fulfilled by changing the allowable stresses in the expressions of the previous Rev. 2 of UR S21, which should therefore be retained for this purpose. The other Members, however, did not agree on this interpretation of Regulation 16-1 and were in favour of explicit buckling stress checks.
Note by the Permanent Secretariat: GPG decided to expand the scope of application to bulk carriers, ore carriers and combination carriers as defined in UR Z11. See the title and S21.1. Adopted on 7 April 2003 (2248gICa). An information paper on the revision of S21(Rev.3, April 2003) was submitted to IMO MSC 77(May 2003).
S21R3TB.doc
Page 5 of 5
08/04/03
Part A
UR S21A Evaluation of Scantlings of Hatch Covers and Hatch Coamings and Closing Arrangements of Cargo Holds of Ships
Version no. Corr.1 (Oct 2011) NEW (May 2011) Approval date 21 Oct 2011 23 May 2011 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2012
Corr.1 (Oct 2011)
.2 Main Reasons for Change: Error in the equation of design load on freeboard deck for ships with less freeboard than type B according to ICLL in Table 1. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: A Hull Panel member located a possible error in the equation of design load on freeboard deck for ships with less freeboard than type B according to ICLL in Table 1. Hull Panel confirmed the error by comparing the equation with that in CSR-BC and requested for a correction. Please refer to the TB section for the details of the correction. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: August 2011 Made by: Hull Panel Panel Approval: 24 August 2011 by: Hull Panel GPG Approval: 21 October 2011 (Ref. 11078_IGe)
Page 1 of 3
NEW (May 2011)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Other (In order to specify strength criteria for hatch covers on ship types other than bulk carriers, ore carriers and combination carriers, to demonstrate compliance of hatch covers with ILLC 66 Regulation 16)
.2 Main Reasons for Change: Regulation 16 of the International Load Line Convention (ILLC) 1966 specifies loads on hatch covers that are to be applied to all types of ships. UR S21, Rev. 5 gives strength criteria for hatch covers on bulk carriers, ore carriers and combination carriers as defined in UR Z11. Currently no requirement exists for hatch covers on ship types other than the aforementioned. This UR is intended to cover that gap by enumerating strength requirements for hatch covers on ship types other than bulk carriers, ore carriers and combination carriers as defined in UR Z11. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: Action to create task decided at 2nd Hull Panel meeting. Task No. 14 was assigned by the Hull Panel to this undertaking. A dedicated project team was created to execute this task. Form A was approved by GPG on 5 August 2005. Preliminary versions of the proposed UR and technical background documents were circulated among the Hull Panel members for review. Final version approved at the 14th Hull Panel meeting in February 2011. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: December 2010 Made by: Hull Panel Panel Approval: February 2011 by: Hull Panel GPG Approval: 23 May 2011 (Ref. 11078_IGc)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S21A: Annex 1. TB for New (May 2011)

Annex 2. TB for Corr.1 (Oct 2011)
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR S21A New, May 2011

1. Scope and objectives To define strength criteria for hatch covers on ship types other than bulk carriers, ore carriers and combination carriers as defined in UR Z11. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Reg. 16 of the ICLL 1966 specifies hatch cover loads for all ship types. While a UR (S21) pertaining hatch cover strength exists for bulk carriers, ore carriers and combination carriers, as defined in URZ11, there are no criteria for other ship types. This UR is intended to fill that gap. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution The source of the information was obtained through work performed by a dedicated project team and additional input from the Hull Panel. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: Not applicable 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The UR was developed by the project team (PT) for Task No. 14. Discussions on the draft documents prepared by the PT were reviewed and discussed within the Hull Panel at Panel meetings and via email correspondence. 6. Attachments if any Detailed technical background document is attached.
Technical Background for UR S21A

Evaluation of Scantlings of Hatch Covers and Hatch Coamings and Closing Arrangements of Cargo Holds of Ships
Technical Background for UR S21a Evaluation of Scantlings of Hatch Covers and Hatch Coamings and Closing Arrangements of Cargo Holds of Ships
TB S21a.1 Introduction
UR S21a was developed to supplement UR 21 and applies to all ships except bulk carriers, ore carriers and combination carriers, as defined in UR Z11.
TB S21a.2 Application and definitions (UR S21a.1)

TB S21a.2.1 Definitions Positions (UR S21a.1.2.2) The defined positions for hatch covers upon exposed decks are as given by the International Convention on Load Lines (ICLL), 1966 as amended by the 1988 protocol, as amended in 2003, Regulation 13. TB S21a.2.2 Material (UR S21a.1.3) The structural integrity of hatch covers is important for the survivability of ships. As a consequence a material class I according to UR S6 (Use of steel grades for various hull members ships of 90 m in length and above) is to be applied for hatch covers.
TB S21a.2.3 General requirements (UR S21a.1.4)

Hatch cover primary supporting members are required to be continuous to provide sufficient load carrying capacity and an adequate transmission of forces when grillage effects are taken into account. For similar reason, a maximum spacing of the primary supporting members parallel to the direction of secondary stiffeners is included. It shall not exceed 1/3 of the span of primary supporting members. A ratio of spacing/length limited to 1/3 guarantees a relatively high ratio of effective breadth/spacing. When strength calculation is carried out by FE analysis using plane stress or shell elements, this requirement can be waived because shear lag effects are implicitly considered by this assessment method as long as the mesh density is sufficiently fine. Hatch cover secondary stiffeners are required to be continuous in order to have the necessary buckling strength against the compressive loads induced by the bending of primary supporting members. Hatch coaming secondary stiffeners are required to be continuous in order to be able to sustain the bending moment distribution assumed for these elements.
Page 2 of 13
TB S21a.3 Hatch cover and coaming load model (UR S21a.2)

TB S21a.3.1 Vertical weather design load (UR S21a.2.1) The vertical weather design loads adopted in UR S21a are identical with the loads given by ICLL in Regulation 16 (2), (3), and (4) except for exposed superstructure decks of ships with a length L > 100 m located at least one superstructure standard height above the lowest Position 2 deck. For these decks a reduced design load of 2.1 t/m2 is required as given by UI LL 70. The provision that, under the given conditions, the design load for hatch covers on the actual freeboard deck may be as required for a superstructure deck originates from UI LL 70 and is based on an assumed freeboard deck as defined in IACS UI LL64. The height of the hatch coaming above deck less 600 mm may be considered for the definition of the assumed freeboard deck with respect to the determination of the vertical weather design load on hatch covers. TB S21a.3.2 Horizontal weather design load (UR S21a.2.2) As the load model adopted by S21 is very much specific to bulk carries and does not consider the height of a structure above the load line of the assessed ship, the project team decided to adopt the horizontal weather design load from UR S3 (Strength of end bulkheads of superstructures and deckhouses) except for the definition of factor f and cL. Factor f is a wave coefficient and was adopted from UR S11 (Longitudinal strength standard). For ships of less than 90 m in length factor f was newly defined as it is not given by UR S11. Factor cL is less than one for ships of less than 90 m in length and reduces the effect of wave coefficient f.
TB S21a.3.3 Calculation of container loads (UR S21a.2.4)

Formulas for the support forces Az, Bz and By acting on the hatch cover are based on the assumption that the full vertical static and dynamic acceleration g (1+av) is acting in combination with an acceleration of 0,5 g in transverse direction . The dynamic acceleration factor av depends on the position of the considered hatch cover in longitudinal direction. The typical distribution of av over the ship length is shown in Fig. 1. The transverse acceleration of 0,5 g corresponds to a static heel of 30.
Fig. 1 Distribution of factor av
Page 3 of 13
In case of container stacks secured to lashing bridges or carried in cell guides the forces acting on the hatch cover may be specially considered. Fig. 2 gives an example for container secured to the hatch cover (a) and secured to a lashing bridge (b). In the latter case the forces due to the ships roll motion are transmitted partially to the lashing bridge so that the formulas for the forces acting on the hatch cover given by UR S21a.2.3 may not be applicable. However, as the torsional stiffness of container stacks is limited, support forces at corners of 20 container stacks away from lashing bridge or cell guides, respectively, may not be influenced considerably. These support forces at half length of the hatch cover are definitive for the structural design of the cover. Thus, Az, Bz and By acting on the hatch cover at those stack corners may be assumed according to the given formulae in a conservative manner.
Fig. 2 Container secured to the hatch cover (a) and to a lashing bridge (b)
As an alternative to the given container loads, UR S21a allows applying container loads based on accelerations calculated by an individual acceleration analysis for the used lashing system. The individual acceleration analysis shall be carried out by the individual classification society. This alternative assessment method allows designing hatch covers more individually with respect to the applied lashing system and according to the acceleration calculation of the individual class society. However, a load model independent from the lashing system provides more flexibility to the owner in choosing different lashing systems or modifying the lashing system without to be limited by the hatch cover design. TB S21a.3.3.1 Load cases with partial loading (UR S21a.2.4.1) Point loads and container loads acting on the hatch cover are also to be considered for partial non homogeneous loading which may occur in practice, e.g. where specified container stack places are empty. UR S21a gives a simplified approach for assessing the partial loading of container hatch covers where the hatch cover is loaded without the outermost stacks, as can be seen in Fig. 3. It
Page 4 of 13
may be necessary to also consider partial load cases where more or different container stacks are left empty.
Fig. 3 Partial loading of a container hatch cover The need for these considerations arise from the occurrence of increased loads due to the unbalanced vertical support forces at the supports of container stacks next to the empty stack places caused by the ships roll motion. Fig. 4 schematically illustrates resulting shear force distributions in a transverse primary supporting member of a hatch cover loaded with 20' containers. Distributions are shown for the hatch cover fully loaded and for the partial load case shown in Fig. 3 with horizontal acceleration acting. As can be seen, for the partial container load case in some areas increased shear forces occur. For further illustration, Fig. 5 shows the equivalent stress distributions of a hatch cover loaded with stacks of 20 container and exposed to vertical and horizontal accelerations. On the left hand side, the hatch cover is fully loaded and on the right hand side the stress distribution is shown for a partial load case similar to the one shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that increased stresses occur in the center transverse primary supporting members.
Page 5 of 13
Fig. 4 Shear forces acting in a transverse primary supporting member of a hatch cover due to different load cases
y x z
Fig. 5 Stress distribution in a hatch cover, fully loaded (left) and with partial loading (right)
Page 6 of 13
TB S21a.4 Hatch cover strength criteria (UR S21a.3)

TB S21a.4.1 Permissible stresses and deflections - Stresses (UR S21a.3.1.1) The equivalent stress according to v. Mises is to be assessed. In general, the permissible equivalent stress is 80% of the minimum yield point of the material as required by ICLL Regulation 16 (5). When loads other than the vertical weather design load are assessed using FEM with plane stress or shell elements the permissible equivalent stress is 90% of the minimum yield point of the material. This is reasonable because due to Poisson effects FEM may calculate increased stresses compared to a grillage analysis. Furthermore, this is justified by the use of FEM as a more sophisticated assessment tool. However, the increased permissible stress is only to be applied for loads other than the vertical weather design load to not contradict ICLL regulations. TB S21a.4.2 Permissible stresses and deflections - Deflection (UR S21a.3.1.2) The deflection limit as given by ICLL Regulation 16 (5) is included for the vertical weather design load case. Where hatch covers are arranged for carrying containers and mixed stowage is allowed, i.e., a 40'-container stowed on top of two 20'-containers, particular attention should be paid to the deflections of hatch covers. Fig. 6 gives an example for a mixed stowage situation and the resulting hatch cover and container stack deflection.
Fig. 6 Example for mixed stowage and resulting hatch cover and container stack deflection TB S21a.4.3 Local net plate thickness (UR S21a.3.2) The requirement for the minimum net plate thickness of hatch cover top plating subjected to the vertical weather design load and distributed cargo loads is the same as used in UR S21. The coefficient 15,8 used in the expression applies for plates under pressure with clamped edges that are free to pull in and with plastic hinges at the edges and at mid-span.
Page 7 of 13
An additional factor FP 1,5 is introduced to account for co-existing compressive membrane stress in the hatch cover top plate as well as the possibility that the lateral pressure loading may locally exceed the assumed value. Factor FP is increased linearly to 1,90 for the attached plate flange of primary supporting members stressed above 80% of the allowable stress limit. The normal stress of the hatch cover plating may be determined in a distance equal to the stiffener spacing s from webs of adjacent primary supporting members perpendicular to secondary stiffeners and in a distance equal to half of the stiffener spacing s from the web of an adjacent primary supporting member parallel to secondary stiffeners. This accounts for the shear lag effect leading to reduced membrane stresses at the assessed locations. As an example, Fig. 7 shows locations for determination of x and y for the plate field marked in grey. The greater of both stresses is to be taken for the normal stress of the hatch cover plating in the requirement for the local net plate thickness. At assessment point 1 an intermediate stress x over the plate breadth s is determined which is reasonable for the assumed three-hingecollapse failure mode. The assessment of y at point 2, located in a distance equal to the stiffener spacing from the web of the adjacent primary supporting member, accounts for reduced local bending stresses close to the short edge of the plate field.
Fig. 7 Determination of normal stress of hatch cover plating TB S21a.4.4 Net scantling of secondary stiffeners (UR S21a.3.3) For secondary stiffeners, the minimum elastic section modulus is derived from the elastic bending moment at the fixed end under consideration of the permissible stress as required by ICLL Regulation 16 (5). Only the lateral pressure is considered, while the second order bending moment caused by the combined effect of stiffener deflection (by the lateral pressure load) and the membrane stress in the plate (from the bending of the primary supporting member) is disregarded. If secondary stiffeners parallel to primary supporting members are regarded for calculating the cross sectional properties of these primary supporting members, it is to be verified that the combined stress of those stiffeners induced by the bending of primary supporting members and lateral pressures does not exceed the permissible stresses. Page 8 of 13
For hatch cover stiffeners under compression sufficient safety against lateral and torsional buckling is to be verified. For flat bar secondary stiffeners, a limit on the web depth to net thickness ratio is introduced to prevent their local buckling. This requirement is adopted from UR S21. TB S21a.4.5 Net scantling of primary supporting members - Primary supporting members (UR S21a.3.4.1) For all components of primary supporting members sufficient safety against buckling must be verified. For biaxial compressed flange plates this is to be verified within the effective widths. For illustration, Fig. 8 shows a crossing of two primary supporting members with their effective widths. The area where a buckling proof must be carried out for biaxial compression is marked in grey. The buckling proof for parts of the hatch cover plating located in this area is to be done as a combined proof for cases 1 and 2 according to Tab. 5 of UR S21a.
Fig. 8 Crossing of two primary supporting members and their effective widths TB S21a.4.6 Edge girders (Skirt plates) (UR S21a.3.4.2) For edge girders the same requirement for minimum net plate thickness is adopted as for the hatch cover top plating except for minimum thickness values that do not depend on the pressure load. Furthermore, a stiffness requirement for edge girders similar to the requirement as given by IACS Rec. 14 is incorporated to maintain an adequate sealing pressure between securing devices. TB S21a.4.7 Strength calculations (UR S21a.3.5) Strength calculation for hatch covers may be carried out by either, using beam theory, grillage analysis or FEM. However, simple beam models shall be adopted only for hatch covers that are not designed as a grillage of longitudinal and transverse primary supporting members. In other cases a grillage analysis using beam elements or an FEM analysis using plane stress or shell elements is appropriate.
Page 9 of 13
TB S21a.4.7.1 Strength calculations - Effective cross-sectional properties for calculation by beam theory or grillage analysis (UR S21a.3.5.1) When determining cross-sectional properties of a primary supporting member, cross sectional areas of secondary stiffeners parallel to the primary supporting member under consideration and within the effective breadth can be included. In this case it is to be verified that the combined stress of those stiffeners induced by the bending of primary supporting members and lateral pressures does not exceed the permissible stresses. Special calculations may be required for determining the effective breadth of one-sided or non-symmetrical flanges. This can be done by special engineering formulas or, if available, according to the individual class societys rules. In more complex cases an FEM calculation is recommended. The cross-sectional area of flange plates under compression may be reduced by buckling of the plating. Flange plates with secondary stiffeners perpendicular to the web of primary supporting members are in particular prone to buckling failure. Thus, the effective width is to be considered for the determination of cross-sectional properties of such primary supporting members for grillage analysis or beam theory calculations. However, the effective width of plating is not to be taken greater than the value obtained for the effective breadth. TB S21a.4.8 Buckling strength of hatch cover structures (UR S21a.3.6) For further information regarding the buckling strength criteria refer to the technical background documents of Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carrier (CSR/BC), Chapter 6 Hull Scantlings, Section 3 Buckling & Ultimate Strength of Ordinary Stiffeners and Stiffened Panels. Safety factors for the buckling strength assessment are based on the net scantling approach. To be in compliance with ICLL Regulation 16 (5) the safety factor for assessing the hatch cover when subjected to the vertical weather design load is to be taken equal to1,25. For loads other than the vertical weather design load, a safety factor equal to 1,1 is to be applied. This is justified by the more sophisticated buckling strength approach compared to the approach in UR S21. The chosen safety factor of 1,1 matches that of CSR/BC to be used with this kind of buckling strength approach. The given correction factors F1 for boundary conditions at the longitudinal stiffeners correspond to the values given by CSR/BC. TB S21a.4.8.1 Buckling strength of hatch cover structures - Proof of partial and total fields of hatch covers - Lateral buckling of secondary stiffeners (UR S21a.3.6.3.3) The factor cs accounts for the boundary conditions of transverse secondary stiffeners. It is to be 1,0 for simply supported and 2,0 for partially constraint stiffeners. Fig. 9 gives examples for the factor cs. For a stiffener, the supports of which are equally spaced, a factor cs = 1,0 is to be chosen (a). If a stiffener spacing changes from a wide spacing to a much more narrow spacing, a partial constraint exists and cs = 2,0 is to be chosen (b). Also when brackets are fitted at the supports of the stiffener, it is to be assumed as partially constraint.
Page 10 of 13
Fig. 9 Examples for the factor cs accounting for the boundary conditions of transverse secondary stiffeners
TB S21a.5 Details of hatch covers (UR S21a.4)

TB S21a.5.1 Container foundations on hatch covers (UR S21a.4.1) UR S21a requires designing substructures of container foundations for cargo and container loads applying the given permissible stresses. Substructures are required to effectively distribute the localized support forces at the container stack corners. An example for container foundations and their substructures is given in Fig. 10. The figure shows a section through a primary supporting member with supporting structural elements like brackets beneath two container foundations. The detail drawing shows a typical container foundation more closely.
Fig. 10 Example for container foundations and their substructures
TB S21a.5.2 Weather tightness (UR S21a.4.2)

Further to the requirements as given by UR S21a the contents of IACS Rec. 14 are to be observed.
Page 11 of 13
TB S21a.5.2.1 Weather tightness - Dispensation of weather tight gaskets (UR S21a.4.2.2)

For hatch covers of cargo holds solely for the transport of containers, the fitting of weather tight gaskets may be dispensed with upon request by the owners and subject to compliance with the given conditions that correspond to UI LL64. Among others, it is to be complied with the condition that the exposed deck on which the hatch covers are located is situated above a depth H(x). H(x) is measured from the base line. The definition of H(x) is illustrated by Fig. 11 for a position forward of x/L = 0,75. Further to the requirements as given by UR S21a, Chapter 3 of IMO MSC/Circ. 1087 is to be referred to concerning the stowage and segregation of containers containing dangerous goods.
Fig. 11 Definition of H(x)
TB S21a.6 Hatch coaming strength criteria (UR S21a.5)

TB S21a.6.1 Local net plate thickness of coamings (UR S21a.5.1) The horizontal weather design load model was adopted from UR S3. Thus, the prescriptive local net plate thickness of hatch coamings corresponds to that given in UR S3. The plate thickness required by UR S3 was assumed as a net plate thickness for UR S21a. Additionally, a minimum net plate thickness depending on the ship length was added which is not given by UR S3. Longitudinal strength aspects are to be observed as the given plate thickness formula merely covers local pressure loads. TB S21a.6.2 Net scantlings of secondary stiffeners of coamings (UR S21a.5.3) Similar to the prescriptive local net plate thickness, the prescriptive net scantlings for secondary stiffeners of hatch coamings correspond to those given in UR S3. Again, the stiffener section modulus required by UR S3 was assumed as a net section modulus for UR S21a. In addition, a minimum net cross sectional area of secondary stiffeners is required. The latter is based on the elastic shear force of a continuous beam under a uniformly distributed load.
Page 12 of 13
TB S21a.6.3 Coaming stays (UR S21a.5.3) Coaming stays in general are to be designed for the loads transmitted through them and permissible stresses as defined for hatch cover structures. For stays of coamings with a height of less than 1,6 m and subjected to the horizontal design weather load, a prescriptive minimum section modulus and web thickness of the stay at the root point are given equal to the requirements of UR S21. Formulae were derived for the elastic shear force and bending moment appropriate to a cantilever under a uniformly distributed pressure. For coaming stays having a height of 1,6 m or more, prescriptive scantlings have not been formulated as a cantilever design can not be assumed.
TB S21a.7 Closing arrangements (UR S21a.6)

TB S21a.7.1 Securing devices - Cross-sectional area of the securing devices (UR S21a.6.1.4) The requirements, UR S21a gives for the minimum cross-sectional area of securing devices used to maintain an adequate sealing pressure, correspond to the requirement as given by IACS Rec. 14. For small hatch covers where the packing line pressure needs to be maintained by securing devices, typically rod type securing devices are used. For this type of securing device the given minimum cross-sectional area is applicable. For large hatch covers securing devices may not be necessary to maintain packing line pressure as the covers are heavy enough. Securing devices then may be needed only as anti-lifting devices. These often exhibit designs which can not be sufficiently assessed only by a required cross-sectional area. They are to be designed according to the requirements for anti-lifting devices (UR S21a.6.1.5). Where securing devices of special design are used to maintain the packing line pressure and in which significant bending or shear stresses occur, these may be designed as anti-lifting devices. As load the packing line pressure multiplied by the spacing between securing devices is to be applied.
TB S21a.8 Corrosion addition and steel renewal (UR S21a.8)

The requirements for corrosion additions of hatch cover structures are consistent with UI LL70. The requirements for corrosion additions of hatch coamings are consistent with UR S21. The requirements for steel renewal of hatch cover structures are consistent with the requirements as given by UR S21. Steel renewal requirements for hatch coamings are to be according to the individual class societys rules.
Page 13 of 13
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for UR S21A Corr.1, Oct 2011

1. Scope and objectives To correct the error in the equation of design load on freeboard deck for ships with less freeboard than type B according to ICLL in Table 1. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale See attachment 1& 2. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution See attachment 1& 2. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: See attachment 1& 2. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None. 6. Attachments if any See attachment 1& 2.
Attachment 1- Corrected equation
S21A
S21A
(cont)
Position
Tab. 1 Design load pH of weather deck hatches

Design load pH [kN/m2]
x d 0,75 L LL 0,75 x d 1,0 L LL
for 24 m d LLL d 100 m on freeboard deck

9,81 x 4,28 L LL 28 1,71 L LL 95 L LL 76
9,81 1,5 L LL 116 76
upon exposed superstructure decks located at least one superstructure standard height above the freeboard deck
9,81 1,5 L LL 116 76
for LLL > 100 m 1 on freeboard deck for type B ships according to ICLL
x 9,81 0,0296 L 1 3,04 0,0222 L1 1,22 L LL
on freeboard deck for ships with less freeboard than type B according to ICLL
9,81 3,5
x 9,81 0,1452 L 1 8,52 0,1089 L1 9,89 L LL
L1 = LLL but not more than 340 m
upon exposed superstructure decks located at least one superstructure standard height above the freeboard deck 9,81 3,5 for 24 m d LLL d 100 m
9,81 1,1 L LL 87,6 76
for LLL > 100 m

9,81 2,6
upon exposed superstructure decks located at least one superstructure standard height above the lowest Position 2 deck 9,81 2,1
Page 5 of 37
IACS Req. 2011
Attachment 2
Comparison of Exposed Deck Design Pressure/Load Requirements

Bulk Carrier Weather Deck Hatches for x/LLL<=0.75 pH (kN/mm2) = x/LLL = 0.85
2 Design Load, pH (kN/mm ) UR S21A B- (w/+sign, current) B- (w/-sign, corrected) 182.3 40.2 183.7 41.6 185.2 43.1 186.6 44.5 188.0 45.9 189.4 47.3 190.9 48.8 192.3 50.2 193.7 51.6 195.1 53.0 196.6 54.5 198.0 55.9 199.4 57.3 200.8 58.7 202.3 60.2 203.7 61.6 205.1 63.0 206.5 64.4 207.9 65.9 209.4 67.3 210.8 68.7
34.335
LLL (m) 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
L1 (m) 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 B 40.2 40.5 40.8 41.1 41.4 41.7 42.0 42.3 42.5 42.8 43.1 43.4 43.7 44.0 44.3 44.6 44.9 45.2 45.4 45.7 46.0
CSR-BC B40.2 41.6 43.1 44.5 45.9 47.3 48.8 50.2 51.6 53.0 54.5 55.9 57.3 58.7 60.2 61.6 63.0 64.4 65.9 67.3 68.7
Comparison of Exposed Deck Design Pressure Requirements

300.0
250.0
200.0 pH (kN/mm2)
URS21A: B 150.0 URS21A: B- with plus sign (current equation) URS21A: B- with minus sign (corrected equation) 100.0 CSR-BC: B-
50.0
0.0 100
120
140
160
180
200 LLL (m)
220
240
260
280
300
References:
URS12A
For LLL>100mm and x/LLL<=0.75
For LLL>100mm and 0.75<x/LLL<1.0
CSR BC
Ch4, Sec5, 2.2.1
Technical Background Document IACS Council To Improve Bulk Carrier Safety UR S 23 Proposed Rev. 3

To reflect the IACS Council decision to advance the implementation date of SOLAS XII requirements relating to existing bulk carriers from 15 years to 10 years. This will bring forward reinforcement of the corrugated transverse bulkhead between No.1 and No.2 holds and the double bottom structure of No.1 hold, in accordance with S19 and S22.

ABS/DNV/LR put forward a set of proposed actions to improve bulk carrier safety on 5 Feb 2002 (s/n 2033). Council decided to revise S 23 implementation schedule in such a way as to require ships under 10 years of age, as of 1 July 2003, to comply by age 10, and to require ships of age 10-15 which are not already in compliance to comply at the next Intermediate or Special Survey coming due after 3 July 2003.
Care was taken to provide an adequate period of fair warning to allow owners of those ships that must comply first under the revised implementation schedule to plan, and the societies to perform the necessary plan review and preparation for modifications at the upcoming survey. S23.1.A.iv was carefully worded so that compliance is not required prior to 1 July 2003. (Compliance date of this new measure was changed from 1 Jan 03 to 1 July 03.)
Completion, prior to 1 July 03, of an intermediate or special survey coming due after 1 July 03, cannot be used to postpone compliance. See S23.1.a.v.
BV raised a question on the interpretation of due date of intermediate survey. In this case, the due date will be the last day of the 18 months intermediate survey window period. RINA/KR confirmed.
Conclusion
Council approved the proposed draft UR S 23 on 19 March 2002. Council announced this revision to the public on 15 March 2002.
Date of submission: 28 Feb12002 Permanent Secretariat
26 25 24 23 22 21 Comply by Age: 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 Revised UR S23 Revised UR S23 Current UR S23
Bulk carriers > 12 years should be incompliance with URs S23 by 1 July 2003
Current UR S23
Age as of 1 July 1998 Age as of 1 July 2003
0 5
1 6
2 7
3 8
4 9
5 10
6 11
7 12
8 13
9 14
10 15
11 16
12 17
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UR S 23 (Rev.3.1 Nov 2002) Technical Background:
1. ABS brought to the attention of GPG that the amendment undertaken by Council in pursue of its measure 1, when S23.1.b. was amended to read: "Completion, prior to 1 July 2003, of an intermediate or special survey with a due date after 1 July 2003, cannot be used to postpone compliance." introduced some interpretation when applied to intermediate survey due to the fact that intermediate survey does not have a definitive "due date". ABS' interpretation was that: "...for the purpose of application of this requirement of UR S23, the "due date" of the intermediate survey should be understood to be the third anniversary date (and that the three months following the due date may be used to complete the survey) -- so as to require any ship with a third anniversary after 1 July 03 to comply with the requirements in conjunction with this intermediate survey regardless of whether the intermediate survey was done before that "due date" or not."
2. ABS further advised that based on reaction from owners it seemed that all other Members had a different interpretation in practice, which allowed the ship to complete the intermediate survey prior to 1 July 2003 within the window and required compliance with URs S19 and S22 at the next special survey or other controlling date.
3. Based on this ABS proposal and for consistency with other URs S31, S26 and S27, the following text was agreed: "S23.1(b): Completion prior to 1 July 2003 of an intermediate or special survey with a due date after 1 July 2003 cannot be used to postpone compliance. However, completion prior to 1 July 2003, of an intermediate survey the window for which straddles 1 July 2003 can be accepted." 4. No change to the implementation date.
***
Submitted by the Permanent Secretariat Date of approval: 4 December 2002 (2033kICb)
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
UR S23 (REV.4, AUGUST 2007)
1. Scope and objective To revise UR S23 (rev.3.1) so that it can be consistent with SOLAS regulation XII/4 as amended by IMO Res. MSC.170(79). 2. Background The Statutory Panel raised this issue which is regarding editorial amendments to UR S23 so that it can be consistent with SOLAS regulation XII/4 as amended by IMO Res. MSC.170(79). As the maintenance of UR S23 is under Hull Panel responsibility, the Statutory Panel Chairman asked Hull Panel to take it onboard. Upon the request from Statutory Panel, Hull Panel unanimously agreed to prepare and submit the draft revision to UR S23.2 to GPG for their review and approval. After deliberations, the Hull Panel proposed to revise UR S23 (rev.3.1) so that it can be consistent with SOLAS regulation XII/4 as amended by IMO Res. MSC.170(79). 3. Points of discussions The Hull Panel unanimously agreed to revised UR S23 (rev.3.1). 4. Source/derivation of proposed requirements 9 PH7005XRSa 9 SOLAS regulation XII/4 as amended by IMO Res. MSC.170(79). 5. Decision by voting N.A. Submitted by Hull Panel Chairman 19 July 2007
Permanent Secretariat note (September 2007): Rev. 4 approved by GPG 28 August 2007, ref. 7626_IGb.
Technical Background Document IACS Council To Improve Bulk Carrier Safety UR S 24 Proposed Rev. 1

To reflect the IACS Council decision to extend the implementation of the requirements of UR S 24 (installation of water ingress detection and alarms) to all cargo holds on all existing ships as well as new building ships.

. ABS/DNV/LR put forward a set of proposed actions to improve bulk carrier safety on 5 Feb 2002 (s/n 2033). IACS Council decided to revise S 24 to achieve the above objective.
The 2m water level at which the ingress detectors shall activate detection was already provided in the existing text of S24.3.6. WP/MCH, in response to Council instruction, urgently reviewed the proposed revision and suggested to specify the place where the alarms are to be located. Hence, the positions where the detectors shall be installed are specified in the revised S24.3.2 Implementation: For new ships, from 1 Jan 2003; For existing ships, see S24.1.3.
Conclusion
Council agreed to the proposed draft UR S 24 on 19 March 2002. Council announced this revision to the public on 15 March 2002.
Date of submission: 28 Feb12002 Permanent Secretariat
Part A
UR S25 Harmonised Notations and Corresponding Design Loading Conditions for Bulk Carriers
Version no. DELETE (May 2010) Rev.2 (July 2004) Corr.1 (May 2004) Rev.1 (Feb 2003) NEW (June 2002) Approval date 24 May 2010 5 July 2004 14 May 2004 12 February 2003 19 June 2002 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2003
DELETE (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that as UR S25 is currently only applicable for CSR bulk carriers and since the requirements are replaced by those of the Common Structural Rules, UR S25 may be withdrawn. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31. .6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.2 (July 2004)
Corr.1 (May 2004)
Correction to S25.4.4.1 (a) i and 4.4.1 (b) in order to correctly refer to the provisions of S11.2.1.3 no TB document available.
Rev.1 (Feb 2003)
NEW (June 2002)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S25: Annex 1. TB for Original Resolution (June 2002)

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for Corr.1 (May 2004), Rev.2 (July 2004) and Delete (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
SC/BCS 3rd meeting report Annex 3
UR S 25 - Technical Background (TB) Documents 1 (1) (2) Summary The proposal covers 2 parts: To assign standard notations to new ships intended to carry dry cargoes in bulk Each standard to be based on a minimum set of design loading conditions including some optional ones Suggested contents of Technical background (TB) Scope and objectives The assigned classes BC-A, BC-B, BC-C will create increased transparency in the shipping market, in a way similar to that already existing as regards Ice Class A, B or C or Chemical Tankers Type I, II or III, thus ensuring that bulk carriers are ordered, chartered and/or sold with adequate understanding of the type of ship and operational limitations involved. Bulk carriers categorized as BC-A are to be considered to have high flexibility in cargo loading, unloading, and carriage including Multiple Port loading as standard. Bulk carriers categorized BC-B has no density restriction of the cargo intended to carry but have some restrictions in cargo distribution on board. Bulk carriers categorized as BC-C are designed for the carriage of low density cargoes only. The proposed draft resolution is not intended to prevent any other loading conditions to be included in the loading manual for which calculations are to be submitted as required by the relevant UR, nor is it intended to replace in any way the required loading manual/instrument. A bulk carrier may in actual operation be loaded differently from the design loading conditions specified in the loading manual, provided limitations for longitudinal and local strength as defined in the loading manual and loading instrument onboard are not exceeded.
2 2.1
2.2 Points of discussions or possible discussions (General) .1 The intentions with the minimum design loading conditions proposed is not to define all the actual loading conditions that bulk carriers will encounter during their operational lives, but to ensure that those are designed and constructed with a strength envelope which is sufficiently wide to allow them to perform most of the transportation services that will be required during their lifetime. .2 The owner may specify design loading conditions in addition to the minimum required, in that case such design loading conditions shall be included in a standardized summary table on the first page in the loading manual actually prepared for on board operation of the ship. .3 During actual operation ships are to be loaded within the limits of conditions and restrictions stated in the loading manual. (Title) There was a discussion whether class notation or simple notation is to be used. It was noted that "class notation" is not defined and could vary from one society to another. For example, "class notations" may require action by governance bodies but simple "notation" does not. In this view, BC-A (B, C) would be a class notation but other portions relative to empty hold combinations and cargo densities may not. By deleting "class" it is intended to cover both "notation" and "class notation" without narrowing down the extent of UR. Further, for some classification societies, class notations need be in a limited size of a field which accommodate all notes shown in ( ).
SC/BCS 3rd meeting report Annex 3
(Application) It was intention of the Committee that classification and statutory requirements such as longitudinal strength, local strength and stability criteria applicable for the design loading conditions listed under Sections 4 and 5 are not the integral part of this new URs, whilst these requirements are to be complied with according to respective statutory and class requirements. (Maximum cargo density) In case where a bulk cargo of which density is more than 3.0 tonnes/m3, BC-B and BC-A bulk carriers are allowed to carry such a cargo without giving annotations to such loading condition subject to compliance with strength requirements in Rules and Regulations of each Society and necessary description in the loading manual. (Design ballast condition/ballast tank capacity) This condition is needed to define the design ballast condition where strength of the bottom forward is assured against slamming. In achieving this condition, use of cargo hold adapted for carrying ballast water is excluded. Further, reflecting current practice, a need to obtain deeper draught where a ballast hold, if any, is utilized, is provided. 2.3 Source/derivation of proposed requirements UR S1A is taken into consideration in developing this standard.
Part B, Annex 2

General Policy Group Refinement of UR S 25 (Rev.1, Feb 2003)

To refine UR S25 1) to provide sufficient ballast capacity for the heavy ballast condition 2) to allow appropriate flexibility in the design of capacity and disposition of ballast tanks, and 3) to eliminate the unnecessary complexity and confusion without changing the intent. 4) to achieve common understanding of para. 4.4.2(b) longitudinal strength checks when more than 1 hold is capable of being used for ballast at sea (GPG 53 FUA 27) 5) To achieve common understanding of the application of the design conditions of Section 4 with respect to the applicable rules criteria for longitudinal strength (footnote 1 to S25.2.3).
1) ABS put forward a set of proposals on 22 July 2002: pending completion of the suggested task (ABd, item 1b), to require a ballast hold for larger bulk carriers so as to retain the current design practice. (4.4.1(b)), to confine the BWTs 100% full requirement to strength check purposes (new 4.4.2), to separate BWT capacity/disposition requirement (new 4.4.1) from strength requirement (new 4.4.2) so as to allow more flexibility in designing the capacity and disposition of BWTs, to specify that the length for use with the trim requirement is to be LBP (4.4.1), and the departure condition bunker capacity is to agree with the accepted marine practice (4.5).
2)
Members
reactions
to
the
ABS
proposals
are
summarized
in
the
attached
Table
[S25Rev_cmt_summary] . 3) In summary, ABS proposal, with further refinements based on members comments, was generally accepted by the Members. Concerning the conditional hold ballast/new task proposal, comment by one member, DNV subsequently submitted a compromise proposal. The majority was in favour of the DNVs first proposal for a minimum draught forward, that is, the lesser of 0.03L or 8.0 meters. It was agreed that this requirements should be applicable to all bulk carriers regardless of the ships length.
Submitted by the Permanent Secretariat 28 October 2002
DNVs
submitted a counter proposal for minimum forward draught criteria for all lengths. Following
(The following compromise text, was supported by NK. GL, who proposed 0.025L/8m, did not respond to this compromise text: 4.4.1(b) v: The forward draught in the heavy ballast condition is not to be less than the smaller of k*L and 8.0 meters where k = 0.00015L, but is not to be taken less than 0.025 and need not be taken larger than 0.03)
The figure, 0.03L, was chosen instead of 0.025L since Members studies revealed, in conjunction with the proposed requirement that at least one cargo hold be 100% full, that a minimum draught forward of the smaller of 0.025L or 8m was too shallow to be compatible to the ABS proposed ballast cargo holds.
4) With regard to para.4.4.2(b) concerning longitudinal strength checks when more than one hold is capable of being used for ballast at sea, the majority of GPG at GPG 53(2-4 Oct.2002) were of the view that each hold should be addressed in turn, with all the others empty but NK argued strongly that in case where two or more holds were intended to be filled together or when arranged to facilitate ballast water exchange at sea, certain configurations were unrealistic. Therefore, applying 4.4.2(b) on a single hold-filled basis would be too harsh. A particular case was a forward ballast hold which would never be filled with all other tanks full and holds further aft empty. The forward trim would make the ship unmanageable. At a small GPG meeting during MSC 76, it was agreed that 4.4.2(b) should be amended to make the longitudinal strength requirements for heavy ballast conditions clear and to settle the unresolved issues.
6) The loading conditions listed under Section 4 are to be used for the checking of applicable rules criteria for longitudinal strength, i.e. for BC-B and BC-A designs of single skin construction the design conditions of Section 4.1 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 are to be considered with respect to the requirements of S17 in addition to the requirements of S11. If the requirements of S17.1 is understood to be in conflict with this view, the application requirements of S17.1 must be amended. Following a lengthy discussion, the criteria for longitudinal strength under Section 4 has been specified by adding a footnote to 2.2 as follows: Footnote 1: As required by S7, S11 and S17.
* S 17 applies to BCs carrying solid bulk cargoes with bulk density of 1.0 t/m3 or above. However, the notation BC-C applies to BCs carrying solid bulk cargoes with bulk density of less than 1.0 t/m3 . Therefore, S17 will not be applied to BCs assigned the notation BC-C under S25.
(S17 does not require longitudinal strength checks in the hold flooded condition for BCs carrying cargos with bulk density of less than 1.0 t/m3 .)
7) Other proposals were considered and agreed with some modifications.
Conclusion
Council agreed to the proposed Revision No.1 of UR S 25 on 12 February 2003.
Attached: 1) NKs study on significant wave height vs the DNVs proposed formula. 2) Summary of members reactions
Attachment 1.
DNV compromise proposal (NVj) 4.4.1(b) v: The forward draught in the heavy ballast condition is not to be less than the smaller of k * L and 8.0 m. K = 0.00015 L, but is not to be taken less than 0.025 and need not be taken larger than 0.03.
0120gNKo dated 28 August 2002. With regard to my message of 0120gNKn dated 23 Aug, 02, I would like to draw your attention to the attachment diagram, which contains a material that could support the DNVs proposed criteria of forward draught for the heavy ballast condition which is prepared for rough seas. The points shown in the diagram are the results of calculation on the basis of the occurrence probability of exposure of bottom at bow of bulk carriers exceeding 10-2 (1/100) against the significant wave heights. It is found that the significant wave heights are 2 - 3 m for smaller bulk carriers and are 6 - 7 m for larger ones, which can agree with seafarers' empirical recognition of rough seas. The real line as proposed in NVj is drawn in the diagram. From the diagram, the proposed forward draught criteria for heavy ballast conditions are found reasonable. Further, as regards Paragraph 2.2.3 of LRc, the forward draughts in the normal ballast condition (not heavy ballast condition) of small bulk carriers without ballast hold are as follows: df / L 1 0.0261L 2 0.0213L 3 0.0248L 4 0.0209L L(m) 143 148 150 160
I would like to invite GPG members to consider the above and accept the DNV's proposal in NVj based on the technical background as above explained. Best regards H.Jin
Significant wave height for rough seas V.S. DNV's proposal 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 100
Bottom exposure at bow bow draft proposed by DNV
(m)
150
200 Lpp (m)
250
300
S25TBAtt2.doc
5 September 2002 THE REVISION OF IACS UR S25 (Rev.2, Feb 2003) COMMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO ABd (22 JULY 2002) AND ABS REPLIES THERETO (Comments are identified by 3 name/sequence digits, with their dates being shown in the last page) Para. 1.3 2.2 Comment Reply (ABh) (in conjunction with change to 2.2) Add reference to stability Proposed in ABh. (NVh) OK Noted (NKj) 2. In order to clarify the application of loading and ballast conditions for strength assessment I would like See below reply to LRb to propose to editorially amend paragraph 2.2 of UR S25 as follows. "Rule criterion regarding local strength is to be checked for the loading conditions listed under Sections 4 and 5, as applicable. Rule criterion regarding longitudinal hull girder strength and stability is to be checked for the loading conditions listed under Section 4 and those specified in the approved loading manual based on the conditions listed under Section 5." (LRb) 3. We agree with NK that the text of paragraph 2.2 should be edited to make its' intent clearer. The Agree, with addition of capacity and disposition of ballast following text is proposed: tanks to under Section 4. Also changed title of Section 5 to "2.2 The loading conditions listed under Section 4 are to be used for the checking of rule criteria regarding suit the revised 2.2, all in ABh. longitudinal strength, local strength and stability. The loading conditions listed under Section 5 are to be used for the checking of rule criteria regarding local strength." (NVh) OK (to ABi) Noted (NKk) I agree to the revised wording for Paragraph 2.2 as proposed by LR in item No.3 of LR's message. Noted (ABh) (In conjunction with change to 4.1 4.3) In BC-A, add at the summer load line draught after specified Proposed in ABh. holds empty (NVh) OK, but the words "at the summer load line draught" (ABk) Let us point out that maximum draft is summer draft in S25.2.3 is in itself an incorrect statement in should be changed to "at maximum draught", which is the that maximum draft is clearly tropical fresh or, where assigned, timber tropical fresh. It is therefore proposed terminology used in the rest of S25. NB "maximum draught" is that a much better formulation is to delete S25.2.3 and the phrase "maximum draft" be replaced, throughout already defined in S25 2.3. S25, by the phrase "molded summer load line draft." (This overrides ABi) (LRb) Add with all ballast tanks empty after at maximum draught Additions made in ABh. (NKk) - I support the insertion of wording "with all ballast tanks empty" after "at maximum draught" to See above Paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 as suggested by LR in item No.4 of the message in LRb. (NKh) - Add arrangement and to the title with corresponding change in the text. -In ABf,The title is changed to read Ballast tank capacity and disposition to address the concern more explicitly and to the
4.1 4.3
4.4.1
- Add design to the title of 4.4.1(a) and (b) and 4.4.2(a) and (b) 4.4.1(a) i (KRd) "Slack condition" in item 4.4.1(a) and (b): - I would like to propose to use the phrase "partial filling" in line with other URS instead of "slack" - partial filling of ballast tanks is agreeable but we still tend not to allow partial filling of fore peak ballast tank. If it is to be allowed for the fore peak tank, it should at least be stated that the proper structural arrangement is to be provided to prevent sloshing load. (GLc) Add and at the end. (LRb) the propeller is to be fully immersed. (CCb) As far as length of ship is concerned, I considered that "L" should be the length of ship which is the initial consideration by SC/BCS and defined in MARPOL Convention where the coefficient of 0.015 is introduced instead of the length between perpendiculars of the ship, otherwise this coefficient should be reconsidered. (CCb bis) The use of LBP is acceptable to CCS if majority agrees. (LRb).the trim is to be by the stern and is not to exceed... (KRd) Same as 4.4.1(a) i (LRb)...or required, is to be full. (NVh) The footnote regarding bulk carriers without ballast hold(s) is redundant and may be deleted.
sequence of the events in design. Text changed accordingly. -the definition qualifies these terms for use with this UR and the intent of NK comment is considered fulfilled. In ABg Text changed to indicate partially filled. Text also changed to refer to the last paragraph in S11.2.1.2
4.4.1(a) ii 4.4.1(a) iii
4.4.1(b) i 4.4.1(b) ii
4.4.1(b)iii
4.4.1(b) iv 4.4.1(b) last para.
Addition made in ABg as suggested. Corrected in ABh as suggested It is believed that by adhering to 0.015, the definition of waterline is maintained without any change. Use of LBP is only for the sake of convenience of clients. Noted Corrected in ABh as suggested See reply above Corrected in ABh as suggested Accepted in Abj but confirmation of uniform understanding by all Members requested in Abm. (GLc) Delete and to the waterline Deleted in ABh as suggested. (LRb)....immersion I/D is to be at least ... Corrected in ABh as suggested (LRb) the trim is to be by the stern and is not to exceed... Corrected in ABh as suggested (NKh) Delete the entire paragraph Pending further comment by NK, the paragraph is retained in (NKi) NK will make further comment early next week. ABg. (NKj) The proposal for a mandatory (ABh) ABS can support 180m, if supported by others, but cannot support 200m proposed by NKj, for reason that it departs from the requirement for installation of a present day practice as most recently reported by NK on 17 April 2002 reading in part; ballast hold for bulk carriers of 2.2 Bulk carriers smaller than Panamax certain length and above is While checking 36 bulk carriers of 172m in length and less classed by ClassNK, it was found that about 94% of them did not have supported. In this connection in the ballast holds. Therefore design ballast condition of this size of bulk carriers must be normal ballast condition. fleet statistics there is a clear While checking 30 Handymax bulk carrier of around 180m in length and over, all bulk carriers have ballast holds. It could not separation of ship length between however be confirmed whether or not heavy ballast condition is used more frequently than normal ballast condition. The answer is handy size and panamax at the unknown at the moment. length of 200m. Therefore it would Therefore we have to consider that there are two types of Handymax bulk carriers, i.e., Panamax-like Handymax bulk carriers and be more appropriate to use this Handy-like Handymax bulk carriers in terms of operation or selecting ballast condition.
4.4.1(b) last para (contd)
length for requirement of a ballast which agrees with ABS finding. Please note that how often hold ballast will be used is not the issue. Rather, if such option is available in hold. case of need is the issue of safety which need be addressed. (BVb) 1. It is a good thing from operational point of view to increase the range of sea states where the ship can be operated with light ballast The last paragraph is condition (without filling the ballast hold). As defined by SC/BCS, this could be obtained by reinforcing the bottom forward against slamming, fully retained in ABg based immersing the propeller and dealing with longitudinal strength. on this comment. 2. As a matter of ship safety, it is needed , at least for Panamax and larger vessels, to allow the captain to adopt a heavy ballast (ballast hold is full) condition where storm conditions are expected. As mentioned in ABS message (1.B Capacity and parameter), the draft increase in this case is much higher than the one corresponding to 60% propeller immersion. The only fact we know with reasonable accuracy is that this heavy ballast condition generally allow present vessel designs to sail in very bad weather without major damages. Conditions like the 60% propeller immersion do not lead to the same level of safety, and may be insufficient in storm conditions. The two above principles are fully in line with the MARPOL requirements for oil tankers, taking into account the bulk carrier specific fact that the scantlings of the ballast hold are to specially designed for ballast carriage purpose. The ABS proposed revision of UR S25.4 (document 0120gABdRevS25.doc) meets the above mentioned two principles in our opinion and is therefore supported, including the length limit value of 172 - 180 m. For the same reasons, we do not support the NK and DNV proposals. (KRc) 3) Item 4.4.1(b) (i) - which then read any water ballast hold is be full - is suggested to delete since there is no need to define all ballast holds In ABf, hold ballast is to be full once strength requirements and trim/draft requirements are satisfied. Therefore, NK's amendment to this item is supported. With this addressed in 4.4.1(b) ii amendment, no length limit in the last paragraph - for bulk carriers to have ballast hold can be deleted. Our record shows that ballast hold are with qualifier where required or provided rarely designated in a handy size bulk carrier and this deletion can enhance the designer's/operator's option. (KRd) - with the introduction of item 4.4.1(b) ii, we can agree with the last sentence assumed to refer to last paragraph - of item 4.4.1(b). The last paragraph is retained in ABg based on this comment (RIc) For the same reasons as expressed by Mr Guyader in BVb and repeated by Mr McIntyre in ABf, RINA supports the view that one or more The last paragraph is holds dedicated to the carriage of ballast are to be explicitly required in 4.4.1 (b), at least for ships above a certain length. As far as the length limit of retained in ABg based 172 m is concerned, it results to us that a large amount of Handysize bulk carriers are concentrated in the range 170-180 m, so that a limit within on this comment this range would entail that one ship might be discriminated from another just for a matter of centimetres! We are of the opinion that 170 m is an appropriate length limit; however, we would appreciate other Societies' view on this matter (RId) Minimum length of 170m should be The last paragraph is retained in ABg based on comments from other societies For the same reason, 180m was retained in retained as indicated in RIc. ABh. (CCb) The length limit of 172 m is As a matter of fact, at-sea ballast water hold is fitted for all larger ships. It was found necessary that this practice be written into unnecessary as all the ships of 150 m or UR at least pending completion of a new task being proposed at this time to establish all criteria necessary and sufficient for the above can be designed and assessed under safety of heavy ballast condition. For this reason, this paragraph was retained in ABg for further consideration. Or is it your the requirements of URs. opinion that all ships of 150m and above are to have ballast hold? (CCb-bis) As far as minimum length of ship is concerned, CCS prefers 180m. [180m] is reflected in ABi (LRb) Whilst we have considerable sympathy with the amendments proposed by Mr Myklebust (0120gNVd), we consider that it would be preferable See reply to NKj to explicitly require the provision of a ballast hold for larger bulk carriers. LR consider that a minimum length of 180 metres should be
4.4.1(b) last para (contd)
specified, although we could accept 200 metres as proposed by Mr Jin (0120gNKj) if this is supported by other Members. (NVd) Delete the last (ABi) DNV propose to replace the requirement for a ballast hold for ships above a certain length with a minimum required draught forward. We paragraph and understand that the minimum draft forward criteria which DNV proposes is an empirical criteria which fits with the current DNV bulk carrier fleet (being introduce item v the heavy weather ballast draught forward with ballast hold filled on ships with ballast holds). If so, then we consider it to be a surrogate for, or reading the draught alternative to, simply mandating a ballast hold above a certain length limit---based on current empirical practice, but using different parameters. So, in forward is not less our view, as with the ABS proposal to require a ballast hold, the DNV proposal can only be considered to be a "stop gap" measure. We cannot see that than the smaller of the proposal has any greater merit than simply requiring a ballast hold; and is much less direct. If adopted, it has the potential of "locking in" future 0.03L and 8.0 meters. design practice for a very long time to come using parameters the origin and significance of which will soon be forgotten. Also, we have not had time to . check how these proposed criteria "fit" with the ABS fleet. And, since we have done that check for the length limit for mandating a ballast hold, which is supported by the NK study done for SC/BCS and which a majority of other societies have agreed to in principle, we strongly believe the ABS proposal is the better chose (particularly at this late date.) Also, what we understand is happening now is that designers are producing "standard" S25 compliance designs but with bigger ballast tanks and no ballast holds. This was never intended. It is possible that, with the DNV minimum draught forward criteria, designers will continue to provide much bigger than needed ballast tanks instead of ballast holds and present the designs to owners as IACS S25 compliant designs--any changes are at additional cost to owners. This is what we seek to avoid, while not unintentionally reducing the safety and flexibility of existing (unregulated practice) by inadequate regulation. So, we do not support the DNV proposal in this regard.
4.4.1(b) last para. (contd)
(NVe) For the sake of good order, DNV completely agrees that a good bulk carrier design should (ABi) Regarding requiring a ballast hold above a certain length, we have include cargo hold(s) adapted for ballast water. What we have argued against, and which is the explained and argued the need for this to the best of our ability in our reason for our suggestion in 0120gNVd of 12-08, is the need to introduce a mandatory requirement prior messages and in 2.2.1 above. IACS has decided to "regulate" to ballast hold(s) for some types of bulk carriers into S25, a UR which is not intended to tell designers ballast conditions for bulk carriers for the first time. However, the how to design the arrangement of bulk carriers, and which may introduce more questions than it regulation in S25 on this at present is "necessary" but "not sufficient" solves. and will, if left as is, result in designs of bulk carriers which are less Please recall that most bulk carriers are today designed with ballast hold(s) even though there are no capable, less safe and less flexible in heavy weather ballast operation formal requirements to do so. The reason is that designers have found this to be the best than is currently provided by the "unregulated" market. This is wholly compromise between providing sufficient ballast capacity and maximum cargo hold cubic capacity. unintended and counterproductive, and since it relates directly to safetyWe can not see that the introduction of UR S25 will make the voluntary inclusion of ballast hold(s) -we cannot leave it as it is. Mandating a ballast hold above a certain less likely. length will simply clarify to designers not to design bulkers which "just If ballast hold(s) are to be required, we would argue that such requirements should apply equally to meet" the other criteria in S25 and should steer them back on course. single side skin and double side skin bulk carriers. For most double side skin designs, that we have been involved in, the designers have tried to retain the cargo hold cubic capacity by reducing the size Owners, whose complaints we are trying to satisfy, will not take kindly to of top wing tanks and hoppers to compensate for the volume occupied by the double side skin, being presented with an S25 compliant design with unnecessarily large thereby keeping the same ballast tank capacity as of a single side skin vessel, and keeping the same ballast tanks and no ballast holds---requiring redesign to meet owners needs. need for ballast hold(s). Equal applicability would also remove the need for the "special consideration" statement 4.4.1(b), Regarding DNV's objection to allowing "special consideration" for the which would most likely lead to different application by the various IACS members. It would also length at which a ballast hold is to be required on double skin bulk solve the problem of how to handle bulk carriers with partial double side skin, i.e.; double side skin in carriers, we understand their arguments and, in effort to reach consensus, we can agree to deleting this provision, if so agreed by other some cargo holds and single side skin in the rest. Finally, a bulk carrier's length is not as clear-cut a parameter as it might initially seem. For example if Members. I have therefore put this sentence in square brackets in the the size limit is set to 200 m as proposed by 0120gNKj, all modern handymax bulk carriers (50 - attachment. If this sentence is deleted will DNV join the majority and 55000 tdw) will fall below this size limit (around 190 metres) although they are normally provided with agree to mandating a ballast hold on bulkers of 180m length and above? ballast hold(s), while a much smaller 36000 tdw lakesize bulk carrier may exceed 200 metres. If a Would DNV please advise? size limit in terms of ship's length should be applied, such length limit should be below that of typical And, as indicated in ABh, we agree to the 180m Length limitation handymax bulk carriers, f. inst. 180 metres as suggested in 0120gLRb espoused by DNV. (GLd) GL fully supports DNV's approach to define a minimum ballast draft at F. P. The approach focuses (ABi) We do not believe the DNV proposed forward draught directly on the main issue of bottom strengthening forward due to slamming pressure . Besides, GL is of the criteria relates to prevention of slamming forward--we believe opinion that the proposed formulation of minimum ballast draft forward might be too conservative . GL suggests it is an empirical fit to the current DNV fleet of bulk carriers in to use 0,025 L instead of 0,03 L in the formulation. the heavy ballast condition with a ballast hold filled. The revised version would therefore read as follows: "The draught forward is not less than the smaller of 0,025 L length as defined in S2 and 8.0 metres". (NKk) The criterion for the draught forward of 4.4.1(b) Heavy ballast (ABj) 1. Re the proposals in NVh and NKk to replace the requirement for a ballast hold for ships condition that is proposed by DNV in place of a mandatory requirement above a certain length with a minimum draught forward requirement for ships above a certain length:
of ballast holds provides generic approach of heavy ballast condition 1.1 we reiterate our view that it is more transparent and direct to simply require the ballast hold, in and is supported. However it needs further examination as pointed out line with the current (unregulated) practice. As BV pointed out: "As a matter of ship safety, it is by Mr Jacoby in GLd that the proposed formulation of minimum ballast needed, at least for Panamax and larger vessels, to allow the captain to adopt a heavy ballast draught forward might be too conservative. As a result of NK's (ballast hold is full) condition where storm conditions are expected. As mentioned in ABS message investigation on the forward draughts of NK class ships, the proposed (1.B Capacity and parameter), the draft increase in this case is much higher than the one criterion, i.e. the smaller of 0.03L and 8.0 meters, is found reasonable corresponding to 60% propeller immersion. The only fact we know with reasonable accuracy is that for larger bulk carriers like Panamax, Capesize bulk carriers. However, this heavy ballast condition generally allow present vessel designs to sail in very bad weather without for handy size bulk carriers that do not have a hold adapted for ballast major damages. Conditions like the 60% propeller immersion do not lead to the same level of safety, this criterion is too conservative. In this regard, I share ABS concept and may be insufficient in storm conditions." that no ballast hold is required for smaller bulk carriers. The propeller This "safety condition" is today met, in unregulated practice, by the provision of a ballast hold. It is immersion criterion, taking into consideration the fact that the criterion of most appropriate to simply continue this practice (unless or until we can provide "definitive" heavy 60 % propeller immersion for heavy ballast condition provides sufficient weather ballast crteria) rather than to impose an empirical, surrogate parameter such as minimum criterion for handy size bulk carriers without regulating the draught draft forward to accomplish the same objective in a more indirect and more limiting way. forward. I therefore consider that it would be appropriate to take the above Simply put, minimum draft forward in heavy ballast is not considered a reliable parameter to define a assessment into account in the draft text by DNV (NVd) and to amend to ballast capacity requirement for the purpose of ensuring safety. A draft at the center of flotation in terms of %age of maximum displacement ("Bulk Carrier Practice" indicated 50-65% of loaded read as follows: displacement to be the norm for heavy weather ballast, see 0120gIAc, 9 Aug) may be. "4.4.1(b) Heavy ballast condition" 1.2 It does not make sense for designers to design ships with unnecessarily large ballast tanks-i - iv no change v "The draught forward for bulk carriers 200 m and above in length which they may still do if the minimum forward draft criteria--is adopted in UR S25 when owners want as defined in S2 is to be not less than the smaller of 0.03L and 8 and will require ballast holds. This potential foulup is avoided by simply mandating the ballast hold. meters." (NKk) Comments to 2.1 Paragraph 4.4.1(b) of ABS comments in ABh See ABl -1. With regard to the length criterion based on NK report, I would like to suggest that the statistics on ship length of bulk carriers contained in the attached document (0120gNKkAttach_SC3Ax6A2.doc) is to be used as the common basis. -2. However, in line with the new approach proposed by DNV in NVd to specify the minimum forward draught using ships length, which was further elaborated in the message NVe of 14 Aug. 02 an introduction of a mandatory ballast hold requirement is taken over by the DNV's approach. In case of a need of demarcation in ship length for different approaches according to the size 200 m is a pragmatic magic number, which avoids difficult separation of bulk carries in the same category of sizes. (IGd) I would request (ABk) 1. With reference to Chairman's IGd, 15 Aug: Our first and foremost objective, indeed our obligation, must be to establish criteria which that Members who provide for adequate safety. We do know that the current (unregulated) design practice provides adequate safety for heavy weather ballast service-have not already based on the historical record. However, we do not know, today, whether or to what extent that practice (in terms of heavy weather ballast capacity) can done so now be reduced, if at all, before the boundary between "adequate safety" and "inadequate safety" would be reached. ABS has proposed a new task exactly comment on this for this reason, pending completion of which, IACS should be taking a prudent approach by adopting a UR compatible to the current design practice. issue, stating which For this purpose, we must be checking heavy ballast displacement, rather than forward draft, so that rough weather performance and ships motion can proposal they
support. In addition, be controlled. It is also to be noted that propeller immersion in current designs is considerably above 60% and checking forward draft alone does not if supporting the ABS provide a true picture of the ballast capacity actually provided under the current (unregulated) design practice. (See further comments on this below and proposal, please the attached files.) indicate whether you Therefore, we reiterate our view, and urge Members to support, that a simple, straightforward and transparent mechanism for achieving the safety support a minimum objectives outlined above is to require a ballast hold for the size range of ships for which current, unregulated design practice, has historically provided a length of 180 m or ballast hold. We believe it clear from the arguments we have put forward previously, and below, that attempting to do this by specifying minimum draft 200 m. If supporting forward is neither transparent nor adequate. Further, it will be seen from the information in the attached file, that (with respect to the ABS fleet) the the DNV proposal, proposed criteria for minimum draft forward constitutes a significant reduction in heavy weather ballast capacity. How can we, or indeed anyone, know please indicate whether such reduction is sound or unsound--and whether ships built to this criteria would prove to have adequate safety in heavy weather conditions or whether you support not? We cannot know the answer to that without doing the studies and work necessary to establish a rational and definitive set of minimum heavy a minimum draft weather ballast criteria which will "just" provide adequate safety. Unless or until that development is done, we should not reduce, either consciously or forward of 0.025L or inadvertently, the heavy weather ballast capacity which the unregulated market has provided up to now. 0.03L. See ABl (NKl) 1. Reference in made to the Chairman's message lGd and ABS' message ABj both dated 15 Aug. 2002 and earlier messages in this regard. 2. One of the outstanding issues is the heavy ballast condition, in particular, how IACS wishes to regulate this matter in a technically accountable manner. I would like to point out that the new UR S25 is to be address the safety aspects of IACS concern in a way that designers are guided to satisfy the fit for purpose design that shipowners are happy with. At the same time IACS should avoid to restrict innovative design approaches which may come up in some time by dwelling in the design of today. 3. There are two approaches being discussed, i.e. a mandatory ballast hold arrangement or a ballast tank/hold arrangement that achieves the minimum forward draught in addition to the propeller immersion and trim requirements. Use of hold ballast in the present design certainly resulted in achieving deep draught in heavy ballast condition without being regulated to have one. This approach is in my view one of the technical solutions to satisfy a number of design and operational features that shipowners and designers considered necessary. Largest cargo capacity, sufficient propeller immersion for achieving necessary propulsion without causing propeller racing, deep forward draught to avoid slamming in heavy sea conditions, appropriate stability, maneuverability, etc. 4. The mandatory ballast hold approach for bulk carriers of certain length and above would endorse the present design practice but it falls short of regulating the relevant design parameters. It would be interesting to study the desired heavy ballast conditions in terms of stability, maneuverability, sea keeping performance, slamming frequency, propulsion and ahead speed, etc. At present those matters have been properly achieved in a satisfactory manner to all concerned by regulating some of them and there is no significant and compelling needs to attempt regulating all of them by IACS regulations and it would be sufficient to touch upon some of the key elements at least at this time under the revision of UR S25. 5. Having said above I would like to put forward my comment to the course of action in your message IGd with a view to closing the gaps and taking members' preferred approaches. I would like to request you that the NK proposals in NKk and the third item to decide should be included in the items to which GPG members are requested to indicate their views:. -1. NK's proposal in item 3.1 of its previous message NKk concerning items 3.2 and 4 of the Chairman's message IGd. As NK had proposed the applicable ship length is to be associated with the forward draught that the minimum forward draught should be the smaller of 0.03L and 8 m for bulk carriers of 200 m and above in length. (NVi) 1. Mandatory requirement to ballast hold (ABk) It is agreed that the
We are in complete agreement with ABS and BV that a heavy ballast condition is needed for stormy weather. We also agree that to provide a ballast hold is a good way to provide a safe condition in stormy weather [provided the ballast hold has been/can be filled under safe conditions!]. As a matter of fact most bulkcarriers are provided with ballast holds today although there are no formal requirement to do so. Our objections to requiring a ballast hold are based upon other considerations: * The need to be safe in stormy weather applies to all bulkcarriers to which S25 applies [ie L above 150m]. Requirements to a heavy ballast condition should therefore be formulated so that it covers all bulkcarriers above 150m. * Requirements that apply only to some bulkcarriers [size groups/structural configurations] may create the unwanted impression that IACS do not care about the safety of other bulkcarriers in stormy weather. * IACS requirements should be formulated so that good design practices at present are supported, ie. to provide ballast hold[s], while at the same time not preventing technological innovation and alternative solutions. * The intention of by SC/BCS when developing S25 was not to instruct yards or to limit their freedom in designing the general arrangement of bulkcarriers. We believe that our proposed criteria meet the above considerations. We would be prepared to accept slight modification of the criteria, eg as suggested by GL, if that is the majority view of the members. We do, however, not understand the reason why the DNV criteria should only apply to bulkcarriers above 200m as suggested by Mr Jin in his message NKl, and would have difficulties in supporting his suggestion as our objective has been to have criteria applicable to all bulkcarriers covered by S25. We can not understand that our proposed criteria will prevent or discourage the current practice of providing bulkcarriers with ballast hold(s). Neither are we overly concerned that some designers will try to increase the size of dedicated ballast tanks in order to meet the criteria without providing a ballast hold. Such solutions will necessarily reduce the cargo hold cubic capacity, which are still one of the main parameters considered by shipowners when ordering bulkcarriers, and make such designs unattractive in the marketplace. 4.4.1(b) last para. (contd) (NKm) 1. Reference is made to DNV's message NVi, in particular to the paragraph that discussed the forward draught in ballast condition, in which DNV discussed that the forward draught in heavy ballast condition is to be applicable to all bulk carriers under UR S25. 2. First I would like to point out that the discussion about the NK's proposal in NKl is not comprehensive and only looking at the idea NK put forward partially. As NK had pointed out that the forward draught in heavy ballast condition proposed by DNV is appropriate for bulk carriers of 200 m in length or greater but too deep against the present design and safety record for bulk carriers of less than 200 m. NK's proposal was to separate the application in two parts, i.e. for bulk carriers of length 200 m or above and the rest. NK does not consider it appropriate to reduce the requirement of forward draught of the lessor of 0.03L or 8m for the group of larger bulk carriers because it gives a message to industry that the forward draught in heavy ballast condition in the present design practice is too large. 3. There will be a couple of possible approaches for the group of smaller bulk carriers, i.e. of length less than 200m. My message in NKl suggested that the forward draught in heavy ballast condition of the group of smaller bulk carriers can be left unregulated as is the present situation. The strengthening of forward bottom, minimum propeller immersion and maximum trim requirements have sufficient criteria for those vessels to navigate in heavy weather condition. NK however can accept the forward draught of 0.025L in heavy ballast condition by taking the proposal of GL as adapted for this size category as the required draught will be 5m for 200m length, the maximum ship length of this size
UR should not prevent new technologies but we also recall that DNV objected to the proposal for special consideration for double hull designs. Pending approval and completion of the task being proposed, it is our opinion that such special consideration should be allowed. We must again recall that our proposal for mandatory hold ballast above [170-180m] is in conjunction with ths SC/BCS requirement for 60% immersion and should be considered as applying to all lengths; however, we will be agreeable to additional requirements below that length. See further comments below. See ABl
category. (NVj) When DNV proposed to link the heavy ballast condition to a forward draught the proposed figure of 0.03L we knew that this was based on a rough statistics, and was prepared for small adjustments. We wanted however to avoid restricting the figure to ships over or under a given length. We therefore are reluctant to accept the proposals of NK and GL. We have however made further studies into this, and would like to present the following revised formulation:
(ABk) We have checked a number of the bulk carrier designs classed with ABS in relation to the proposed minimum draft forward criteria put forward in NVd and NVj. The results are shown in the attached files. Our survey clearly indicates that the required drafts forward and aft, and resulting displacement, are considerably less than the full hold ballast condition and cannot be accepted--unless/until confirmed by the proposed task to develop rational and definitive criteria. We therefore propose, in the spirit of compromise and in pursuit of a unanimous concensus, that our proposal to require a ballast hold above [170-180m] Length be retained and the minimum forward draft criteria proposed in NVj be applied for ships below that length that are not provided with a ballast hold. This additional requirement (minimum draft forward requirement for smaller ships which do not have a ballast hold) is considerably more than the SC/BCS provided in the original "The forward draught in the heavy ballast condition is not to be S25, and current design practice, but we are prepared to accept it if all other societies are in agreement. less than the smaller of k . L and 8,0 m. We encourage all Members to carefully check their existing fleet against the proposed minimum draft forward k = 0,00015 L, but is not to be taken less than 0,025 and need criteria and we believe that, having done so, Members will agree that such a criteria is not preferable to our not be taken larger than 0,03." proposal to simply require a ballast hold for ships above a certain size, in line with current practice. (LRc) 1. Reference is made to my emails 0120gLRb and 0120gIGd dated 12 and 5 August 2002 respectively. See ABl 2. With regard to the questions raised in 0120gIGd, the following comments are offered: 2.1 Mandatory Requirement for Ballast Hold 2.1.1 We should think of future double hull bulk carrier designs, which may have sufficient ballast tank capacity to achieve 4.4.1 (b) of 0120gNVd. For current single skin designs, it is practically impossible for a ship in excess of 200 m to achieve the draught forward of "the smaller of 0.03L or 8 m" without having a ballast cargo hold. 2.1.2 Therefore, following a careful review of the ABS and DNV proposals, LR now support DNV's proposal for a requirement for the minimum draught forward in the heavy ballst condition. 2.1.3 The requirement for the heavy ballast condition with a minimum draught forward of "the smaller of 0.03L or 8 m" should be applicable to all bulk carriers regardless of the ship length. 2.2 0.025L or 0.03L 2.2.1 LR support 0.03L. The minimum draught forward in this requirement is not applicable to normal ballast but only to the heavy ballast condition. According to LR's studies, "the smaller of 0.025L or 8 m" is too shallow to require ballast cargo holds for single hull bulk carriers. 2.2.2 Our investigation indicates that the heavy ballast conditions of all bulk carriers with a ballast hold satisfy the "the smaller of 0.03L or 8 m" requirements as indicated below: 1 Handy size 0.044L 2 Handy size 0.038L 3 Handy size 0.038L 1 Panamax 0.032L 2 Panamax 0.037L 3 Panamax 0.033L
4 Panamax 0.037L 1 Cape size 0.031L 2 Cape size 0.029L but > 8.0 m 2.2.3 We are aware of one bulk carrier design with a ship length of 176 metres with no ballast hold. The minimum draught forward in the heavy ballast condition is 0.029L, which is very close to the proposal above. 2.2.4 We would be interested in other Members' data regarding the draught forward of bulk carriers with no ballast cargo hold. (NKn) Reference is made to messages of ABS in ABk, DNV in NVj and LR in LRc 1. With regard to the approaches of DNV and ABS, I, logically, understand that: 1) Though DNV's approach may require less forward draught than the present design practice of vessels with a ballast hold, it inevitably results in a design which arranges a ballast hold to meet the proposed forward draught requirements. 2) ABS's approach does not specify the size of a ballast hold and, I think, needs to be more specific. 3) DNV's approach would help to define the desired heavy ballast condition even the formula is to be further reviewed. 2. As regards LR data on the forward draughts in Paragraphs 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of LRc, our own data shows less forward draughts e.g. approximately 0.025L in smaller bulk carriers that have no ballast hold. I will forward our own data in the early next week. 3. As a conclusion, I may support the DNV proposal contained in NVj. 4. And I would like to propose that the technical background for the forward draught requirements should be prepared based on the studies by DNV mentioned in NVj in order to make them justifiable. (KRe) 1. Ref. is made to IGd dated 15 August, LRc of 22nd August and other commenting e-mails. I appreciate other members' comments and insight on ballast condition issue. 2. With regard to the questions in 0120gIGd, please be advised our position as follows; 1) whilst I see the valuable points of commenting members, I tend to support not to require mandatory ballast hold as has been expressed in my mail KRc dated 24 July. Instead, I support DnV's proposal to define minimum draft forward in heavy ballast condition. 2) It reveals that the forward draft under heavy ballast condition for the existing three handy size bulk carriers which have no ballast cargo hold are 0.0245L(160m), 0.0289L(172m) and 0.025L(178m). However, I support 0.03L as a minimum draft. (BVc) Mandatory requirement for ballast hold UR S25 4.4.1 (b) BV fully supports the analysis and conclusions provided in Steve McIntyre's message 0120gABk dated 21/08/2002, requesting at least one hold able to be ballasted for ships of more than 180 m in length. Justification of our position is provided is our previous message (0120gBVa) Further to the comments of the other members, we emphasize two additional points: - Whatever our final position, we are now setting a standard. According to the first reactions and the questions we have received concerning UR S25, the Industry has understood this. The new standard will replace the former unregulated "generally accepted" designs. The job of the shipyards will be now to design ships within the constraints fixed by the new URs (S25, Sxx, Syy, Szz...), neither more nor less. As a consequence, if we don't require a ballast hold, we effectively prevent the present practice of providing one, except if this is an explicit requirement of the Shipowner. However, we have understood that this last point is precisely what HKSOA wanted to avoid. - In attached graphs 1 and 2, we have displayed the DNV proposed criteria (60% propeller immersion + fore draught proposal of 0120gNVj) against the present
See ABl
See ABl
See ABl
10
practice of Heavy Ballast including ballast holds for ships referred to by NK (SC/BCS document "Investigation on Design Ballast Condition 2002-04-17) , ABS in 0120gABk, LR for Panamax of 216 m Lpp in 0120gLRc and 5 additional BV ships. Our conclusion is that the standard proposed by DNV is significantly lower than the present practice for all ships larger than 180 m in length, with regard to slamming probability of occurrence and propeller racing in harsh weather. So we cannot support this proposal . (NKo) With regard to my message of 0120gNKn dated 23 Aug, 02, I would like to draw your attention to the attachment diagram, which contains a material that could support the proposed criteria of forward draught for the heavy ballast condition which is prepared for rough seas. The points shown in the diagram are the results of calculation on the basis of the occurrence probability of exposure of bottom at bow of bulk carriers exceeding 10-2 (1/100) against the significant wave heights. It is found that the significant wave heights are 2 - 3 m for smaller bulk carriers and are 6 - 7 m for larger ones, which can agree with seafarers' empirical recognition of rough seas. The real line as proposed in NVj is drawn in the diagram. From the diagram, the proposed forward draught criteria for heavy ballast conditions are found reasonable. Further, as regards Paragraph 2.2.3 of LRc, the forward draughts in the normal ballast condition (not heavy ballast condition) of small bulk carriers without ballast hold are as follows: df / L L(m) 1 0.0261L 143 2 0.0213L 148 3 0.0248L 150 4 0.0209L 160 I would like to invite GPG members to consider the above and accept the DNV's proposal in NVj based on the technical background as above explained. (NVk) Please note our comments to Hisayasu's mail: When DNV formulated the proposal in our mail NVj of 23 August 2002, this was an attempt to provide a compromise solution that does not collide unacceptably with present design practices for the heavy ballast condition of the smaller bulk carriers. However, we agree with what we understand to be the underlying position of NK on this matter, that the stipulated minimum forward draught for the heavy ballast condition in UR S25 should not be considered as a safety issue. The statistical data over bulk carriers lost while in the ballast condition provides no indication in such direction. The proposed forward draught limit in the heavy ballast condition should in DNV's opinion rather ensure that the frequency of bottom slamming will not induce the ship speed to be reduced beyond those reductions decided based on a general assessment of sea condition. The documentation provided by NK in their mail of 28 August 2002 is not entirely clear to us. We would therefore appreciate a more detailed explanation of the background. (ABl) 1. Monitoring the replies from Members, we see that despite our best efforts to convince Members of the need to require a ballast hold, the majority supports the DNV proposal for a minimum draft forward requirement for the heavy ballast condition. 2. Nonetheless, we must say that we appreciate and fully support the arguments and additional points provided in Maurice's message BVc, 23 Aug and still believe requiring a ballast hold to be the better and more prudent approach for IACS to take. 3. That said, in light of the majority support for the minimum draft forward requirement, we would be prepared to accept the "..the smaller of 0.03L or 8 m..." formulation, but we cannot accept the 0.025L formulation.
See ABl
See ABl
11
(IGe) 1. Reference is made to my email dated 15 August 2002 (0120gIGd) and to the further very stimulating correspondence from Members. 2. Following receipt of Mr McIntyre's message 0120gABl, seven Members now support a requirement for a minimum draught forward in the heavy ballast condition. Two Members (BV and CCS) support an explicit requirement for the provision of a ballast hold, whilst I can not trace a response from RS. 3. Of the Members supporting a requirement for a minimum draught forward, the majority prefer the lesser of 0.03L or 8.0 metres with only one Member supporting the lesser of 0.025L or 8.0 metres. Only one Member supported DNV's modified proposal for a minimum draught of the lesser 0.00015*L*L or 8.0 metres. 4. Accordingly, I propose that the requirement to be submitted to Council should be for a minimum draught forward of the lesser of 0.03L or 8.0 metres. 5. Mr Han is requested to prepare a clean and underlined texts of UR S25 incorporating the above requirement, together with the other amendments agreed by Members. 6. Members will be requested to approve the revised text for submission to Council within one week of its' circulation by Mr Han. (NKp) 1. Reference is made to my message NKo of 28 Aug 02, Arve's message NVk and Steve's message ABl of 29 Aug 02 as well as the other earlier messages. 2. I welcomed the message of Steve in particular the paragraph 3. I noted that ABS couldn't accept the 0.025L formulation. I hope that the position of ABS has carried out ramification study of smaller bulk carriers of the present design and possibly future ones. NK has difficulty in accepting the application of the greater of 0.003L or 8m for all length of bulk carriers. As communicated in my message NKn and NKo this Society supports the minimum requirement proposed by DNV in NVj of 20 Aug 02. In this connection I would like to offer the following comments. 2.1 Maneuverability of bulk carriers in sea condition is to be maintained by ahead propulsion and speed. I fully agree with DNV in NVk that frequent slamming if happens during heavy weather would induce the ship speed to be reduced beyond those restrictions. Proper forward draft that eliminates such situation to happen and sufficient propeller immersion helps to maintain ahead speed. The latter is already included in the UR S25 in the original version and no change has been proposed. Therefore it is considered accepted by all Members. 2.2 Forward draft and slamming are to be considered in a package for achieving fit for purpose design. The matter of strengthening forward bottom against slamming has already been dealt with by the revised text of paragraph 4.4.2(a)i by the discussion so far. Now the forward bottom is to be strengthened against slamming in normal ballast condition. Therefore the forward bottom is considered strong enough for voyages in heavy ballast condition, i.e. in greater forward draught. The amount of forward draught necessary in heavy ballast condition has been discussed during the past month from various angles. It was the general agreement that in the present design practice bulk carriers of certain length and above have a ballast hold without being regulated, which demonstrate that designers and shipowners agreed a need of greater forward draught than that of normal ballast and utilised a cargo hold for ballast purpose. Due to strength consideration the ballast hold is full when used for heavy ballast condition. The consequential ballast condition demonstrated to have provided sufficient forward draught for unrestricted voyages. The forward draught proposed by DNV in NVj has been tested in bulk carriers of the present design. It was found that for Panamax and Capesize bulk carriers a ballast hold would be fitted to satisfy the requirement and commercial demand of grain capacity. For other bulk carriers there are some bulk carriers in particular smaller ones that satisfy the forward draught requirement in heavy ballast condition without fitting ballast hold. The relevant risks of this design relevant to forward bottom and propeller immersion are now addressed by the UR S25 by means of the requirements for strengthening of forward bottom against slamming in normal ballast condition and the requirement of the heavy ballast condition. 2.3 Now with regard to the enquiry of Arve in NVk the data provided in the attachment to my last message NKo derived from NK's extensive study carried out on ship's maneuverability and sea keeping in heavy weather conditions with regard to deck wetness due to green sea loading, exposure of forward bottom, propeller racing, etc. Sixteen bulk carriers of all range of the sizes were used for the study. From that study it is known that ship masters take actions as they feel it necessary in heavy weather condition when for example exposure of forward bottom takes place several times per hour and/or ten times of shipping green sea on
12
bow deck per hour. 2.4 From the analysis NK was successful in establishing significant wave height in head sea condition when exposure of forward bottom takes place several time per hour. The information was super imposed on the diagram of the bow draught proposed by DNV as provided in the attached to the message NKo. 2.5 I do not want to open a debate on the outcome of the study but am pleased to point out that the bow draught requirement proposed by DNV matches the trend of the significant wave heights that causes exposure of forward bottom at several times per hour, over which shipmasters takes action for reducing bow exposure such as reducing head speed, changing bearing, etc. (NKq) 1. NK's comment in NKp of 30 August crossed the Chairman's message IGe of the same day. I appreciate the action taken by the Chairman in summing up the discussion during the past month for the revision of UR S25 with a view to achieving the final agreement of the revised text for submission to Council. I also appreciate Mr Han in taking the role for type setting the final draft revision. 2. With regard to the provision of heavy ballast condition I do not quite agree with the Chairman's sum-up. There were two approaches, one proposed by ABS for requiring a mandatory ballast hold for bulk carriers of certain length and above and the other proposed by DNV for introducing minimum forward draught in the heavy ballast condition in UR S25. 3. Thanks to the message of Steve in ABl of 29 August all commenting members agreed to specify the design minimum forward draught in heavy ballast condition. However the requirements for the amount of the forward draught were divided in two ways. This matter as far as I see is yet to be concluded and should be further discussed and concluded by explicit comments. 4. I therefore request Mr Chairman and Mr Han to put the two proposals given below in square brackets in the final draft text to be circulated to GPG for consideration and decision by GPG, i.e. the last paragraph of section '4.4.1(b) Heavy Ballast Condition' should read as; The draught forward is not to be less than the smaller of [k*L and 8.0 metres, K being 0.00015*L but is not to be taken less than 0.025 and need not to be taken larger than 0.03][0.03L and 8 meters]. (RIe) Please note that RINA was in favour of supporting ABS/BV position not to accept bulk carriers without ballast hold. However, following the majority of Members, we can accept DNV's figures, i.e. the smaller of 0.03 L or 8 m. (IAd) Reference is made to GPG Chairman's mail 0120gIGe dated 30 August 2002. Attached herewith please find the final text of UR S25 incorporating the agreed changes and Chairman's conclusions. GPG Chairman invites Members to confirm their agreement to the attached document by 10 September after which the documents will be submitted to Council for final approval. Concerning 4.4.1(b)v, Mr.Jin's suggestion to put " k*L and 8.0 meters, k = ,,,," in square brackets was not supported by ABS and BV, however, it is reflected in the TB. Permsec wrote the TB in such a way that it did not lose members' valuable comments even if they were not agreed by the majority. Members' approval is sought by 10 September. (BVd) Taking into account the support of the vast majority of members for the DNV proposed solution (the (ABm) The views expressed by Maurice in BVd, 3 Sept, are smaller of 0.03 L or 8 m) , please note that BV can accept this formulation, even if we still prefer not to accept fully supported. bulk carriers without ballast hold. We do not support the proposal of NKq to put the solution of "0.025 L" between square brackets, as this solution is unacceptable for us and is not the solution supported by the majority of members.
13
4.4.1(b) last para. (contd) 4.4.2
4.4.2(a) i
4.4.2(b) last sentence
(CCc) 1. Reference is made to IAd of 4 September 02. 2. Please be informed that CCS can support DNV's proposal, i.e.the smaller of 0.03L or 8m. 3. The draft URS25 as attached to IAd is acceptable to CCS. (RIc) We also agree with ABS's proposal for strength requirements in 4.4.2 (tanks 100% full). However, in order The comment is agreed and appreciated However, in ABg to make 4.4.2 fully in line with UR S11.2.1.2, we propose that the following sentence be added before 4.4.2(a): the change was made to 4.4.1(a) i and 4.4.1(b) i since "The longitudinal strength is to be checked for all the partial filling of tanks that may be partially filled or empty partially full BWTs are addressed in these locations and RI during navigation.". suggested changes will be more appropriate if made therein. (RId) Although understanding Mr. McIntyres considerations, we deem it relevant to strength requirements and For reason indicated earlier and as supported by NVf, the strictly connected with the modifications proposed by Mr. Myklebust. reference to S11.2.1.2 is retained in 4.4.1(a) i and 4.4.1(b) i. (NVf) we do not see the reason for moving the reference to S11.2.1.2 from 4.4.1(a)i. and 4.4.1(b)i. to 4.4.2(a)iii. See above and 4.4.2(b)ii. S11.2.1.2 refers to partially filled tanks which are allowed in the conditions defined in 4.4.1, and the reference (if at all necessary) should be included here. (NVh) 4.4.2(a) & 4.4.2(b) Longitudinal strength requirements must apply to both the condition with See above empty/partially filled ballast tanks and the condition with 100% full ballast tanks. See proposed wording in NVd. (NKj) 4.4.2(a) i needs clarification as the ballast tank filling rate contained in the main body of paragraph 4.4.2 ABh now reads as follows: may not be applied in the subsequent ballast conditions. I therefore would like to propose to modify 4.4.2(a) i. as i. the structures of bottom forward are to be follows. strengthened in accordance with the Rules of the society "the structures of bottom forward are to be strengthened in accordance with the Rules of the Society against against slamming for the condition of 4.4.1(a) at the lightest slamming for the condition of 4.4.1(a) at the lightest forward draught, unless the condition that all ballast tanks forward draught, and as designated in 4.4.1(a) are to be 100% full is specified in the loading manual for this condition." (LRb) The clarification given in 0120gNKj is supported. See above reply (Nve) We agree that item 4.4.2(a)i is unclear, but at the same time we do not fully understand the meaning of (ABi) I think the version of 4.4.2(a)i in ABh, has the same the text proposed in 0120gNKj. We do, therefore, believe that a complete reorganizing of 4.4.2 will give better effect as what DNV proposed. clarity than the proposal in 0120gNKj, ref. our suggestion in 0120gNVd of 12-08. (NVd) Delete the last sentence. (ABi) ABS cannot accept the DNV proposal to delete the last line of 4.4.2(b). If more than one ballast hold is designated for carriage of water ballast at sea, then the longitudinal strength needs to be checked with the ballast tanks full and each one of the designated ballast holds full, one by one, to ensure that the ship has adequate strength should any one of the designated ballast holds indeed be filled at sea. If there are two designated ballast holds for water ballast at sea, then two conditions have to be checked. It would, to our understanding, rarely be more than that.
14
4.4.2(b) last sentence (contd)
(NVh) Same comment as for 4.4.2(a). (ABj) In reply to NVh and NKk, both 15 Aug: he last sentence still seems unclear. If the 2. Re the proposals to delete the last sentence of 4.4.2(b), we do not agree. The sentence does not imply that several sentence implies that several heavy ballast heavy ballast conditions are required. Rather, if more than one ballast hold is designated by the designer/owner in the conditions are required for bulkcarriers having operating manual for the carriage of water ballast at sea, it must be that the master is allowed and may at some time to fill more than one ballast hold, we disagree. One each such ballast hold, at least individually, while at sea. The purpose of the last sentence is to require that the longitudinal heavy ballast condition should be the minimum strength be checked for such conditions with all the other ballast tanks full--so as to ensure that the S11 criteria will not be IACS requirement. The owner/designer may of exceeded in such conditions, and for the same reasons that we are requiring that the strength check be done with all the course specify other heavy ballast conditions if ballast tanks full for the normal ballast condition, even if the "all tanks full" condition is not given in the loading manual as they so desire, in that case such conditions are to the normal ballast condition. These are checks to ensure that strength criteria will not be exceeded if all the ballast tanks be approved, ref. S25 1.2. That is why we have in plus each ballast hold designated for carriage of water ballast at sea are full. We have modified the text slightly to try to NVd proposed to delete the last sentence. make this clearer ( see attachment). (NKk) Comments to ABS comments in ABg (sic; ABi) (ABj) See above -1. 2.2.2 Paragraph 4.4.2(b) I support DNV's proposal to delete the last line of 4.4.2(b) because of the following reasons. - Where a bulk carrier is provided with two ballast holds for carriage of water ballast at sea, three permutations of each ballast hold being filled are considered. In this situation, it is to be left to owner's decision based on operational convenience which permutation is used to achieve the required heavy ballast condition. - We have no reason to force the two ballast holds be filled at the same time as the heavy ballast condition during voyage because of the two ballast holds being fitted. This means that both of two heavy ballast conditions (one ballast hold is full but another is empty and vice-versa) are not necessarily needed to meet the heavy ballast condition. (NKl) NK supports the modification proposed by Mr Myklebust in NVd of 12 Aug 02 with regard to the last sentence of paragraph 4.4.2(b) Heavy ballast See ABk below condition, i.e. deletion of the sentence "In such instance, the longitudinal strength is to be satisfactory at least for each condition with one such hold full and all others empty" as this matter is regulated in paragraph 4.4.2(b) sub-paragraph i in the text contained in NVd.
15
4.4.2(b) last sentence (contd)
4.5
(NVi) 2. Number of ballast holds and heavy ballast conditions (ABk) We do not agree that specifying There is a tendency that modern bulkcarrier designs are provided with more than 1 ballast hold, normally when water ballast to obtain increased scantlings specified by the shipowner. We have even seen bulkcarriers with every second hold [holds 2, 4, 6, ...] designated as ballast holds. of bulkheads is a proper way of design. Our The reasons may be: point is that if a hold is designated for at* to provide increased strength of watertight bulkheads, sea ballast, the longitudinal strength should * to provide increased flexibility to take part loads into a minimum number of holds be sufficient for the intended service. It is to * to provide effective ballast water management [eg. Sediment management] procedures be recalled that the original request from * others. the industry was (and still is, we believe) to To require longitudinal strength check for any one of these ballast holds to be full while all others are empty, would discourage eliminate operating restrictions as much as such excellent possible, and by specifying the condition of solutions, which we believe should not be the effect of IACS requirements. approval, we will not require special We would therefore reiterate that IACS should require only one heavy ballast condition. It should in this connection be recalled notations for the loading restrictions. that: Without the last sentence of 4.4.2(b) a * Owners/designers will have the option to specify additional heavy ballast conditions if they so desire, which have to be restricted ballasting notation will be submitted for approval, ref. S25.1.2. required. We do not believe that requiring * All ballast holds [irrespective of how many are provided] are to be checked for local strength, ref. S25.5.5 longitudinal strength check for one hold * The master has, irrespective of the loading conditions specified in the loading manual, the freedom to load [including ballasted condition will in any way ballast] the vessel differently, provided limitations for longitudinal and local strength as defined in the loading manual and loading discourage any other arrangement that is instrument onboard are not exceeded, ref. S25.1.3. No difference should be made between cargo and ballast in this connection. permitted under S25.1.2. (BVc) 2. Longitudinal strength if more than one ballast hold is fitted UR S25 4.4.2 (b) (ABl) we appreciate and fully support the It is not requested to have more than one ballast hold. However, if more than one is effectively designated for ballast, it must be arguments and additional points provided in possible to use each of them while satisfying the longitudinal strength criteria. We understand that some ballast holds can be only Maurice's message BVc, 23 Aug used in ports or sheltered areas for air draft reasons, but in this case they are not intended for " carriage of water at sea". So the ABS text is supported by BV. (NVd) Replace bunker full (ABi) we do not believe it either realistic or prudent to define the departure condition to be "100%". Fuel oil tanks are never, in practice, filled (normally 95% fuel oil) and 100% full owing to the dangers of overflow and spillage associated with expansion. Designers have already questioned whether "100% other with all consumables" means "bunkers 95% full and other consumables 100%", in accord with normal design practice. We agree with them and believe it clearer for everyone and more prudent to state this clearly in the UR. Therefore, we do not agree to revert to the less clear and wholly hypothetical "100% consumables" ---which would very likely be interpreted to be "bunkers 95% full and other consumables 100%" in actual practice by many. It is better to state this accepted and expected "interpretation" as the requirement. (NKk) I support ABS proposal of departure condition with bunker full (normally 95% fuel oil). Noted with thanks (NVi) 3. Departure condition (ABk) with respect to "departure conditions", We certainly agree that bunker tanks will not be 100% full in normal operation. However, the intent of S25 has never been to we would not object to the proposed wording define how bulkcarriers shall be operated. The sole purpose of S25 is to ensure that the strength envelope is sufficiently wide for if it is acceptable to all other societies but bulkcarriers to be fit for purpose. For this reason a number of design loading conditions have beendefined, all of which from a would suggest, to eliminate dead meat,
16
5 None
strength point might be seen to be somewhat severe as compared to actual operating conditions. SC/BCS has adopted the term 100% full throughout S25 on purpose, both as regards cargo holds, ballast holds, ballast tanks and fuel oil tanks [re fuel oil tanks the term 100% full is applied several times also in section 5]. The only advantage we can see for applying less than 100% bunker in the departure condition is to reduce maximum still water bending moment [in eg the normal ballast condition with all ballast tanks 100%], and saving some steel for the builder, which is contrary to the intent of S25. Trim considerations are no longer a problem after allowing empty and/or partially filled tanks in the ballast conditions To maintain the SC/BCS intent and the integrity of S25 we would prefer to retain 100% consumables [including bunker] in the departure condition. However, the capacity which shall be used under S25 must represent the maximum filling for the ship's operation. We will therefore propose a slight amendment to item 4.5: "Departure condition with bunker tanks at maximum capacity, in any case not less than 95% full, and other consumables 100%....". (BVc) Bunker departure condition - UR S25 4.5 The proposal of DNV (0120gNVi, last sentence) is supported. (ABh) (In conjunction with change to 2.2) Change title of 5 to Design loading conditions (for local strength) (IAc) With regard to ABg (and item 1b of ABd) with respect to a task to determine all parameters and corresponding criteria to ensure safety in heavy ballast condition, may the Secretariat suggest that early input be sought also from the Nautical Institute and from IFSMA? They are at the same address and would no doubt consult each other. An extract from the NI's book 'Bulk Carrier Practice' is attached.
Departure condition: with bunker tanks not less than 95% full and other consumables 100% For the record, it is to be noted that by changing from the "MARPOL condition" (no consumable) to arrival condition (10% consumables), SC/BCS de facto eased the propeller immersion requirement but tightened the forward draft requirement. We believe this decision was made based on the present design conditions rather than a fictitious condition for 100% full bunker tanks. Noted Proposed in ABh. -
17
5 Sep 02
0120g CORRESPONDENCES AFTER ABd, 22 July 2002

IA a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q 9 Aug 02 3 Sep 02 23 July 02 8 Aug 02 15 Aug 02 30 Aug 02 22 July 02 23 July 02 31 July 02 8 Aug 02 13 Aug 02 14 Aug 02 15 Aug 02 21 Aug 02 29 Aug 02 3 Sep 02 29 July 02 23 Aug 02 3 Sep 02 6 Aug 02 13 Aug 02 (b-bis) 4 Sep 02 1 Aug 02 23 July 02 12 Aug 02 14 Aug 02 14 Aug 02 ? 15 Aug 02 19 Aug 02 20 Aug 02 29 Aug 02 6 Aug 02 14 Aug 02 24 July 02 1 Aug 02 23 Aug 02 12 Aug 02 22 Aug 02 1 Aug 02 13 Aug 02 3 Sep 02 23 July 02 24 July 02 1 Aug 02 9 Aug 02 15 Aug 02 16 Aug 02 20 Aug 02 23 Aug 02 29 Aug 02 30 Aug 02 2 Sep 02 IG ABS BV CCS DNV GL KR LR NK RI RS
18
Part A
UR S26 Strength and Securing of Small Hatches on the Exposed Fore Deck
Version no. Rev.4 (May 2010) Rev.3 (Aug 2006) Rev.2 (July 2004) Rev.1 (Nov 2003) NEW (Nov 2002) Approval date 24 May 2010 7 August 2006 5 July 2004 7 November 2003 29 November 2002 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2007 1 January 2004
Rev.4 (May 2010)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.3 (Aug 2006)
Rev.2 (July 2004)
Rev.1 (Nov 2003)
NEW (Nov 2002)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S26: Annex 1. TB for Original Resolution (Nov 2002)


Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for Rev.2 (July 2004) and Rev.4 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
UR S 26 Strength and Securing of Small Hatches on the Exposed Fore Deck (New, Nov 2002) Technical Background: This technical background (TB) is developed in line with Annex 2 of IACS Internal Information No. 15. 1. Scope and objectives 1.1 The reopened Derbyshire formal inquiry published its report in December 2000. Mr Justice Colemans Recommendations are summarised in Section 14 of the report, in which there are a number of recommendations addressed to IACS and Classification Societies. Further to the discussion at C42 in December 2000 where it was decided to form a Small Group in order to make proposals for the way forward on Mr Justice Colemans Recommendations. Subsequently AHG/FDF was established to initially consider two issues, which were: Strength Requirements for Fore Deck Fittings and Equipment; and Prevention of Water Ingress through Fore Deck Openings 1.2 AHG/FDF considered amongst others prevention of water ingress through a small hatch on fore deck. The objective of this UR is to introduce knowledge of good seamanship in technical design thus to reduce risk of the small hatch cover being opened in heavy seas and consequential inadvertent water ingress into the space underneath. 2. Points of discussions and possible discussions 2.1 The investigation of Derbyshire showed that the hatch cover of small hatch (used as rope hatch) was torn off and considered to have allowed subsequent sea water ingress to the space underneath. 2.2 The AHG addressed deck height above Load Water Line where green water may wash over the fore deck, and technical aspects of securing devices of small hatch covers. 2.3 In regard to the deck height, analysis put forward by a member indicated that 0.1L or 22m was too conservative in particular for larger vessels. However the AHG considered it appropriate for the purpose of eliminating fore decks of pure car carriers that are clearly above green seas, also keeping in mind the damage case to the fore deck of the passenger liner QE2. 2.4 The AHG analyzed possible cases where a small hatch cover secured by butterfly nuts may be opened in heavy weather condition and arrived at a likelihood that the hatch cover is pressed down by green sea forces causing the butterfly nuts to loosen and consequently be dislodged. This assumption was considered realistic by a report that it was not difficult to dislodge tightened butterfly nuts by hammering it outward. 2.5 The Group considered a way out and came to a conclusion that there is a need of a secondary securing (locking) device that keeps the hatch cover in place even in such a case where the primary securing device was loosened or even dislodged. 2.6 The Group also considered that the hatch cover must have a metal to metal touch for preventing further compression by green sea forces. In the method using butterfly nuts for the primary securing device the group considered that overtightening butterfly nuts causes permanent deformation (distortion) of forks (clamps), which allows the butterfly nuts to come off easily. Preventive measures were stipulated to the effect that the forks are of robust strength, and are curved upward or raised at the free end with a view to reducing the risk of the butterfly nuts being dislodged.
2.7 The group further considered that location of hinges of small hatch covers would play an important role to keep the cover in place in green water. It has come to the groups attention that on a few ships the hinges for a small hatch cover have been located on the far side from the direction of water flow, such that the action of green seas would tend to try to open the hatch, and at least in some cases the ship's crew have turned the cover around. The group did not believe that there is any international requirement that would prevent this and therefore IACS should consider introducing a paragraph to the effect that the hinges should be arranged such that the predominant direction of green water would cause the cover to close. 2.8 The group agreed that on the fore deck the hinges should be arranged on the fore side of the hatch. The model tests suggest that away from the centre line a 45 degree orientation could be theoretically better, but this requires proper arrangement of deck stiffening. For small hatches located between the main hatches (for example between Nos. 1 and 2) the hinges might be best placed on the outboard edge in beam sea and bow quartering conditions, while hinges on fore edge are also acceptable. 2.9 The group agreed that the ship type category, general dry cargo ship, was for the carriage of dry cargo loaded through hatch covers, and did not include special purpose ships such as Container Ships, Vehicle Carriers and Ro-Ro ships. 2.10 The AHG agreed that whilst the problem of securing small hatch covers mounted on the fore deck was identified during the Derbyshire RFA, the application of this UR should be for all types of new ships, to improve their common capability to resist green sea loads. The group therefore considers that National standards, ISO 5778 and the design practice for small hatch covers should be examined with regard to this UR, and that the cost of such improvement is small. 2.11 For the illustrative primary securing arrangement shown in Figure 2, the AHG considered the possible addition of a nut or double nut on the toggle to prevent the fork from being bent downwards, or to be used for locking the butterfly nut in position. 3. Source/derivation of proposed requirements 3.1 The group established information regarding current industry standards and practices from national and international standards such as Japanese Industry Standards, Korean Industry Standards, DIN, Italian shipyards practices and ISO standard. 3.2 The group identified three preferred types of securing devices. However, the group considered that there is a room of improvements. With regard to the widely used butterfly nuts the group felt a need to add a requirement such that butterfly nuts would not be dislodged by being loosened due to the effect of extra compression to gasket that may be caused by green sea forces. Metal to metal contact was introduced to achieve this level of security. This method was also made applicable to other preferred securing device such as quick acting cleats and central wheel locking device. 3.3 The group considered that a secondary locking device would improve securing small hatch covers in place even though such secondary device may not keep the hatch cover weather-tight. To that end the group considered that a backing bar or sliding bolt of slack fit would satisfy the objective. The group felt that specific technical requirement can be left to innovation of designers and shipyards. 3.4 Structural requirements for the small hatch cover were based on a design pressure of 150 kPa. This pressure was considered suitable for the fore deck from information provided by AHG/WD-SL to AHG/EBC (reference UR S21 Rev 1, July 2002), and corresponds to a position of about 0.04L from the forward perpendicular of a capesize bulk carrier. Plate thicknesses were derived from plastic criteria, while the stiffener requirements were assessed on elastic stresses. In view of easy
maintenance of these covers, a reduced corrosion allowance of 1 mm was included for the plate and 2 mm for the stiffeners. For the purposes of providing a simple and economical standard, this design is assumed to apply to all areas specified in clause 2. 4. Decision by Voting if any The technical requirements in this proposed UR were considered by all members of the AHG and agreed unanimously. The implementation scheme, which is contained in square brackets, is to be decided by GPG.
Note by the permanent Secretariat 1. NK proposed an annotation to Figure 2 for the metal to metal contact. Council tasked the AHG to consider. As a result, para. 6.1 was modified and new para. 6.2 added. Item 9 of Figure 2 was annotated as bearing pad welded on the bracket of a toggle bolt for metal to metal contact. *************
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background S26 (Rev.1, Nov 2003) & S27(Rev.2, Nov 2003)
Part A: S26.2.2 (Rev.1, Nov 2003) + S27.2.2(Rev.2, Nov 2003) 1. Objective: To clarify the ships to which S26 and S27 shall apply.
2. Points raised by BV (s/n 3142): .1 .2 Ore carriers are not mentioned in S26/S27 para 2.2. It needs to be clarified. Refrigerated cargo ships, livestock carriers, deck ships, dedicated forest product carriers and dedicated cement carriers do not seem to be excluded from the scope of application. It needs to be clarified.
3. GPG Discussion .1 Failure to explicitly include ore carriers in the scope of application statements in S26/27 was just an oversight. It was agreed that Ore carriers should be explicitly mentioned. .2 The proposal to align the scope of application for general dry cargo ships with that of UR Z7.1 was not agreed. It would exempt more vessels from the application of S26/27. The scope of application of S26/S27 was based on considerations of freeboard not on alignment with Z7.1 (3142_ABc dated 29 September 2003). But, it was agreed to include combination carriers(as defined in UR Z11) in the scope of application of S26/S27 for clarity. 4. Conclusion .1 Para 2.2 of S26 and S27 was amended to the above effect. .2 Council approved it on 7 Nov 2003.
Page 1 of 2
Part B: S27.5.1.1(Rev.2, Nov 2003) 1. Objective To clarify the scope of application of S27.5.1.1 to existing ships. 2. Points raised by ABS (s/n 3059a): .1 ABS suggested that S27.5.1.1 does not mean that closing devices of air pipes (and ventilators : this wording and ventilators was deleted as UR P3 does not cover ventilators) on all existing ships subject to S27 need to be upgraded to comply with the current UR P3. GPG agreed. GPG did not agree to the view that if an air pipe or ventilator closing device has to be replaced to comply with the other requirements of S27, the new closing device should comply with the current UR P3. (3059aABa, 25 July 2003) NK pointed out that though some types of air pipe heads satisfying the requirements of UR P3(Rev.1) may be in the market it should be noted that a type of air pipeheads widely applied on board ships built in Asian builders is yet to fully comply the new requirement despite the effort of manufacturers. The identified problem is being addressed by the manufacturer and it is likely that an improved prototype is to be tested in a short time (3059aNKb, 3 Oct 2003).
.2
3.
Conclusion .1 A footnote was added to S27.5.1.1 as indicated in para.2.1 above. .2 Council approved it on 7 Nov 2003.
End.
Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat 30 October 2003
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background of Revision to UR S26 (Rev.3)

1. Scope and objective After the S26 (Rev. 2 July 2004) was implemented, there were the question, For hatches designed for use of emergency escape, when fitted with central locking devices as stipulated in UR S26.5.1 (iii), they are usually fitted outside hatch covers and cannot be operated from inside. In this case, emergency escape becomes unrealistic, and securing devices that can be operated from both sides are to be fitted, for instance, dogs (twist tightening handles) with wedges as mentioned in UR S26.5.2.(see Fig.1)
Fig.1 quick-acting type hatch cover Having checked the plan review practice of each member society, it is confirmed that both sides operable weather-tight hatch covers are installed for emergency escape hatchways. Accordingly, it is concluded that the further clarification of the requirements of UR S26 will not have any impact to the industry practice and is more in line with the intent of the UR. 2. Points of discussions or possible discussions The texts of S26.1.3 are modified as follows: Hatches designed for emergency escape need not comply with the requirements, 5.1 (i) and (ii), 6.3 and 7 of this UR. Securing devices of such hatches are to be of a quick-acting type (e.g., one action wheel handles are provided as central locking devices for latching/unlatching of hatch cover) operable from both sides of the hatch cover. 3. Source/ derivation of proposed requirement Hull Panel 4. Decision by voting N.A. Submitted by Hull Panel Chairman 9 June 2006
Permanent Secretariats Note: GPG discussion (s/n 6124, 26 July 2006) All members supported the amendments to UR S26 and its TB. 8 members agreed to the proposed implementation statement. BV proposed a modification with a view to clarification on application of ship types by referring to item 2 of the UR, which was supported by KR. However the GPG Chairman considered that the original implementation statement was sufficient as the changes introduced in rev.3 of UR S26 (items 1.3 and 1.4), being part of the UR, will have to be implemented in accordance with the application provisions in item 2 of the UR anyway, in addition to its implementation schedule. Council discussion All members supported the draft UR S26 (Rev.3) and its TB.
Part A
UR S27 Strength Requirements for Fore Deck Fittings and Equipment

Version no. Rev.5 (May 2010) Rev.4 (Nov 2004) Rev.3 (July 2004) Rev.2 (Nov 2003) Corr.1 (July 2003) Rev.1 (Mar 2003) NEW (Nov 2002) Approval date 24 May 2010 30 November 2004 5 July 2004 7 November 2003 14 July 2003 27 March 2003 29 November 2002 Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2004*
* Note: Actual implementation date is dependent on vessel age, therefore the resolution text should be consulted for full details.
Rev.5 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following the introduction of the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Double Hull Oil Tankers, Hull Panel were tasked to review all the UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: After review it was decided that for CSR oil tankers the requirements of UR S27 are superseded by those of the Common Structural Rules and therefore do not apply. For CSR bulk carriers the requirements of UR S27 concerning air pipes and ventilators still apply, but those for windlasses are superseded by the Common Structural Rules and do not apply. .5 Other Resolutions Changes All UR S files, except UR S8, S9, S15, S16, S19, S22, S23, S30 and S31.
Page 1 of 3
.6 Dates: Original proposal: 2007, made by Hull Panel Task 50 Panel submission to GPG: 19 April 2010 GPG Approval: 24 May 2010 (Ref. 10051_IGd)
Rev.4 (Nov 2004)
Rev.3 (July 2004)
Rev.2 (Nov 2001)
Corr.1 (July 2003)
Editorial improvements/corrections no TB document available.
Rev.1 (Mar 2003)
NEW (Nov 2002)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S27: Annex 1. TB for Original Resolution (Nov 2002)



Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for Corr.1 (July 2003), Rev.3 (July 2004) and Rev.5 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background UR S 27 (New, November 2002)
This technical background (TB) is developed in line with Annex 2 of IACS Internal Information No. 15. 1. Scope and objectives 1.1 The reopened Derbyshire formal inquiry published its report in December 2000. Mr Justice Colemans Recommendations are summarised in Section 14 of the report, in which there are a number of recommendations addressed to IACS and Classification Societies. Further to the discussion at C42 in December 2000 it was decided to form a Small Group in order to make proposals for the way forward on Mr Justice Colemans Recommendations. Subsequently AHG/FDF was established to initially consider two issues, which were: Strength Requirements for Fore Deck Fittings and Equipment; and Prevention of Water Ingress through Fore Deck Openings 1.2 This UR addresses recommendations 10 and 17 of the above report. During the RFA it was identified that the loss of rotating type ventilator heads on the fore deck was likely to have been one of the first events to have occurred in the ship loss sequence. Damage to air and vent pipes leading to further water ingress was also considered to have occurred. Evidence from the wreck further showed that the port windlass had been lost.
2. Points of discussions and possible discussions. 2.1 AHG/FDF determined that increasing air or ventilator pipe thickness for the smaller sizes did not in general yield sufficient strength. Hence it was decided to require additional brackets, which allows the continuance in the main of current pipe thickness standards. 2.2 For ventilators, the forces acting on the closing device should be sustainable with the head in any open or closed position. The combination of horizontal forces, vertical forces and tilting moments acting on a rotating type mushroom ventilator head are such as to render this device unsuitable for application in the areas defined in clause 2 of the UR. 2.3 AHG/FDF considered that hidden corrosion in the bolts securing the windlass was a potential problem that required inspection. However as this could not be quantified for design purposes, nor can be easily inspected, the group considered that the required safety factor should take this into account. Hence a safety factor of 2.0 on bolt proof strength was agreed. Reference for the definition of bolt proof strength is ISO 898-1. 2.4 For the calculation of windlass forces in the direction of the shaft, a factor f is included to simplify determination of the effective area exposed to the water flow, taking into consideration part shielding of one disc or component by another. A simple relationship as a function of B/H is determined, with a maximum value of 2.5
appropriate to a large multi-disc windlass. The applied pressure in this direction was also increased to reflect the greater shape coefficient of an actual windlass disc compared to the simplified outline shape used for the model tests. 2.5 The group agreed that the ship type category, general dry cargo ship, was for the carriage of dry cargo loaded through hatch covers, and did not include special purpose ships such as Container Ships, Vehicle Carriers and Ro-Ro ships.
3. Source/derivation of proposed requirements 3.1The group established information regarding current industry standards and practices from national and international standards such as Japanese Industry Standards, Korean Industry Standards, DIN, Italian shipyards practices and ISO standard. 3.2 The velocity of water over the fore deck, and the pressures to be applied to the windlass were obtained from results of a program of sea keeping model tests of three bulk carriers conducted at MARIN (Ref. 1). AHG/WD-SL determined a water velocity over the fore deck of 13.5 m/sec (reference Amended formula for load model of UR S21, supplied to AHG/EBC July 2002). In these tests, the ship speed, even when operating at full engine power, was reduced by wave forces to be close to zero. The direction of water flow was found to be variable, depending on the ships heading, shape of the bow, location of the equipment etc. The requirements in the UR are therefore irrespective of any particular direction. 3.3 The shape factors for air or ventilator pipes and their closing device were based on the MODU code. The slamming factor was taken as that due to momentum. Resulting pressures were correlated with measurements from the above model tests, such that the combination of water velocity, slamming and shape factors corresponded to the maximum measured forces on a cylinder located on the fore deck, as supplied to the AHG. A further coefficient Cp provides for protection from a breakwater or forecastle, but not from the bulwark. The model tests showed that a large wall of water is formed by the presence of the ship's bow, and collapses onto the deck immediately behind the bulwark. The slope of the bulwark then tends to direct the water onto any pipes or fittings located behind, and thus effectively gives little protection in extreme seas.
3.4 Measured forces on the windlasses were supplied to the AHG, as obtained directly from the above sea keeping model tests. The pressure to be applied to the windlass perpendicular to its shaft was obtained from the maximum measured force in this direction divided by the projected area. The maximum measured force parallel to the shaft leads to a nominal pressure of about 100 kPa, but in recognition of the much increased resistance to flow in this direction for a real windlass compared to the idealised and smooth model, this was increased to 150 kPa. It was also found from comparing significant values of forces that differences between intact and flooded conditions were not large.
4. Decision by Voting if any The technical requirements in this proposed UR were considered by all members of the AHG and agreed unanimously. The implementation scheme, which is contained in square brackets, is to be decided by GPG.
Note by the Permanent Secretariat 1. As the 1966 Load Line uses ventilators in Regulation 19, the term vent was replaced by ventilator except in 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 where vent pipes was replaced by ventilators. 2. Council agreed that a note should be added to Table 1 and 2 for other air pipe / ventilator heights. 3. For pipe diameter 40A and 50A in Table 1, a noted was added Not permitted for new ships reference UR P1. 4. New sentence 1.3 was added to take account of the integrated windlass & winch type of design. 5. Implementation scheme was harmonized with that of URs S 31 and S 26. 6. Date of approval: 14 November 2002 (2219_ICd).
References 1): 1. 2. 3. Seakeeping Tests for a Capesize Bulk Carrier Phase 1, MARIN Report No. 16548-1-SMB November 2000. Seakeeping Tests for a Capesize Bulk Carrier Phase 2. MARIN Report No. 16541-1-SMB February 2002 Seakeeping Tests for a Panamax Bulk Carrier Phase 3. MARIN Report No.16635-1-SMB February 2002.
**** Submitted by the AHG/FDF Chairman 29 July 2002
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background UR S 27 (Rev.1, March 2003)
This technical background (TB) is developed in line with Annex 2 of IACS Internal Information No. 15.
1. Scope and objectives To provide more flexibility to the designer for air pipes and ventilators.
2. Points of discussions and possible discussions. The AHG/FDF Chairman reported on 10 March 2003: In 4.1.1, two values are defined for the shape coefficient Cd, namely 0.5 for pipes and 1.3 for the heads of air pipes or ventilators. Mr Cooper, ABS has raised the possibility that in order to reduce loads, a vent head may in some circumstances be designed of cylindrical form with its axis in the vertical direction. In this circumstance, the value of 1.3 which is applicable to heads with plane side surfaces becomes rather severe. However, on the other side, the value of 0.5 would not account for the effect of disturbed water flow around a short cylinder. The Chairman AHG/FDF suggested the following in order to give more flexibility to the designer. Cd = = shape coefficient (0.5 for pipes and 1.3 for air pipe or ventilator head) 0.5 for pipes, 1.3 for air pipe or ventilator heads in general, 0.8 for an air pipe or ventilator head of cylindrical form with its axis in the vertical direction.
GPG/Council approved on 24 March 2003.
****
25 March 2003
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background S26 (Rev.1, Nov 2003) & S27(Rev.2, Nov 2003)
Part A: S26.2.2 (Rev.1, Nov 2003) + S27.2.2(Rev.2, Nov 2003) 1. Objective: To clarify the ships to which S26 and S27 shall apply.
2. Points raised by BV (s/n 3142): .1 .2 Ore carriers are not mentioned in S26/S27 para 2.2. It needs to be clarified. Refrigerated cargo ships, livestock carriers, deck ships, dedicated forest product carriers and dedicated cement carriers do not seem to be excluded from the scope of application. It needs to be clarified.
3. GPG Discussion .1 Failure to explicitly include ore carriers in the scope of application statements in S26/27 was just an oversight. It was agreed that Ore carriers should be explicitly mentioned. .2 The proposal to align the scope of application for general dry cargo ships with that of UR Z7.1 was not agreed. It would exempt more vessels from the application of S26/27. The scope of application of S26/S27 was based on considerations of freeboard not on alignment with Z7.1 (3142_ABc dated 29 September 2003). But, it was agreed to include combination carriers(as defined in UR Z11) in the scope of application of S26/S27 for clarity. 4. Conclusion .1 Para 2.2 of S26 and S27 was amended to the above effect. .2 Council approved it on 7 Nov 2003.
Page 1 of 2
Part B: S27.5.1.1(Rev.2, Nov 2003) 1. Objective To clarify the scope of application of S27.5.1.1 to existing ships. 2. Points raised by ABS (s/n 3059a): .1 ABS suggested that S27.5.1.1 does not mean that closing devices of air pipes (and ventilators : this wording and ventilators was deleted as UR P3 does not cover ventilators) on all existing ships subject to S27 need to be upgraded to comply with the current UR P3. GPG agreed. GPG did not agree to the view that if an air pipe or ventilator closing device has to be replaced to comply with the other requirements of S27, the new closing device should comply with the current UR P3. (3059aABa, 25 July 2003) NK pointed out that though some types of air pipe heads satisfying the requirements of UR P3(Rev.1) may be in the market it should be noted that a type of air pipeheads widely applied on board ships built in Asian builders is yet to fully comply the new requirement despite the effort of manufacturers. The identified problem is being addressed by the manufacturer and it is likely that an improved prototype is to be tested in a short time (3059aNKb, 3 Oct 2003).
.2
3.
Conclusion .1 A footnote was added to S27.5.1.1 as indicated in para.2.1 above. .2 Council approved it on 7 Nov 2003.
End.
Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat 30 October 2003
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 4
Technical Background UR S 27 (Rev. 4, Nov. 2004)

1. Objective To add a footnote to UR S 27 clarifying that UR S27 does not apply to the cargo tank venting systems and the inert gas systems of oil tankers.
2.
Background According to NK, the AHG/FDF had previously agreed that S27 was not applicable to dedicated cargo tank venting systems (3059bNKa, 24 September 2004).
3.
Discussion
3.1
BV suggested that the oil tankers are submitted to the same sea condition than sustain by the bulk-carriers; so logically all vent pipes situated in the fore quarter of the existing oil tankers can be subject also to sea damages. Therefore, these pipings should comply with UR S27, unless it is demonstrated by statistics that no damage occurred on forward part of the oil tanker in the same or less sea condition than encountered by the" Derbyshire " and there was no oil pollution consecutive to these damages (3059bBVa, 27/09/2004).
3.2
Members expressed the view that if the tankers venting systems are to comply with UR S27, it should be demonstrated by statistics that there were reported damages on forward part of oil tankers. NK had not seen any such damage reports (3059bNKb, 01/10/2004). Tanker vent masts are quite substantial structures owing to other design requirements and we are not aware that there is a history of wave damage of such structures (3059bABa, 01/10/2004). GPG agreed to add a note to achieve the above objective. Council confirmed that S27 is not applicable to the cargo tank venting and inert gas systems on all oil tankers. Approved on 30 November 2004(3059bICb).
3.3
3.4 3.5
29 October 2004
Prepared by the Permsec
Page 1 of 1
Part A
UR S28 Requirements for the Fitting of a Forecastle for Bulk Carriers, Ore Carriers and Combination Carriers
Version no. Rev.3 (May 2010) Rev.2 (Sept 2005) Rev.1 (July 2004) NEW (May 2003) Approval date 24 May 2010 22 September 2005 5 July 2004 6 May 2003 Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2004
Rev.3 (May 2010)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.2 (Sept 2005)
Rev.1 (July 2004)
NEW (May 2003)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S28: Annex 1. TB for Original Resolution (May 2003)

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for Rev.1 (July 2004) and Rev.3 (May 2010).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
UR S28 Technical background 1. Historical background In March 2002, IACS announced eight initiatives to improve the safety of Bulk Carriers, including the fitting of a forecastle on new bulk carriers. It was initially considered that the forecastle would provide protection for forward hatches against green sea loading acting vertically on the top of hatch covers and horizontally on the fore end of hatch covers as well as the fore end hatch coaming and to fore-deck fittings. Information provided by the AHG/WD-SL on the basis on the continuing investigations on available model test results indicated that the forecastle height does not affect extreme vertical loads on the hatch cover significantly. As a consequence, no credit has been given to the effect of a forecastle to reduce vertical green sea loading on hatch covers. URs S26 and S27 were developed for requiring sufficient strength of fore-deck fittings against a design load based upon the upper bound load from the results of MARIN model tests for bulk carriers without a forecastle. UR S21 Rev.3 allows credit to be given to the beneficial effects of a forecastle fitted in accordance with UR S28 for reducing the pressures on the forward transverse hatch coaming and securing arrangements for hatch No. 1. The 1988 Load Line Protocol addresses Protection of the crew in regulation 25 and Means of safe passage of crew in regulation 25-1. Further Bow height and reserve buoyancy required in regulation 39 were developed taking the probability of deck wetness into account. Consequentially, taking account of the above, the intention to require a forecastle for a new ship is: to contribute to the provision of the reserve buoyancy required by regulation 39 of the 1988 Load Line Protocol, as amended; to reduce the horizontal loads in UR S21 Rev. 3 for the strength checks of the forward transverse hatch coaming and closing arrangements of hatch No. 1; and to protect the crew working in the forward area of the ship.
2. Forecastle characteristics The forecastle is required to be enclosed to achieve increased buoyancy in the forward area.
The specified forecastle dimensions and locations required for reducing horizontal loads on forward transverse coaming and closing arrangements on hatch No. 1, as well as those concerning the location of the aft edge of the forecastle, are based on the following considerations: .1 A flow of water flushing on the forecastle deck with speed v0, reaching a point located at a distance x from the aft edge of the forecastle deck and at a depth h below the specified height, HF, of the forecastle is defined by the following equations: x = v0 t h = 1 g t 2 2 which gives: x = v0 2h g
.2 The design pressure assumed in UR S21(Rev. 3) for forward transverse coaming protected by a forecastle fitted in accordance with UR S28 is equal to 220 kN/m2 (S21.4.1). .3 The analysis of the results of the MARIN model tests indicated that the water speed corresponding to the above-mentioned design pressure is equal to 11.0 m/s. .4 Using the formula in .1 above for (see figure below): x = lF h = HF - HC and imposing a limitation to v0 (v0 11.0 m/s) in order not to exceed the maximum design pressure for forward transverse coaming protected by a forecastle, it results: l F 4.97 H F H C that can be rounded to: lF 5 H F H C
.5 Practical considerations based on the examination of existing hatch cover designs led to the definition of the following condition for reducing the loads on the closing arrangements of hatch No. 1: HF HC + 0,5 m
.6 The formula of lF given in point .4 above and the condition on HF given in point .5 above ensure that the actual pressure on the forward transverse coaming is less than the design pressure. .7 To avoid increased vertical loads on the No. 1 hatch cover, which could be caused by the presence of a breakwater close to the aft edge of the forecastle deck, the minimum distance for a breakwater, if fitted, forward of the aft edge of the forecastle deck has been specified.
Top of the hatch coaming h Hc 1F
v0 HF
HB
forward bulkhead
3. Remarks made by some Member Societies Three Societies expressed the view that the expected effects of a forecastle for reducing safety risks associated with hatch covers, coaming, fore deck fittings and crew protection of new bulk carriers have been properly addressed by risk control options contained in regulation 39 of 1988 Load Line Protocol, as amended, and IACS URs S21(Rev.3), S26 and S27. Therefore they consider that there is no need to mandate the fitting of a forecastle in all cases. Fitting a forecastle in accordance with UR S28 may only be made mandatory for fulfilling the requirement of regulation 39 of the 1988 Load Line Protocol, as amended.
Part B. Annex 2

UR S28 (Rev.2, Sept. 2005) Scope and objectives
Scope and objectives are to resolve the following problem. There is a small Bulk Carriers (i.e. L is less than 150m), which cannot satisfy this requirement because the distance from the forward bulkhead of the foremost hold to the forward transverse hatch coaming of foremost hold hatch cover is too short. If this requirement satisfies forcibly, hatch cover operation will be hindered.
Points of discussions or possible discussions

1 TB of UR S28 states the benefits of fitting forecastle as below: 1. to achieve the provision of the reserve buoyancy required by regulation 39 of 1988 ICLL Protocol, as amended. 2. to reduce the horizontal loads acting on the hatch coaming 3. to protect the crew The purpose of the first sentence of S28.2 is to avoid a too short forecastle. For small Bulk Carriers, the purpose specified in 1.1 above will usually be achieved if forecastle length is more than 0.07L, which is specified in Reg.39 of 1988 ICLL Protocol. The purpose specified in 1.2 above is achieved if the forecastle satisfies the maximum distance lF specified in S28.2 As the 1988 ICLL Protocol addresses specifically the Protection of the Crew issue, it is assumed that the fitting of a forecastle in accordance with 1988 ICLL Protocol achieves the purpose in 1.3. Therefore, even if small Bulk Carriers with sufficient length of forecastle cannot satisfy the first sentence of S28.2, the purposes specified above are achieved.
2 3
Source/ derivation of proposed interpretation N.A. Decision by voting N.A. Appendix N.A. Submitted by Hull Panel Chairman 31 July 2005
New UR S30 Technical background (Jan 2003)
1.
Objective To re-draft UR S30 to cover horizontal loads and securing arrangements.
2.
Reference: 1. Section 4 of Recommendation 14, 2. S21(Rev.2), 3. MSC 76/WP.16/para.23 4. S[yy] prepared by AHG/EBC.
3.
Points of discussion 1. The AHG/EBC-Strength prepared a draft UR S[yy] Requirements for existing bulk carriers hatch covers and coamings not built in accordance with UR S21 (Rev.2) in August 2002. Technical Background for this UR S[yy] is annexed. However, following a more detailed cost-benefit analysis (carried out by DNV with GPG Members input), this UR S[yy] was found not cost-effective. Council decided to keep in abeyance until after MSC 76. It was so reported to MSC 76. 2. IMO MSC 76 decisions MSC 76 decision (MSC 76/WP.16) reads: While recognizing that replacing hatch covers in existing ships would not be cost-effective, the group agreed that more attention should be paid to hatch cover securing mechanisms and the issue of horizontal loads only, especially with regard to maintenance and frequency of inspection. Consequently, the group agreed further that ship owners and operators should be made aware of the need to implement regular maintenance and inspection procedures for closing mechanisms in existing bulk carriers in order to ensure proper operation and efficiency at all times, and invited the Committee to instruct the DE Sub-Committee to develop standards for hatch cover securing arrangements for existing ships and that IACS UR S21 and Recommendation 14 could be used as a starting point for discussion.
3.
GPG decisions
Page 1 of 3
30/01/03
Finally, GPG at its small group meeting on 7-8 January 2003 prepared a draft UR S30 incorporating section 4 of Recommendation 14. Horizontal loads are specified in section 3 of S30 Stoppers. The pressure value 175 kN/m2 for stoppers is derived from UR S21(Rev.2) and its TB which reads as follows: The stoppers are to be dimensioned against longitudinal and transverse forces arising from a pressure of 175 kN/m2. This value takes into consideration the local reduction of pressure that occurs at the upper edge of the vertical boundary created by the coaming and hatch cover side or end plate. The pressure value 230 kN/m2 comes from the following provision of ex-UR S30(Syy). With the exclusion of ships fitted with a forecastle complying with UR S28 or a breakwater complying with S 29 (S29 now withdrawn), No.1 hatch cover is to be effectively secured by means of stoppers, against the longitudinal forces arising from a pressure of 230 kN/m2, which may be reduced to 175 kN/m2 if a forecastle not complying with S28 is fitted.
4.
Section 4 Materials and Welding ABS proposed to have an additional section 4 Materials and Welding in S30.
5.
Recommendation 14 GPG decided to revise Recommendation 14.
4.
Conclusions 1. UR S30 was adopted on 30 January 2003 and submitted to IMO DE 46. 2. At the same time, WP/S was asked to incorporate comparable changes in the revision of UR S21 that they are preparing (WP/S Task 70 Revision of S21(Rev.2))
*******
Page 2 of 3
30/01/03
Annex: TB for UR S [yy] submitted by AHG/EBC.

(Date of submission: 20 August 2002)
1. Background Following the hearings of the Re-Opened Formal Investigation into the loss of the m.v. Derbyshire, held in the U.K., the Court recommended that UR S21 should be re-appraised in the light of the latest sea-keeping model tests, and that this new standard be made applicable both to new ships and retrospectively to existing vessels. Later, in March 2002, IACS announced a series of eight initiatives to improve the safety of bulk carriers. UR Syy was developed by AHG/EBC working in association with WP/S to address the application of measure number 6 to existing bulk carriers. The requirements for hatch covers and coamings of existing bulk carriers are generally consistent with the requirements for new bulk carriers in UR S21 Rev. 1. Exceptions to this are shown below. 2. Hatch cover load model Based on cost benefit considerations, the hatch cover strength in the forward spaces flooding conditions are not required to be assessed. This is partially compensated by the additions made to the net thickness, which do not take into consideration the reduced life of the ship. For the intact condition, the same load formulation as UR S21 is used. 3. Hatch cover strength criteria In the formula for the required net plate thickness, the factor FP for combined membrane and bending response has a minimum value of 1,35, instead of 1,50 as adopted in UR S21. This minimum value is significant in areas of the hatch cover plate subjected to low in-plane stresses from bending of primary supporting members. Therefore, the overall safety is not significantly reduced, as these areas are not susceptible to plate buckling. The safety factor, FS, in the formula for the required minimum section modulus of secondary stiffeners depends on the stress level, so that FS ranges between 1,2 and 1,5. This allows more specific requirements to be included for the minimum section modulus of stiffeners on the basis of their location and the corresponding stress level.
**********
Page 3 of 3
30/01/03
IACS Unified Requirement S 30 (Rev.1) Technical Backgrounds:

a) Objective/Scope To amend the existing text of UR S30 to eliminate ambiguity b) Source of Proposed Requirements ABS GPG put forward a draft amendment to UR S30.1.1 (2248jABa of 22 July 2003). c) Points of Discussion 1. S30.1.1 reads that these requirements apply..and are for steel hatch cover securing devices and stoppers for cargo hold hatchways within 0.25 L of the fore perpendicular, except pontoon type hatch cover. However, S30.3 on stoppers specifically addresses hatch covers 1 and 2. Hatch cover no.3 may be at least partially within 0.25L from FP on some bulk carriers. GPG/Council agreed that in such cases, S30 applies only to hatch covers 1 and 2 if they are within 0.25L of the FP. 2. S30.1.1 has been so amended. S30 does not apply to hatch cover no.3 if it is partially within 0.25L. S30 does apply to hatch cover no.1 and 2 whenever they are wholly or partially within the forward 0.25 L aft the FP. Since UR S21, Rev.3 applies to all position 1 hatch covers, the ambiguity being corrected in S30 does not occur in S21, Rev. 3.
*** approved on 18/08/2003 (2248jICa)
IACS AHG/EBC
UR S31
UR S31 (Sww) Technical Background

1. Background
In March 2002, IACS announced eight initiatives to improve the safety of bulk carriers. UR S31 was developed by AHG/EBC, working together with members of WP/S, to address measure number 7. The objective of UR S31 is to establish steel renewal criteria for the side frames of preS12 (Rev 1) bulk carriers that are generally equivalent to the application of the renewal criteria of UR S12. 2. Renewal thickness
Two thickness values, as indicated below, are defined for the purpose of establishing the steel renewal criteria for the side frames of existing pre-S12 bulk carriers. The thickness tCOAT, which corresponds to the renewal thickness applicable to S12 ships. In accordance with UR S12, tCOAT is therefore defined as 75% of the thickness required according to S12.3 and S12.4. When measured thickness is below this value, actions as described below are required. The renewal thickness tREN, obtained by reducing tCOAT by an amount tC. The tC values have been established from a review of the current practices of the IACS members. However, the renewal thickness is never to be taken less than 75% of the thickness adopted at the new building stage in order to avoid corrosion wastage in excess of that anticipated in the design. Different minimum thicknesses are defined in UR S12 depending on the hold to which any frame belongs and on the part of the frame under consideration. As a consequence, different tCOAT and tC values, and thus tREN values, are defined separately for: the span and the upper bracket, the lower bracket,
distinguishing between hold No. 1 and the other holds. The renewal criteria, based on the measured thickness tM, are as follows: a) When tM tREN, steel renewal is required. This is consistent with the present Society practice. b) When tREN < tM tCOAT, measures are to be taken, consisting of all the following: sand blasting, or equivalent, and coating , fitting tripping brackets, maintaining the coating in as-new condition, or equivalent (i.e. without breakdown or rusting), at Special and Intermediate Surveys.
IACS AHG/EBC
UR S31
The above measures may be waived if the structure and coating are in as-new condition. These criteria aim to ensure adequate strength of the side frames of pre S-12 ships when their measured thickness is lower than the corresponding renewal thickness of S12 ships. However, in order that these criteria may be considered as being generally equivalent to the UR S12 renewal criteria, the renewal thickness tREN is also to satisfy simple yield strength and buckling checks. The yielding strength checks are explicitly defined in UR S31 and their background is reported in 4. The buckling checks are covered through the introduction of limiting web depth to thickness ratios for both the frames and the lower brackets. These limits are the same as those established in UR S12for renewal, the only difference being retention of the k factor for asymmetrically flanged frames, since this could have been applied in the design of pre-S12 ships. 3. Thickness measurements, steel renewal and reinforcing measures
The effectiveness of steel renewal or alternative measures relies on an adequate extent of the structure being treated. Measures adopted for the lower and upper brackets are individually required to extend over at least 25% of the overall span. In addition, for the reasons given in 2. above, different renewal thicknesses are defined for the span and upper bracket and for the lower bracket. The necessity to combine these principles led to the identification of four zones A, B, C and D, as shown in Figure 1 of UR S31, and to the definition of thickness measurements and renewal or reinforcement criteria for each zone. Reinforcing measures involve the fitting of tripping brackets at the lower part and at midspan of side frames. Frame tripping is considered as being one of the major causes of side frame collapse and the efficiency of tripping brackets in preventing catastrophic failures has been demonstrated in some near miss cases. The criteria for dealing with pitting and grooving are the same as in UR S12. 4. Yield strength checks
Shear and bending strength checks are required to be carried out at two transverse sections a) and b), specified in Figure 2 of UR S31. Section a) is representative of the lower bracket strength, while section b), located at the connection between frame and lower bracket, is representative of the frame strength at its lower part. Some strength analyses carried out by Members in the course of the development of UR S31 showed that the bending check is significant when small brackets (length less than about 10% of the frame span) are fitted. For this reason, and for consistency with UR S12, the bending check is not required when the bracket length and depth comply with the requirements of UR S12 shown in Figure 1.
IACS AHG/EBC
UR S31
Figure 1 Minimum bracket dimensions according to UR S12
NK placed a reservation on the bending strength check required in S31.3.4. While the other Members agreed that the definition of tREN and the acceptability of measured thickness tM have always to account for the results of the strength checks, including the bending moment check, NK deem that the bending check is to be carried out only when tM is less than tCOAT. The strength checks are based on the following considerations. a) The side pressure only is considered for calculating the shear force and bending moment in the side frame lower part. The side pressure load model was developed by the AHG/WD-SL and is reported in their document Dynamic sea pressure for Bulk Carriers of 30 January 2002. In this model, the pressure loads are defined through a coefficient f, which accounts for any load probability of exceedance. The side pressures in UR S31 are defined for the following probabilities of exceedance: 10-6, for the head sea condition, 10-4, for the beam sea condition. b) In order to simplify the procedure, certain approximations, as described below, are involved in the assessment of the applied shear forces and bending moments. The shear force at section a) is obtained by integrating the still water and wave pressures over the frame span h. It is assumed that the sum of the still water and wave pressures is uniform along the span h. It is also assumed that 60% of the total lateral force on the frame is carried by
IACS AHG/EBC
UR S31
the lower end support: for this reason, a coefficient kS = 0,6 is introduce d in the formulae for tREN,Sa and tREN,Sb in S31.3.4. The shear force at section b) is assumed to be equal to that at section a)multiplied by a factor. The factor is equal to (the frame span h minus twice the length of the lower bracket) divided by h (it is assumed here that the upper and the lower brackets have the same length). The bending moment at sections a) and b) are obtained by multiplying the total lateral force on the frame by the frame span and dividing it by coefficients ma and mb, derived from the results of Finite Element calculations. The ma and mb values depend on the loading condition of the hold to which the frame under consideration belongs. The analyses carried out showed that, for loaded holds, the side frames may be considered as being clamped at the lower end (ma = 12). The coefficients mb depends, of course, on the distance from the support and hence on the bracket length. In the case of empty holds of ships navigating in non homogeneous loading conditions (i.e. at the maximum draft) the sea pressure acting on the double bottom is not counterbalanced by internal cargo. This induces significant rotation of the hopper tanks and hence of the side frame lower ends. This rotation increases the bending moment (i.e. reduces the ma and mb values) and consequently lower coefficients have been included for this case. c) The load probabilities defined in a) are based on the assumption that the following probabilities: 10-7, for the head sea condition, 10-5, for the beam sea condition represent extreme sea conditions. This is based on a comparison of the 10-8 probability loads obtained by the AHG/WD-SL with the Marin model test results and a judgement of the beam sea loads justified as follows. In severe sea states, a Master would normally operate his ship in the head seas condition. However, a beam seas condition might occur in an emergency situation, due for instance to engine or shaft failure. In the latter case, the use of a higher load probability is justified by the need for a joint probability of occurrence of two rare events. On basis of this assumption, a stress level corresponding to yield was applied to these levels of probability. However, the sea load formula proposed by the AHG/WD-SL gives considerably higher values of side pressure than those given by current class rules of some societies and/or calculation results of long term predictions carried out by some societies. The values of probability have been modified as specified in a) above and the stress levels have been reduced accordingly. Both the load probability of exceedance and the ma and mb values are consistent with an elastic behaviour of the side frames. Consequently, the normal and shear allowable stresses are obtained by multiplying the yield stress by appropriate safety factors (0,90 for the normal stresses and 0,40 for the shear stresses).
IACS AHG/EBC
UR S31
1. In order to lift its reservation to the bending strength check in S31.3.4, NK put forward the following amendment to the renewal thickness in S31.2.1. the strength check is to be carried out when t <=t .
M COAT
GPG 53 (Oct.2002) agreed this and further decided that t need not be taken as more than 0.75t , allowing that Members were free to apply the stricter requirements should they wish. Hence, the following was added to S31.2.1:
REN.S S12
but the t
REN.S
as obtained from S31.3.3 need not be taken more than 0.75 t
S12
2. At the time of approval of S31, revision of S12 had not been completed. WP/S was expected to complete the remaining task to develop shear and bending checks for inclusion into S12 which would be similar to those given in S31. See S12 (Rev.4). 3. Implementation schedule is the same as that for URs S26 and S27. 4. Date of approval of S31: 14 November 2002 (2219_ICd). **********
UR S31 Technical background (Rev.1, June 2003)

1. Background
NK Council Member proposed that S31 should be revisited with regard to shear buckling of hold frame webs. It reported that the S31 requirement on the renewal thickness in regard to shear buckling of hold frame web used an assumption that the as-built design was subjected to the allowable stress, however, there were a number of bulk carriers that the assumption was not in reality. Council tasked WP/S to undertake an urgent review of S31 on 4 March 2003 (during GPG 54). ABS drew Council attention to the need to clarify some vague language used at the end of S31.2.1. ABS also proposed to add the requirements for bulk carriers subject to UR S31 that are ice strengthened. S31.1.1 refers.
2.
S31.2.1: Web depth to thickness ratio
A number of bulk carriers have the depth of side frames immediately abaft the collision bulkhead much greater than that of ordinary frames by classification requirements. Such design has been widely applied to provide significantly large moment of inertia for restricting undesirable flexibility of side shell and achieving smooth continuation of the side shell structural stiffness of fore peak tank to that of the foremost cargo hold. Working shear stresses of the deep hold web frames in that area are quite lower than the assumed maximum working shearing stresses, i.e. 0.4y. Section S31.2.1 of the original UR S31, therefore, has been amended by introducing a new text and formula taking into a web depth to thickness ratio into account in the procedure for determining renewal thickness tREN. The shear capacity of hold frame web plate used in S31.2.1 can be given by the following formula. 2E t cr = K = Sf a (1) 12(1 2 ) b
2
where: cr = critical shear buckling stress t a = tREN.d/t, web thickness satisfying the required shear buckling criteria corresponding to the assumed allowable shear stress a with safety factor. = allowable shear stress (= 0.4 y )
Sf = safety factor
S31R1TBf.doc
Page 1 of 6
20/06/03
In case where the working shear stress w is smaller than allowable shear stress, critical shear buckling stress may be reduced by replacing a with w in (1): cr Sf w where: w = t REN ,S t REN ,d / t a
tREN,S is as obtained from S31.3.3, tREN,d/t is the web thickness that satisfies the web depth to thickness ratio specified in the original S31.2.1 for tREN as follows: for frames: - 65 k0.5 for symmetrically flanged frames - 55 k0.5 for asymmetrically flanged frames and for the lower brackets at section a) of Figure 2 of UR S31: - 87 k0.5 for symmetrically flanged frames - 73 k0.5 for asymmetrically flanged frames where k = 1.0 for ordinary hull structural steel and k < 1 for higher tensile steel according to UR S4. However, when tREN,d/t is greater than tREN,S, it means that the maximum working shear stresses w is less than the allowable shear stress a and the corresponding tREN, d/t will be obtained by the following formula, tREN, d/t =
3
t REN ,d / t t REN ,S
For the readers easy understanding the following explanation is given: The relationship between critical shear stresses and the web plate thickness is given by the formula (1) cr = K 2E t = Sf a 12(1 2 ) b
2
(1)
In case where working shear stresses w are less than the allowable shear stress a the corresponding critical shear stress cr' , while maintaining the same safety factor, is given by cr ' = K 2 E t ' = Sf w 12(1 2 ) b
2
(2)
S31R1TBf.doc
Page 2 of 6
20/06/03
where, t is the web plate thickness giving the critical shear stress cr' Consequently the working shear stresses w is given by formula (3) w = t REN ,S t' a (3)
where, tREN,S is as given in S31.3.3 The following equation is obtained by substituting w in formula (2) by that of formula (3): t t 2E t' K = Sf REN ,S a = Sf a REN ,S 2 12(1 ) b t' t'
2
(4)
Combining equations (1) and (4) give the following relationship between t and t:
2 t REN ,S t 2 t' = t' b b
(5)
Equation (5) gives t as follows: t' =

3
t 2 t REN ,S
(6)
t given by the formula (6) gives the renewal web thickness for side frames and lower brackets satisfying the shear buckling criteria corresponding to the working shear stresses, where t is greater than tREN, S. The formula for t is based on the formulation of the elastic shear buckling stress. For as built thicknesses tAB greater than 1,65tREN, S, the side frame web works in the elastic domain, also considering an actual thickness of about 75% of the as built one, and the formula in (6) is applicable. t above is denoted as tREN, d/t , while t is denoted as tREN, d/t in UR S31.2.1.
3.
Alternative to steel renewal
The fitting of tripping brackets, in accordance with S31.2.3, is allowed as an alternative to steel renewal, when the measured thickness is less than tREN, d/t required by the web depth to thickness ratio check for the frame web. This measure is considered an efficient solution for the stability of the web and flange at the upper termination of the lower end bracket, subjected to the combined effects of the sea pressure loads, the compressive force of the lower end bracket flange and the shear stress of the side frame web.
S31R1TBf.doc
Page 3 of 6
20/06/03
4.
S31.2.1: Measurement of depth of lower bracket
It was raised by WP/S meeting in February 2003 that it would be necessary to modify the definition of depth of lower bracket for the calculation of d/t in association with revision of UR S12. WP/S agreed that the depth may be measured perpendicular to the face plate of lower bracket from the intersection of sloping plating of hopper tank and side shell plate. For the measurement of depth of lower bracket, the WP/S agreed to give credit to the possible secondary stiffeners fitted on the lower bracket plate for buckling prevention.
5.
S31.2.1: Steel renewal
The test of the original S31.2.1 addressed only 1.2tCOAT for the minimum plate thickness for the renewed parts. It should also address 1.2tREN to be comprehensive. Therefore a new wording or 1.2tREN whichever is the greater is inserted after 1.2tCOAT in the paragraph next to the last in S31.2.1. 6. S31.2.1: Meaning of as-new condition
It is clarified that the structure is in as-new condition when the thicknesses are as per the approved drawings. The coating is in as-new condition when it is without breakdown or rusting exists.
7.
S31.2.2: Zone of sand blasting and coating
With regard to the requirement of sand blasting and coating for frames in the 5th paragraph of S31.2.2, considering the consistency with the other requirements, zone B is added for sand blasting and coating, when zone C is required sand blasting and coating.
8.
Notes by the Permanent Secretariat 8.1 Other changes S31.2.1.2.a)tripping bracket alternative: Fitting of tripping brackets, as an alternative to the requirements for the web depth to thickness ratio of side frames, does not exclude that the other checks for renewal (corrosion and strength) are to be performed. Amendments to S31.2.1.2a) and S31.2.1.2d. S31.2.1.2.c) thickness of renewed webs of frames and lower brackets requirement tren need not be taken more than 0.5tS12 has been retained. the
The expression frames throughout in S31 was re-checked and modified so that it is changed to frames and brackets where the requirements address both frames and brackets.
S31R1TBf.doc
Page 4 of 6
20/06/03
(brackets are added to 1st sentence in S31.1, 3rd paragraph in 31.1, the penultimate paragraph in S31.2.2, and 2nd paragraph in S31.2.5.) 8.2 An information paper was submitted to MSC 77 on 8 April 2003 advising them that: S31 has been revised to amongst others explicitly limit the renewal thickness to be not less than the as-built thickness. The shear and bending checks carried out under S31 as revised will, in a majority cases, govern the thickness of the replaced portion of the web.
8.3
NK proposed to add the following to the TB (2219cNKg of 19/06/03) S31.2.1.3 Criteria for frames and brackets (Bending check)
DNV pointed out that side frame with insufficient bending strength may go unnoticed since the bending requirements will not be checked until the web thickness is less than tCOAT. Therefore, it is incorrect to use tCOAT as reference for section modulus control. (2219cNVd of 26 May 2003) At C47, the majority of members shared the views of DNV comments. But NK stated as follows: The matter of bending stress check had been discussed and agreed by GPG in October 2002 with a view to resolve the reservation lodged by NK. On the technical side of the bending stress check, the timing for carrying out the bending stress check is linked to the result of thickness measurement. The actual web thickness has little to do with the section modulus of hold frames and it may seem to be illogical to use such criteria for a need of bending stress check. However, the provision of S31.2.1.3 contained in Mr. Han's message 2219cIAa of 17 April 2003, i.e. "Where tM in the lower part of side frames, as defined in Figure 1, is equal to or less than tCOAT", gives a pragmatic approach of the application of the bending check when diminution of the hold frame has modestly progressed. NK's investigation into hold frame failure indicated extensive corrosion of hold frames being the major contributor to hold frame failure and the requirement of S31.2.1.3, contained in UR S31 attached to th e message of Mr. Han, provides the right timing for taking action for risk reduction of hold frame failure by a pragmatic use of modest progress in diminution of hold web. NK consider that there would be a very limited risk reduction if well maintained hold frames in nearly as built condition are to be renewed due to the age of bulk carriers and not due to the condition of the structure. NK, therefore, did not agree the proposal of DNV."
NK made the following statements at Council 47 meeting (10-12 June 2003):

1) The introduction of the bending/shear buckling checks, which had been introduced into S31 needs to be carefully examined. According to NKs data extensive corrosion in hold frames is an identified primary contributor to hold frame failures. There are still a number of well-maintained ships with good coating condition albeit not satisfying the new bending check requirements. Such a new requirement may well be applied for risk reduction purposes once cargo hold frames have shown a start of deterioration. The criteria where tM in the lower part of side frames is equal to or less than tCOAT is considered to provide the sign of a start of deterioration.
2)
S31R1TBf.doc
Page 5 of 6
20/06/03
3)
NK would examine the integrity of existing BCS hold frames structures, using such criteria contained in the former draft version of UR S31.2.1.3 (May 2003), which read as follows:
S31.2.1.3 Criteria for frames and brackets ( pre-S31.2.1.3(Rev.1)) Where tM in the lower part of side frames, as defined in Figure 1., is equal to or less than tCOAT and the length or depth of the lower bracket does not meet the requirements in S12, a bending strength check in accordance with S31.3.4 is to be carried out and renewals or reinforcements of frames and/or brackets are to be effected as required therein.
****
Annexed: TB of the first issue of S 31(Nov 2002).
S31R1TBf.doc
Page 6 of 6
20/06/03
Annex.
UR S31
UR S31 (Sww, Nov 2000) Technical Background

1. Background
In March 2002, IACS announced eight initiatives to improve the safety of bulk carriers. UR S31 was developed by AHG/EBC, working together with members of WP/S, to address measure number 7. The objective of UR S31 is to establish steel renewal criteria for the side frames of preS12 (Rev 1) bulk carriers that are generally equivalent to the application of the renewal criteria of UR S12. UR S12 in this TB refers to UR S12 (Rev.1, 2 and 3). 2. Renewal thickness
Two thickness values, as indicated below, are defined for the purpose of establishing the steel renewal criteria for the side frames of existing pre-S12 bulk carriers. The thickness tCOAT, which corresponds to the renewal thickness applicable to S12 ships. In accordance with UR S12, tCOAT is therefore defined as 75% of the thickness required according to S12.3 and S12.4. When measured thickness is below this value, actions as described below are required. The renewal thickness tREN, obtained by reducing tCOAT by an amount tC. The tC values have been established from a review of the current practices of the IACS members. However, the renewal thickness is never to be taken less than 75% of the thickness adopted at the new building stage in order to avoid corrosion wastage in excess of that anticipated in the design. Different minimum thicknesses are defined in UR S12 depending on the hold to which any frame belongs and on the part of the frame under consideration. As a consequence, different tCOAT and tC values, and thus tREN values, are defined separately for: the span and the upper bracket, the lower bracket,
distinguishing between hold No. 1 and the other holds. The renewal criteria, based on the measured thickness tM, are as follows: a) When tM tREN, steel renewal is required. This is consistent with the present Society practice. b) When tREN < tM tCOAT, measures are to be taken, consisting of all the following: sand blasting, or equivalent, and coating , fitting tripping brackets, maintaining the coating in as-new condition, or equivalent (i.e. without breakdown or rusting), at Special and Intermediate Surveys.
IACS AHG/EBC
UR S31
The above measures may be waived if the structure and coating are in as-new condition. These criteria aim to ensure adequate strength of the side frames of pre S-12 ships when their measured thickness is lower than the corresponding renewal thickness of S12 ships. However, in order that these criteria may be considered as being generally equivalent to the UR S12 renewal criteria, the renewal thickness tREN is also to satisfy simple yield strength and buckling checks. The yielding strength checks are explicitly defined in UR S31 and their background is reported in 4. The buckling checks are covered through the introduction of limiting web depth to thickness ratios for both the frames and the lower brackets. These limits are the same as those established in UR S12for renewal, the only difference being retention of the k factor for asymmetrically flanged frames, since this could have been applied in the design of pre-S12 ships. 3. Thickness measurements, steel renewal and reinforcing measures
The effectiveness of steel renewal or alternative measures relies on an adequate extent of the structure being treated. Measures adopted for the lower and upper brackets are individually required to extend over at least 25% of the overall span. In addition, for the reasons given in 2. above, different renewal thicknesses are defined for the span and upper bracket and for the lower bracket. The necessity to combine these principles led to the identification of four zones A, B, C and D, as shown in Figure 1 of UR S31, and to the definition of thickness measurements and renewal or reinforcement criteria for each zone. Reinforcing measures involve the fitting of tripping brackets at the lower part and at midspan of side frames. Frame tripping is considered as being one of the major causes of side frame collapse and the efficiency of tripping brackets in preventing catastrophic failures has been demonstrated in some near miss cases. The criteria for dealing with pitting and grooving are the same as in UR S12. 4. Yield strength checks
Shear and bending strength checks are required to be carried out at two transverse sections a) and b), specified in Figure 2 of UR S31. Section a) is representative of the lower bracket strength, while section b), located at the connection between frame and lower bracket, is representative of the frame strength at its lower part. Some strength analyses carried out by Members in the course of the development of UR S31 showed that the bending check is significant when small brackets (length less than about 10% of the frame span) are fitted. For this reason, and for consistency with UR S12, the bending check is not required when the bracket length and depth comply with the requirements of UR S12 shown in Figure 1.
IACS AHG/EBC
UR S31
Figure 1 Minimum bracket dimensions according to UR S12
NK placed a reservation on the bending strength check required in S31.3.4. While the other Members agreed that the definition of tREN and the acceptability of measured thickness tM have always to account for the results of the strength checks, including the bending moment check, NK deem that the bending check is to be carried out only when tM is less than tCOAT. The strength checks are based on the following considerations. a) The side pressure only is considered for calculating the shear force and bending moment in the side frame lower part. The side pressure load model was developed by the AHG/WD-SL and is reported in their document Dynamic sea pressure for Bulk Carriers of 30 January 2002. In this model, the pressure loads are defined through a coefficient f, which accounts for any load probability of exceedance. The side pressures in UR S31 are defined for the following probabilities of exceedance: 10-6, for the head sea condition, 10-4, for the beam sea condition. b) In order to simplify the procedure, certain approximations, as described below, are involved in the assessment of the applied shear forces and bending moments. The shear force at section a) is obtained by integrating the still water and wave pressures over the frame span h. It is assumed that the sum of the still water and wave pressures is uniform along the span h. It is also assumed that 60% of the total lateral force on the frame is carried by
IACS AHG/EBC
UR S31
the lower end support: for this reason, a coefficient kS = 0,6 is introduce d in the formulae for tREN,Sa and tREN,Sb in S31.3.4. The shear force at section b) is assumed to be equal to that at section a)multiplied by a factor. The factor is equal to (the frame span h minus twice the length of the lower bracket) divided by h (it is assumed here that the upper and the lower brackets have the same length). The bending moment at sections a) and b) are obtained by multiplying the total lateral force on the frame by the frame span and dividing it by coefficients ma and mb, derived from the results of Finite Element calculations. The ma and mb values depend on the loading condition of the hold to which the frame under consideration belongs. The analyses carried out showed that, for loaded holds, the side frames may be considered as being clamped at the lower end (ma = 12). The coefficients mb depends, of course, on the distance from the support and hence on the bracket length. In the case of empty holds of ships navigating in non homogeneous loading conditions (i.e. at the maximum draft) the sea pressure acting on the double bottom is not counterbalanced by internal cargo. This induces significant rotation of the hopper tanks and hence of the side frame lower ends. This rotation increases the bending moment (i.e. reduces the ma and mb values) and consequently lower coefficients have been included for this case. c) The load probabilities defined in a) are based on the assumption that the following probabilities: 10-7, for the head sea condition, 10-5, for the beam sea condition represent extreme sea conditions. This is based on a comparison of the 10-8 probability loads obtained by the AHG/WD-SL with the Marin model test results and a judgement of the beam sea loads justified as follows. In severe sea states, a Master would normally operate his ship in the head seas condition. However, a beam seas condition might occur in an emergency situation, due for instance to engine or shaft failure. In the latter case, the use of a higher load probability is justified by the need for a joint probability of occurrence of two rare events. On basis of this assumption, a stress level corresponding to yield was applied to these levels of probability. However, the sea load formula proposed by the AHG/WD-SL gives considerably higher values of side pressure than those given by current class rules of some societies and/or calculation results of long term predictions carried out by some societies. The values of probability have been modified as specified in a) above and the stress levels have been reduced accordingly. Both the load probability of exceedance and the ma and mb values are consistent with an elastic behaviour of the side frames. Consequently, the normal and shear allowable stresses are obtained by multiplying the yield stress by appropriate safety factors (0,90 for the normal stresses and 0,40 for the shear stresses).
IACS AHG/EBC
UR S31
1. In order to lift its reservation to the bending strength check in S31.3.4, NK put forward the following amendment to the renewal thickness in S31.2.1. the strength check is to be carried out when t <=t .
M COAT
GPG 53 (Oct.2002) agreed this and further decided that t need not be taken as more than 0.75t , allowing that Members were free to apply the stricter requirements should they wish. Hence, the following was added to S31.2.1:
REN.S S12
but the t
REN.S
as obtained from S31.3.3 need not be taken more than 0.75 t
S12
2. At the time of approval of S31, revision of S12 had not been completed. WP/S was expected to complete the remaining task to develop shear and bending checks for inclusion into S12 which would be similar to those given in S31. See S12 (Rev.4). 3. Implementation schedule is the same as that for URs S26 and S27. 4. Date of approval of S31: 14 November 2002 (2219_ICd). **********
Technical Background UR S 31 (Rev. 2)

1. Objective To make UR S31 apply to OBOs of single side skin construction not built to S12(Rev.1) and its subsequent revisions (s/n 2219j).
2.
Background GPG found that: There are OBOs of single side skin construction not built to S12(Rev.1) or subsequent revisions; Hence, these OBOs may be subject to much the same risk of side shell frame damage and corrosion as single side skin bulk carriers. GPG decided that the scope of application of UR S31 should be expanded to OBOs, as defined in UR Z11, of single side skin construction.
3.
Amendment Permanent Secretariat and WP/S Chairman prepared a draft revision. The implementation schedule for OBO carriers is given in the text.
2 July 2004
Page 1 of 1
UR S31, Technical Background Document

(Rev.3, Nov 2005) Revision of UR S31 Renewal Criteria for Side Shell Frames and Brackets Scope and objectives 1) The difficulty that was observed in the uniform implementation of UR S31 (Rev.2 July 2004) by surveyors/class societies due to unclear descriptions was questionable. 2) Verification of UR S31 by UK MCA is reported in DE48/INF.6. Taking the above into consideration, modify UR S31 based on experience gained from its implementation and review UKs verification. Points of discussions or possible discussions Ex-WP/SRC clarified the operational issues/problems which were obtained from each members experiences gained from its implementation, and suggested ex-WP/S to revise UR S31. Ex-WP/S modified UR S31 Rev.2 based on the comments and the consideration of UK MCA report as follows: 1) The following underlined texts are added:
S31.1 Application and definitions In the case a vessel as defined above does not satisfy above definition in one or more holds, the requirements in UR S31 do not apply to these individual holds. S31.2.1.1 tS12 S31.2.1.2 (c) tREN,d/t (applicable to Zone A and B only) S31.2.1.2.1 a) Lower brackets Lower brackets are to be flanged or face plate is to be fitted. c) Immediately abaft collision bulkhead For the side frames, including the lower bracket, located.... S31.2.1.2.4 When the measured frame webs thickness tM is such that tREN < tM tCOAT and the coating is in GOOD condition, sand blasting and coating as required in a) above may be waived even if not found in as-new condition, as defined above, provided that tripping brackets are fitted and the coating damaged in way of the tripping bracket welding is repaired. S31.2.2 Thickness measurements,. When flanges of frames or brackets are to be renewed according to S31, the outstanding breadth to thickness ratio is to comply with the requirements in UR S12.5. Symbols used in S31.2.1 = thickness, in mm, as required by UR S12 (Rev. 3) in S12.3 for
frame webs and in S12.4 for upper and lower bracket webs
S31.2.6
Renewal of all frames in one or more cargo holds
When all frames in one or more holds are required to be renewed according to UR S31, the compliance with the requirements in UR S12 (Rev. 1) may be accepted in lieu of the compliance with the requirements in UR S31, provided that: It is applied at least to all the frames of the hold(s) The coating requirements for side frames of new ships are complied with The section modulus of side frames is calculated according to the Classification Society Rules. S31.3.4 Bending strength check Table 2 Bending moment coefficient ma and mb mb hB 0,08h hB = 0,1h hB 0,125h S31.3.4 Figure 2 (following sketch showing lapped connection to be added)
db
Section b)
hB da Section a)
2)
The following correction is made as underlined:

S31.2.1.2.1 b) Tripping bracket alternative When tM is less than tREN,d/t at section b) in zone A of the side frames, .....
Source/ derivation of proposed interpretation Ex-WP/S Decision by voting N.A. Appendix N.A. Submitted by Hull Panel Chairman 1 July 2005
Permsecs Note (03/11/2005):

1. S31.2.1.2.1b
Based on the recommendation from the Hull Panel Chairman, GPG agreed that no change be made to S31.2.1.2.1b in Rev.3. Hull Panel was instructed to further clarify this item. Hull Panel advised that it would be incorporated in the internal guidelines for UR S31 which was being developed under Hull Panel Task No. 21. Hull Panel was also instructed to propose, if found necessary, a suitable amendment to S31.2.1.2.1b) for a future revision of S31, once they clarify the matter in the internal guidelines. 2. Uniform implementation date
Council agreed that the uniform implementation date should be 1 July 2005 (5028hICa, 5028hBVc of 16 Nov 2005).
END
Part A
UR S32[DRAFT] Local Scantlings of Double Side Skin Structure of Bulk Carriers

Version no. DELETE (May 2010) DRAFT (Nov 2004) Approval date Implementation date when applicable -
DELETE (May 2010)
Draft UR S32 was never issued (although the draft was made available on the IACS website for public information) since it was superseded by the IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers produced by the IACS Joint Bulker Project (JBP). Following a review of all UR S files to consider whether or not they are applicable to ships covered by the CSR (Hull Panel Task 50) it was decided to withdraw the draft UR S32 [GPG approval ref. 10051_IGd (24 May 2010)].
DRAFT (Nov 2004)
Page 1 of 2
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR S32[DRAFT]: Annex 1. TB for Draft Resolution (Nov 2004)
Note: There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document for Delete (May 2010).
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background UR S32(not adopted)

Annex 1. TB prepared by WP/S, 29 November 2003.
Annex 2.
IACS submission to IMO DE 47, 23 December 2004.
Annex 3.
AHG/WD-SLs proposed LCF Table, 16 March 2004.
Note: Summary of GPG discussion (October 2004)

1. The GPG Chairmans message 3056fIGf of 06/10/2004 is quoted:
Quote: 6 October 2004 Considering all received answers (ABS, RINA, GL, NK, DNV, LR and CCS) , there is unanimous agreement to support the course of action proposed under point 5 of my mail IGe. Permsec is then invited to act accordingly. In addition, five members (ABS, GL, DNV, LR and CCS) supported the proposal made by Steve in his message ABb. Message ABb deals with the LCF table contained in GPG 56/8.1.3/WP-1, annex 2. This table was intended to modify the text of UR S32 by introducing LCF values explicitly dependent of the loading condition (column 2 full load and column 4 ballast condition). This idea was further developed and generalised by JTP and JBP in two slightly different ways: 1. JTP provides different tables for the full load and ballast cases, and modifies LCF values of GPG 56/8.1.3/WP-1, annex 2 2. JBP has LCFs explicitly dependant of the loading condition through the ratio: loading condition draft / full load draft, based on results of AHG/WD-SL and other experimental (test model basin) results as explained in the load TB document available on the JBP website. In both cases, the table given in GPG 56/8.1.3/WP-1, annex 2 was an intermediate step in the process leading to the present load formulations of JTP and JBP. These two formulations are now under review by a small JTP/JBP group on loads under the auspices of RTH in order to harmonise them. Based on the above, my suggestion is to consider task FUA 28.2 as closed, considering that the conditions in ABb item 1 are met, simply adding GPG 56/8.1.3/WP-1 annex 2 in the TB document of UR S32 as suggested by Laura.
If members prefer to apply item 2 of ABb and modify the text of UR S32, I simply insist on the fact that it is better to add two different tables in UR S32, one for full load, the other one for ballast condition, keeping the numerical values of GPG 56/8.1.3/WP-1, annex 2 of course, as the substantial difference mentioned hereabove is not obvious and even partly masked reading the table formatted as in document GPG 56/8.1.3/WP-1, annex 2, which looks superficially similar to the one presently in the UR (you have to read the explanations under the table and notice that column 2 is now under beam sea). I doubt that Permsec is able to perform this task without proper technical support. Members opinion on application of item 1 or 2 of ABb is requested in order to definitely close this task during GGP 57 meeting. Best regards, Jean-franois Segretain IACS GPG Chairman
Unquote
2.
GPG finally decided at its 57th meeting (18-20 October 2004): GPG 57 FUA 18: To insert the LCF Table (GPG 56/8.1.3/WP-1/Annex 2) to the Technical Background document for the draft UR S32 with the following statement: The LCF Table has been considered in the development of the Bulker Rules by JBP and in the rule harmonization between JBP and JTP rules by the AHG/RTH. With this action, WP/S Task 71 is closed. See Annex 3.
Annex 1.
IACS WP/S Task 71 UR Sxx on the local scantling of DSS structures of Bulk Carriers
Chairman Submission to GPG
Genoa, 29 November 2003 a
IACS WP/S Task 71 Chairman Submission to GPG
1. Outcome of IACS WP/S Task 71 UR Sxx finalised by the WP/S, which includes the criteria for local scantling of DSS structures of Bulk Carriers, is submitted to GPG for approval. In considering this UR, please note that: 1.1 1.2 The criteria for the evaluation of the net scantlings of double side structures of Bulk Carriers, excluding fatigue, have been agreed by the WP/S. The criteria relevant to the fatigue check of longitudinal and transverse side shell stiffeners have agreed by all Members except NK. The motivation of the NK reservation is reported in Appendix. It is to be pointed out that WP/S Members, except NK, agreed on the fatigue check criteria provided that these criteria could be further considered and improved during the development of IACS common Rules. In particular, ABS considers that it is questionable to include these fatigue criteria in UR Sxx as more time is needed to refine them. 1.3 Two different approaches for the evaluation of the corrosion additions and, therefore, for calculating the gross scantlings from the net scantlings have been considered by WP/S: a) The first one was originally proposed by NK and is based on the statistics provided by the WP on Hull Damages some years ago. This approach was discussed under WP/S Task 22. b) The second one was proposed by ABS, during the last WP/S meeting, which was held at RINA H.O. from 28 to 30 October 2003. This proposal is based on the ABS corrosion statistics and experience, as well as those of DNV and LR. The main differences between the two approaches a) and b) are relevant to the following aspects: value of corrosion additions, to be added to the net scantlings. The major difference is in the side shell plating corrosion addition, rounding of net thickness and corrosion additions, calculation of the steel renewal thickness on the basis of the net thickness and corrosion additions.
A document reporting the differences between the two proposals in term of total corrosion additions for each hull structural element is enclosed for prompt reference. Since a unanimous consensus was not reached within the WP/S, both documents are presently submitted to GPG: UR Sxx proposal 1, including corrosion additions as per proposal in 1.3 a), UR Sxx proposal 2, including corrosion additions as per proposal in 1.3 b).
Annex1.doc
Page 4 of 7
11/11/04
These two documents have already been submitted to WP/S Members for voting. The vote results is that BV, CCS, KR, NK and RINA support proposal 1, whilst ABS, DNV, GL, LR and RS support proposal 2. The WP/S requests the GPG to task the IACS WP/SRC to examine the matter in order to define the corrosion addition approach that best fits with IACS Societies experience on corrosion and steel renewal criteria.
2. Double side space length During the last WP/S meeting, Members raised the question whether UR Sxx should require double side spaces having length not greater than the hold in way. After discussion, Members agreed to request the GPG to task IACS WP/SSLL to give advice on this aspect, which involves also stability related problematic. Anyway, while waiting for the WP/SSLL advice, the WP/S agreed to include the two following options in UR Sxx regarding the position of transverse bulkheads in double side spaces: 1. the first option requiring transverse bulkheads (tight or non-tight) to be fitted and aligned with the cargo hold transverse bulkheads, 2. the second option requiring transverse tight bulkheads to be fitted and aligned with the cargo hold transverse bulkheads. A final decision on the option to be considered should be taken after receiving the WP/SSLL advice.
3. Actions requested to GPG The following actions are kindly requested to GPG: 1. Approve UR Sxx as far as the net strength criteria are concerned. The WP/S deems that, when submitting UR Sxx to IMO, IACS should point out that the net strength criteria in UR Sxx, in particular those regarding the fatigue checks, will be further progressed and improved in the course of the on-going development of the IACS common Rules on Double Side Skin Bulk Carriers. 2. Note the NK reservation and ABS considerations relevant to the fatigue checks of longitudinal and transverse side shell stiffeners. 3. Task the WP/SRC to define the corrosion addition approach, between the two proposed by WP/S Members, that best fits with IACS Societies' experience on corrosion and steel renewal criteria.
Annex1.doc
Page 5 of 7
11/11/04
4. Task the WP/SSLL to give advice on the double side spaces length.
Annex1.doc
Page 6 of 7
11/11/04
Appendix Details of NK reservation on UR Sxx fatigue criteria The following text has been extracted from NKs message to WP/S of 28/11/2003. NK expresses their disagreement with the fatigue criteria incorporated in the draft UR Sxx, while NK agree with the other part of UR Sxx, for the following reasons: 1. NK checked the information given by DNV e-mail received on 2003/11/28 5:26 at Tokyo and made comparison of the estimated damage Minor sum with damage experience for the vessel DNV1 engaged in North Atlantic route as shown in the enclosed file. This comparison shows the same tendency of damage experience as NK showed for many oil tankers engaged in PGJapan route that ballast water tanks sustains many fatigue cracks on the longitudinals in the vicinity under the ballast water line but not under the full load water line. However, the estimated damage given by UR Sxx fatigue criteria appears maximum in the vicinity under the full load water line. This crucial discrepancy gives unacceptable loss of credibility to IACS because the draft UR requires to make reinforcement to the structure which is not likely to sustain fatigue damage while leaving the structure of high risk of fatigue damage not reinforced. 2. NK reviewed the impact of UR Sxx (finalised at the last meeting of ISG/F) given to the current design of DSS bulk carrier and it shows that maximum damage is over 17 for handysize and over 12 for overpanamax and that they resulted in the increase of section modulus of side longitudinals by 20% to 40% in addition to the modification of angle section to T type section of longitudinals for almost all the side longitudinals within the DSS space. This impact is recognised too much. 3. After consult with NK AHG/WD-SL member for the modification of load formula, which was made at the last meeting, it was realised that the modification made was not discussed nor agreed in AHG/WD-SL. Therefore, it needs discussion within AHG/WD-SL. 4. Load model including LCF and stress combination factor was not discussed in an appropriate manner and still needs discussion within AHG/WD-SL. 5. In view of the above, the fatigue criteria should be discussed spending some more time because WP/S have some time to submit it to IMO DE 47.
Annex1.doc
Page 7 of 7
11/11/04
Annex 2. SUB-COMMITTEE ON SHIP DESIGN EQUIPMENT 47th session Agenda item 15
DE 47/INF.7 [DATE] Original: ENGLISH
DOUBLE-SIDE SKIN CONSTRUCTION OF BULK CARRIERS Structural requirements for bulk carriers of double-side skin construction Submitted by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) SUMMARY Executive summary:This paper summarises the work carried out by IACS for the development of unified strength requirements for double-side skin bulk carriers and provides information to the SubCommittee on the IACS requirements under development. Paragraph 13. DE 46/32 paragraphs 24.14 and 24.15.
Action to be taken:Related documents:-
1. DE 46 noted that the information available on longitudinal strength of double-side skin bulk carriers was not sufficient for thorough examination of strength aspects of such ships and invited Members and international organisations to provide information to DE 47 on aspects of local, longitudinal and global strength for further discussion. 2. At DE 46, the IACS observer informed that IACS is currently developing scantling standards for double-side skin bulk carriers. This paper aims at providing information to the Sub-Committee on the IACS requirements under development. 3. The IACS on going work on the structural scantling of double-side skin bulk carriers includes the criteria for the local scantling of the double-side structures comprised between the hopper and the topside tanks, as well as the criteria for direct strength analyses of cargo hold structures. 4. In elaborating their requirements, IACS took into account the definitions and characteristics of double-side skin bulk carriers agreed at MSC 77. 5. The criteria for the local scantlings of the double-side structures, intended to be applied to side shell, inner side, transverse bulkheads, web frames and stringers, are defined in draft IACS Unified Requirement S32. They are based on the yielding, buckling and fatigue strength criteria, adopting a net scantling approach. 6. The criteria for the direct analysis of cargo hold structures are under development in IACS Unified Requirement S33. They are based on the Finite Element analysis of cargo hold structures and the yielding and buckling strength criteria, adopting the net scantling approach to be consistent with UR S32.
7. The net scantling approach entails that the scantlings obtained from the draft UR S32 strength requirements do not include any corrosion margin. The required scantlings, to which a ship is to be built, are obtained by adding appropriate corrosion additions to these net scantlings. The corrosion additions are to be defined as a function of the corrosive severity of the environment (cargo holds, ballast tanks, void space, outside sea and air) in which each structural element is located. Steel renewal criteria are specified for each structural element by defining the thickness at which steel renewal is required or, in other words, its corrosion margin which is within the corrosion additions. 8. The load model adopted in draft UR S32 and S33 has been developed on the basis of extensive work carried out by IACS, including seakeeping direct calculations carried out for a number of bulk carriers of different sizes. 9. The requirements contained in the draft UR S32 and S33 are intended to be included as part of a comprehensive set of common structural Rules that IACS is developing on double-side skin bulk carriers. In this sense, the requirements in the draft UR S32 and S33 will be revised and updated in the course of the development of these IACS common Rules. 10. In particular, the present text of draft UR S32 incorporates two alternatives for the corrosion additions and steel renewal criteria. Both alternatives are based on the experience gained by IACS Members in surveying their classed fleets. Further work is already ongoing to resolve which criteria are to be used in the IACS common structural Rules. 11. The fatigue strength criteria included in the draft UR S32 are based on a simplified formulation and will be subject to further improvements as a result of the on-going IACS common Rules developments. 12. The above-mentioned draft UR S32 is available on the IACS website at www.iacs.org.uk for information. Action requested of the Sub-Committee. 13. The Sub-Committee is requested to note the above information. ***
Annex 3 (TB for UR S32)
1. The LCF Table for UR S32 is contained in the AHG/WD-SL 2003 Progress Report. This table was intended to modify the text of UR S32 by introducing LCF values explicitly dependent of the loading condition (column 2 full load and column 4 ballast condition). This idea was then further developed and generalised by JTP and JBP in two slightly different ways: a) JTP provides different tables for the full load and ballast cases, and modifies LCF values of the AHG/WD-SL Table; b) JBP has LCFs explicitly dependant of the loading condition through the ratio: loading condition draft / full load draft, based on results of AHG/WD-SL and other experimental (test model basin) results as explained in the load TB document available on the JBP website. In both cases, the Table prepared by the AHG/WD-SL was an intermediate step in the process leading to the present load formulations of JTP and JBP. These two formulations are now under review by a small JTP/JBP group on loads under the auspices of the AHG/RTH in order to harmonise them. GPG 57 decided that this LCF Table should be included in the TB document for UR S32. WP/S Task 71 is thereby completed.
2. The following is quoted from the AHG/WD-SL 2003 Progerss Report (3019aGLa, AHG/WD-SL Annual Progress Report 2003, 17 March 2004).
*** AHG/WD-SL new task 12: To develop the load model for the UR on double side skin structures of bulk carriers. Most of the groups acticities in the last year were dealing with their new task 12. Here, especially the development of a load model to be used to determine the local scantling of double side skin structures of Bulk Carriers was pursued. This task may be subdivided into two main subtasks: 1) To determine rule formulations for local loads, ship motion parameters, ship accelerations and horizontal wave-induced bending 2) To accomplish a load combination factor table for general wave load cases The outcome of those activities is given in chapter Sxx2 of the UR Sxx files as attached to an email referenced 3056fRIa: Outcome of IACS WP/S Task 71 - UR Sxx on the local scantling of DSS structures of Bulk Carriers of the WP/S chairman Dino Cervetto from the 1st of December 2003. An excerpt containing the load formulations are given in annex 1.
03-027602/Rje
GERMANISCHER LLOYD
However, the AHG/WD-SL recommended updating some figures in the UR Sxx according an email referenced IACS AHG/WD-SL Task 12: FUA 15.3 from GPG 55 from the AHG/WD-SL chairman dated 9th of November 2003. The respective recommendations may be deduced from annex 2. According to C48 FUA5 this task had to be closed. However, the preparation of the technical background paper for the loads documented in annex 1 and annex 2 has not finalised yet. Because most of the load formulations are the basis for JTP and JBP rule formulations GPG is requested to agree to finalise the preparation of the technical background documentation by third quarter of this year. GPG is requested to note the progress.
Page 2 03-027602/Rje
GERMANISCHER LLOYD
Annexed.
AHG/WD+SL Comments on UR Sxx (S32)
1) UR Sxx: Table 1 Load combination factors (LCFs)

Head Sea Load Load combination parameter factor pw aV aT aL MV MH Cw CAv CAH CAL Cwvbm Cwhbm 1: Max external pressure 1,0;1,0;1,0 1,0 [1,0] 0,5;0,3;0,4 0,5 [0,3] 0,0;0,0;0,0 0,0 [0,0] 1,0 [0,5] 0,4;1,0;0,2 1,0 [1,0] 0,0;0,0;0,0 0,0 [0,0] 2: Max internal pressure 0,9;0,8;0,8 0,8 [0,1] 1,0;1,0;1,0 1,0 [1,0] 0,7;1,0;0,9 1,0 [0,0] 0,1 [1,0] 0,3;0,4;0,7 0,4 [1,0] 0,3;0,2;0,1 0,2 [0,0] Beam Sea 3: Max external pressure 1,0;1,0;1,0 1,0 [1,0] 1,1;1,0;0,8 1,0 [1,0] 0,6;0,5;0,5 0,5 [0,5] 0,1 [0,0] 0,4;0,3;0,6 0,3 [0,25] 0,1;0,3;0,1 0,3 [0,1] 4: Max internal pressure 0,6;0,6;0,5 0,5 [0,5] 0,8;0,9;0,9 0,9 [0,7] 1,0;1,0;1,0 1,0 [1,0] 0,1 [0,0] 0,1;0,1;0,1 0,1 [0,1] 0,3;0,2;0,8 0,2 [0,2] Oblique Sea 5: Max horizontal bending moment 0,4;0,7;0,2 0,7 [0,7] 0,4;0,2;0,3 0,4 [0,2] 0,5;0,0;0,2 0,5 [0,0] 0,5 [0,5] 0,2;0,2;0,2 0,2 [0,2] 1,0;1,0;1,0 1,0 [1,0]
The first LCF stands for the foremost hold, the second LCF for the amidships hold and the third LCF for the aftermost hold. The LCFs marked in blue represent values merged from all three holds whereas the LCFs in square brackets represent the current UR Sxx values. The LCFs for the foremost hold and amidships hold were developed from direct calculations performed for a handy size, a panamax and a capesize bulk carrier. Here, following procedure was applied: Columns 1, 3 and 5: Full load condition to maximise loads on side shell Column 2: Full load condition or heavy ballast condition for inner bottom Column 4: Heavy ballast and Normal ballast to maximise internal liquid loads on inner side The aftermost hold merely developed from direct calculations for panamax bulk carrier. Here following procedure was applied: Columns 1, 2, 3 and 5: Full load condition to maximise loads on side shell and inner bottom Column 4: Normal ballast to maximise internal liquid loads on inner side The considered loading conditions comprise: Full load homogenous heavy cargo Heavy ballast Normal ballast Page 3 03-027602/Rje
GERMANISCHER LLOYD
2) The roll amplitude in UR Sxx is recommended to read:
9000 (1,25 0,025 Troll ) k b [deg] = (B + 75) with : 2,3 k r Troll [sec] = GM
All parameters are denoted according to UR Sxx.
3) Cr in Sxx.2.2 Wave pressure load is recommended to read:
2,3 kr Cr = 1,25 0,025 kb GM

4) GM and kr in UR Sxx are recommended to read:
Following values are recommended to be used in UR Sxx for the initial metacentric height GM and the roll radius of gyration kr: Full load homogenous heavy cargo GM kr 0,12 B 0,35 B Full load homogenous light cargo or alternate heavy cargo 0,18 B 0,38 B Heavy ballast Normal ballast
0,25 B 0,40 B
0,33 B 0,45 B
Page 4 03-027602/Rje
IACS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES LTD. PERMANENT SECRETARIAT: 36 BROADWAY, LONDON, SW1H 0BH, UNITED KINGDOM TEL: +44(0)207 976 0660 FAX: +44(0)207 808 1100 INTERNET: permsec@iacs.org.uk Web Site: www.iacs.org.uk May 2012
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Materials and Welding (UR W)
Res. No. UR W1 UR W2 UR W3 UR W4 UR W5 UR W6 UR W7 UR W8 UR W9 UR W10 UR W11 UR W12 UR W13 UR W14 UR W15 UR W16 High strength quenched and tempered steels for welded structures Thickness tolerances of steel plates and wide flats Steel plates and wide flats with specified minimum through thickness properties (Z quality) Hull and machinery steel forgings Hull and machinery steel castings Grey iron castings Spheroidal or nodular graphite iron castings Normal and higher strength hull structural steels Title Material and welding for gas tankers Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials Current Rev. Rev.2 May 2004 Rev.2 Jul 2003 Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted Rev.3 May 2004 Rev.2 May 2004 Rev.2 May 2004 Rev.2 May 2004 Rev.7, Corr.1 Feb 2009 Deleted Rev.5_Corr.1 May 2012 Rev.2 May 2004 Deleted Rev.2 May 2004 HF/TB? TB TB No No No No TB TB TB TB TB No HF TB No TB
Res. No. UR W17 UR W18 UR W19 UR W20 UR W21 UR W22 UR W23 UR W24 UR W25 UR W26 UR W27 UR W28 UR W29
Title Approval of consumables for welding normal and higher strength hull structural steels Anchor Chain Cables and Accessories including chafing chain for emergency towing arrangement
Current Rev. Rev.3 Jun 2005 Rev.5 May 2004 Deleted (1995)
superseded by UR W11
HF/TB? TB TB No No No HF No HF HF TB TB HF TB
Deleted (1995)
Deleted (1995)
Offshore Mooring Chain Approval of Welding Consumables for High Strength Quenched and Tempered Steels for Welded Structures Cast Copper Alloy Propellers Aluminium Alloys for Hull Construction and Marine Structure Requirements for Welding Consumables for Aluminium Alloys Cast Steel Propellers Welding procedure qualification tests of steels for hull construction and marine structures Requirements for manufacture of anchors
Rev.5_Corr.1 June 2011 Rev.1 1997 Rev.3 May 2012 Rev.4 Dec 2011 Rev.1 Jun 2005 Rev.1 May 2004 Rev.2 Mar 2012 Jun 2005
IACS Unified Requirement W1 (Rev.2) Technical Background Material and welding for gas tankers
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W1 Material and welding for gas tankers and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. Points of Discussion Nil.
*****
b)
c)
IACS Unified Requirement W2 (Rev.2)

Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials
a) Objective/Scope The objective were as follows: 1. To amend the existing UR W2 in accordance with the UR W14 (Rev.1). 2. To update the existing UR W2 to bring in line with todays National and International Standards. 3. To rationalize all relevant sections of other UR Ws that detail general testing requirements into one document. b) Source of Proposed Requirements This revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. c) Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Testing machines; Tension/compression and impact testing machines are to be calibrated in accordance with ISO or other recognized standard. Tensile test specimens; Dimensions of tensile test specimens for various kinds of products are to be specified in accordance with ISO standard. For through thickness tensile test specimens, round test specimens including built-up type by welding are to be specified in accordance with the UR W14 (Rev.1). Tensile properties at ambient temperature; Testing procedures to determine yield stress, tensile strength and fracture elongation are to be specified in accordance with ISO standard. Sub size Charpy requirements; Dimensions of sub size Charpy V-notch specimens and the acceptance criteria are to be specified for each size of specimen. Retest procedure Retest procedures for tensile and Charpy V-notch impact tests are to be specified accordingly. Ductility tests for pipes and tubes; Requirements for the several kinds of ductility tests are to be specified in accordance with ISO standard. Other UR Ws; Other UR Ws are to be amended by reference to this revised UR W2 in the 2003 meeting. *****
Technical Background IACS Unified Requirement W7 (Rev. 1)
Hull and machinery steel forgings
a) Objective/Scope The objectives was to revise the existing UR W7 from the viewpoint of the consistency between the requirements and current techniques. Source of Proposed Requirements This revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of UR W7 Hull and machinery steel forgings. Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Chemical composition; Chemical composition is to be specified for each steel type of hull and machinery steel forgings respectively. As details of chemical composition for alloy steel forgings for hull are not specified, the manufactures are to submit the specification for approval. Direction of test specimen; Two sampling direction of test specimen are to be defined, i.e. parallel (longitudinal test) or tangential (tangential test) to the principle axial direction of each product. Mechanical properties; Mechanical properties are to be specified for each steel type of hull and machinery steel forgings respectively. However, mechanical properties for C, C-Mn steel forging for hull are to be the same with those for machinery from design and metallurgical aspect. Charpy Vnotch impact test is to be required only for propeller shaft intended for ships with ice class notation except the lowest one in UR W27. Inspection; Regarding requirements on non-destructive tests, IACS Recommendation No.68 which was adopted in 2000 is to be used as a sample of an acceptable standard. Rectification; Repair welding of forgings except crankshaft forgings may be permitted subject to prior approval of the Society.
b)
c)
****
submitted by WP/MCH to GPG 52, 12-15 March 2002
IACS Unified Requirement W7 (Rev.3) Technical Background
Hull and machinery steel forgings

a) Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W7 Hull and machinery steel forgings and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. Points of Discussion Nil.
*****
b)
c)
Technical Background IACS Unified Requirement W8 (Rev. 1)

Hull and machinery steel castings
a) Objective/Scope The objectives was to revise the existing UR W8 from the viewpoint of the consistency between the requirements and current techniques. Source of Proposed Requirements This revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of UR W8 Hull and machinery steel castings Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Chemical composition; Chemical composition is to be specified according to their applications. Carbon content of steel castings for welded construction is to be max. 0.23% for its weldable quality. Mechanical properties; Mechanical properties for normal quality steel castings in the original UR are to be applied. No Charpy V-notch impact test is to be required. Inspection; Regarding requirements on non-destructive tests, IACS Recommendation No.69 which was adopted in 2000 is to be used as a sample of an acceptable standard. Rectification; Procedure of removal of defect and weld repair is to be in accordance with IACS Recommendation No.69.
b)
c)
****
IACS Unified Requirement W8 (Rev.2) Technical Background Hull and machinery steel castings
a) Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W8 Hull and machinery steel castings and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. Points of Discussion Nil.
*****
b)
c)
IACS Unified Requirement W9 (Rev.2) Technical Background Grey iron castings
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W9 Grey iron castings and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. Points of Discussion Nil.
*****
b)
c)
IACS Unified Requirement W10 (Rev.2) Technical Background Spheroidal or nodular graphite iron castings
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003).
b)
Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W10 Spheroidal or nodular graphite iron castings and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials.
c)
Points of Discussion Nil.

*****
Part A
UR W11 Normal and higher strength hull structural steels

Version no. Corr.1 (Feb 2009) Rev.7 (Apr 2008) Rev.6 (May 2004) Rev.5 (July 2002) Rev.4 (May 2001) Rev.3 (June 2000) Rev.2 (1995) Rev.1 (1986) NEW (1979) Approval date 16 February 2009 03 April 2008 24 May 2004 30 July 2002 17 May 2001 15 June 2000 No record No record No record Implementation date when applicable -
Corr.1 (Feb 2009)
Typo in Table 6 corrected (Subject No: 8554). No TB document available.
Rev.7 (Apr 2008)
Revision of Appendix A to include procedures for the "approval of manufacturers semi finished products (Subject No: 8554). See separate TB document in Annex 5 for details.
Rev.6 (May 2004)
Outcome of WP/MW Task 42 and 45 (Subject No: 3004a). See separate TB document in Annex 4 for details.
Rev.5 (July 2002)
Outcome of WP/MW Task 1-A submitted to GPG 52. See separate TB document in Annex 3 for details.
Rev.4 (May 2001)
Outcome of WP/MW Task 37submitted to GPG 50. See separate TB document in Annex 2 for details.
Rev.3 (June 2000)
Page 1 of 3
Outcome of AHG/MW Task No. 32 submitted to GPG 48. See separate TB document in Annex 1 for details.
Rev.2 (1995)
Rev.1 (1986)
NEW (1979)
Page 2 of 3

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR W11: Annex 1. TB for Rev.3 (June 2000)




Annex 5. TB for Rev.7 (Apr 2008)

Annex 6. Interpretation given to POSCO on UR W11 (Jan 2012)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1979), Rev.1 (1986), Rev.2 (1995) and Corr.1 (Feb 2009).
Page 3 of 3
Annex 1
GPG 48/5.17/WP.1/ Annex B2-4
IACS Unified Requirement W11 (Rev.3, 2000.)
Normal and higher strength hull structural steels

a) Objective/Scope The objective was to introduce the manufacturers responsibility concept to the existing UR W11, from the viewpoint of production control in order to secure the more uniformed quality of hull steel products.
b)
Source of Proposed Requirements This revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of UR W11 Normal and higher strength hull structural steels(Rev.2).
c)
Points of Discussion
The discussion had been mainly made on the following technical points and achieved full agreement of the members:
Manufacturers responsibility concept; The manufacturers responsibility concept is to be specified in the revised Clauses 2.2 and 3.3, which require that: _ Manufacturer is to control and assure the in-operation processes and production conditions. _ Where deviation from the controls and/or inferior quality of the products were found, the manufacturer is required to take further measures to the Surveyors satisfaction. Definition of the rolling procedures; As conventional rolling and heat treatment procedures, As rolled (AR) and Normalising (N), are to be newly defined in the revised Clause 3.3 in order to cover all the procedures that apply to the present production of hull steels. __
Page 1 of 1
Annex 2
TB IACS Unified Requirement W11 (Rev.4 May 2001)
Normal and higher strength hull structural steels

a) Objective/Scope The objective was to develop the manufacturing approval scheme of hull structural steels as an Appendix of UR W11, from the viewpoint of production control to secure more uniformed quality of hull steel products. b) Source of Proposed Requirements The above Appendix was developed to supplement the relative requirements of UR W11 Normal and higher strength hull structural steels (Rev. 3).
c)
Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Manufacturing approval; The manufacturing approval scheme is valid for verifying the manufacturers capability to produce satisfactory products stably. Manufacturing documents; Where the programmed rolling (CR or TM) is applied, the technical details of rolling practice are to be reviewed, in addition to general documents relevant to the outline of steel works, manufacturing facilities, manufacturing process, quality control, etc. Approval tests; Test program should be confirmed before testing. For grades E, AH, DH and EH, weldability tests are to be additionally carried out. In case of new type of steels, conformable tests may be required to evaluate their quality and properties. Approval documentation; The validity of the approval is to be a maximum of five years. Renewal can be carried out by audit and assessment. The approval is to be re-considered where the major problems on manufacturing process or finished products are found.
Remark: GPG 50 (March 2001) expressed its concern over a possible lack of uniformity in practice with reference to renewal of approval in para.6 of Appendix A. At the request of GPG, WP Chair came up with an explanatory note to the second sentence of para.6. GPG/Council agreed that the revision history in the Note to Appendix B, should be deleted from UR W 11 and added to the TB on 11 May 2001. See the annex. *****
Annex: Revision history of W 11
(Page 1/2)
Revision History of UR W 11
These requirements were first adopted as UR.1 Requirements for Hull Structural Steels (1959) and UR.12 Requirements for High Tensile Hull Structural Steels (1971) These were subsequently revised to incorporate S1 units and were adopted as UR 128 Normal Strength Hull Structural Steel (1977) and UR 132 Requirements for High Tensile Hull Structural Steel (1977). In 1979 these requirements were further revised and combined as UR 162 which was subsequently re-printed and issued as Unified Requirement W11. In 1994, these requirements were revised on the basis of the contents of W11. Normal and higher strength hull structural steels W19. Normal and higher strength hull structural steel grades E and E36 with thickness above 50 up to 100 mm. W20. Higher strength hull structural steels with a minimum yield strength of 390 N/mm2 and W21. Hull structural steels for low temperature application and reissued as Unified Requirement W11.
*****
(Page 2/2)
Annex 3
Technical background IACS Unified Requirement W11 (Rev. 5) Normal and higher strength hull structural steels
a) Objective/Scope The objectives were as follows: 1. To amend the requirement concerning manufacturers responsibility in order to remove the reservation lodged by ABS. 2. To develop the requirements in the existing UR W11 for grades AH40, DH40, EH40 and grades FH hull structural steel plates with thickness over 50mm up to 100mm. Source of Proposed Requirements This revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of UR W11 Normal and higher strength hull structural steels (Rev. 4). Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Manufacturers responsibility; Where imperfection of process and production controls occurs, the manufacturer is to identify the cause and establish a countermeasure to prevent its recurrence. Definition of heat treatment process; Heat treatment process Quenching and Tempering (QT) is also to be defined in clause 3.3 and Appendix B as well. Chemical composition; Maximum carbon equivalent is to be specified for the grades concerned according to each strength level. Type of applicable heat treatment; Applicable heat treatments, i.e. Normalizing, Thermo-Mechanical Rolling and Quenching and Tempering are to be specified for the grades concerned. Toughness requirement; Minimum average impact energy is to be specified for each the grade concerned according to the range of thickness. In addition, the above energy values for HT40 grades with thickness up to 50mm are to be modified from the viewpoint of well-balanced toughness requirement. Number of impact test specimens; Batch size of impact test for each the grade concerned is to be specified respectively according to the heat treatment applied.
b)
c)
Annex : Revision history of UR W11
Annex Revision History of UR W11

These requirements were first adopted as UR.1 Requirements for Hull Structural Steels (1959) and UR.12 Requirements for High Tensile Hull Structural Steels (1971) These were subsequently revised to incorporate S1 units and were adopted as UR 128 Normal Strength Hull Structural Steel (1977) and UR 132 Requirements for High Tensile Hull Structural Steel (1977). In 1979, these requirements were further revised and combined as UR 162, which was subsequently re-printed and issued as Unified Requirement W11. In 1994, these requirements were revised on the basis of the contents of W11 Normal and higher strength hull structural steels W19 Normal and higher strength hull structural steel grades E and E36 with thickness above 50 up to 100 mm W20 Higher strength hull structural steels with a minimum yield strength of 390 N/mm2 and W21 Hull structural steels for low temperature application and reissued as Unified Requirement W11. ****
Annex 4
IACS Unified Requirement W11 (Rev.6) Technical Background Normal and higher strength hull structural steels
a) Objective/Scope The objective were as follows: 1. To rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). 2. To develop a manufacturing approval scheme of hull structural steels welded with high heat input as an Appendix of UR W11. Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials and the UR W11 Normal and higher strength hull structural steels including the Appendix A Manufacturing approval scheme of hull structural steels. Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points for the above a) objective/Scope 2 had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Scope; The approval scheme specifies weldability confirmation scheme of hull structural steels intended for welding with high heat input over 50kJ/cm and is valid for certifying that the steels have satisfactory weldability for high heat input welding concerned under testing conditions. This approval scheme is to be generally applied by manufacturers option and does not apply to qualification of welding procedures to be undertaken by the shipyards. Range of certification; Range of certification for steel grades is to be specified with the following key concepts: - Approval tests on the lowest and highest toughness levels cover the intermediate toughness level. - Approval tests on normal strength level cover that strength level only. - For higher tensile steels, approval tests on one strength level cover strength level immediately below. Test plate; For each manufacturing process route, two test plates with different thickness (t and less than or equal to t/2) proposed by the manufacturer are to be selected. Charpy V-notch Impact test; Requirements for notch location, test temperature and average impact energy are to be the same as those specified for base metal, i.e. the requirements of the UR W11 including the Appendix A. Certification; The Classification Society issues the certificate to the manufacturer (steel mill), including the information of steel grade designation with notation of heat input, manufacturing process, plate thickness tested and welding conditions etc. Grade designation; Upon issuance of the certificate, the notation indicating the value of heat input applied in the confirmation test may be added to the grade designation of the test plate, e.g. E36W300 (in the case of heat input 300kJ/cm applied).
****
b)
c)
1/1
Annex 5
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF UR W11 (REV.7, APRIL 2008)

1. Scope and objective To develop procedures for the approval of manufacturers of semi finished products intended for subsequent rolling at approved steel mills into ship steel plate, sections and bars. 2. Background There has been a considerable increase in the number of cases where non-approved manufacturers have produced and supplied semi-finished products which have been subsequently rolled by approved manufacturers, no unified requirement exists to cover this situation. Different class societies deal with such manufacturers in different ways. Issues of quality variation have also been noted in the semi-finished products delivered. The approved manufacturers would prefer a unified approach and in is therefore proposed to develop the requirements for approval of steel slabs and for approval of rolled steels using the slabs as an amendment to UR W11 Appendix A.
3. Points of discussions The project team found common ground on the procedures to be followed. Discussion on the necessary links between the manufacturer of the semi-finished product and the subsequent manufacturer of the rolled steel product provided more varied debate. The outcome agreed being a simple approach of approving a semi-finished manufacturer in isolation, allowing supply after approval to all approved finishing mills. One society had a strong view that both manufacturers should have a fixed link, it was agreed that this latter approach could be applied by the individual society within its own Rules as their enhanced requirement. A number of points were raised by the Hull Panel on the first draft submitted. These were reviewed by PT2 and where appropriate amendments made or reasons for rejecting the suggestions given. 4. Amendment. The Hull Panel and its PT2 agreed to revise UR W11 Appendix A to include the necessary procedures for the approval of manufacturers semi finished products and define the necessary links with approved manufacturers of rolled steels products. 5. Source/Derivation of proposed interpretation N.A. 6. Decision by voting N.A. Submitted by Hull Panel Chairman 14 March 2008
Permanent Secretariat note, May 2008: UR W11 Rev. 7 was approved by GPG on 3 April 2008, ref. 8554_IGb.
Annex 6
Interpretation given to POSCO on UR W11 (Jan 2012)

(i) Question: In the description of the AR process, does the word "typically" indicate that the temperature condition is recommended or compulsory? POSCO believes that it does not compel any temperature control in the AR process as described in EN10025-2. Please advise the exact meaning. You are correct in your assumption that the "as rolled" IACS definition does not imply any form of temperature control. The word "typically" indicates neither a recommendation nor a compulsory requirement. It rather indicates the same as the description given in the EN 10025-2, i.e. there is no strict control of the rolling temperature. (ii) Question: Please advise the proper finishing rolling temperature for the chemical composition provided. Classification Societies are not in a position to specify the finishing rolling temperature to be applied. It is the responsibility of the steel mill to determine the finishing rolling temperature based on the local processes and well known metallurgical effects. The role of Classification Societies is to approve different material grades based on approval testing and review of documentation, e.g. rolling schedule, and make sure that the Classification Rules are complied with. The finishing rolling temperature for the "as rolled" process is part of the manufacturer's rolling process, which is to be documented at approval stage per UR W11, Appendix A2, Article 2.1(g).
(Ref: 11161_IGd dated 20th January 2012)
Part A
UR W13 Thickness tolerances of steel plates and wide flats

Version no. Corr.1 (May 2012) Rev.5 (Feb 2012) Rev.4 (Oct 2009) Rev.3 (1995) Rev.2 (1992) Rev.1 (1989) NEW (1981) Approval date 22 May 2012 02 February 2012 2 October 2009 No record No record No record No record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2013 1 January 2011 -
Corr.1 (May 2012)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by Hull Panel Chairman
.2 Main Reason for Change: To correct a Typographical error - in Section W13.1.3, the reference to Table B.2 in ISO 7452 should be changed to Table 2. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: Hull panel pointed out this error. PermSec made editorial change in the text. Since the correction was of purely editorial in nature, a separate technical background document was not prepared. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: April 2012 made by: Hull panel GPG Approval: 22 May 2012 (Ref. 11158_IGi)
Page 1 of 4
Rev.5 (Feb 2012)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by IACS members
.2 Main Reason for Change: UR W13 was amended to clarify two items: 1) The thickness measuring locations for steel plate and cut steel products. 2) The minus tolerance for thickness when ISO 7452 Class C is applied in lieu of W13.3. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: 1) UR W13 was amended at the request of some Hull Panel members. These requests were taken into consideration and a proposal was developed. 2) At the end of December 2010, one Hull Panel member requested a clarification from the Hull Panel regarding the required measuring points for steel rolled plates and cut steel products. After Hull Panel discussion, the Hull Panel handed a clarification to the member. The Member took the opportunity to formally document this clarification by delivering a proposal to modify UR W13. 3) Early in May 2011, another Hull Panel member requested a clarification regarding the intent of W13.1.3 and ISO 7452 Table 2 Class C and the minus tolerance for thickness. After discussion within the Hull Panel, original proposal was modified to reflect comments made by Hull Panel Members regarding clarifications given. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: Dec 2010& May 2011 made by: Members of Hull panel Panel Approval: October 2011 by: Hull panel GPG Approval: 02 February 2012 (Ref. 11158_IGg)
Rev.4 (Oct 2009)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Request by non-IACS entity: Union of Greek Shipowners
Page 2 of 4
.2 Main Reason for Change: UR W13 Rev.3 is amended to require that the measured average plate thickness in a group of neighbouring plates is equal to or greater than the plates specified nominal thickness. .3 History of Decisions Made: Revision 4 of UR W13 was unanimously agreed within the PT3 of Hull Panel and thereafter approved by the Hull Panel. .4 Other Resolutions Changes None .5 Any dissenting views None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: April 2009, made by PT3 of Hull Panel Hull Panel Approval: August 2009 GPG Approval: 2 October 2009 (ref. 9560_IGh)
Rev.3 (1995)
Rev.2 (1992)
Rev.1 (1989)
NEW (1995)
Page 3 of 4

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR W13: Annex 1. TB for Rev.4 (Oct 2009)

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1981), Rev.1 (1989), Rev.2 (1992), Rev.3 (1995) and Corr.1 (May 2012).
Page 4 of 4
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background (TB) document UR W13, Rev.4 (October 2009) [Hull Panel Task 34] 1. Scope and objectives Amend IACS UR W13 to:

require that the measured average plate thickness in a group of neighbouring plates is equal to or greater than the plates' specified nominal thickness; require that no individual thickness measurement will be more than 0.3 mm below the specified nominal thickness; require that, where plates are not shot-blasted and primed at the steel-mills, the shipyard is to take adequate precautions during storage and handling to ensure average thickness is maintained prior to use during the vessels construction.
2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale HP PT3 reviewed available standards for plate measurement and thickness determination with a view to using them as a basis to specify the number and location of the required thickness readings to give confidence that the batch of plates meets the requirements as specified in Scope and Objectives. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution 3.1 Industrial/national/international standards for the thickness measurement of steel plates:

There are no standards about the method of thickness measurement for hot rolled plates or defining what is average thickness. There are some standards for the thickness tolerances. 1. ISO 7452: Hot-rolled structural steel plates Tolerances on dimensions and shape 2. EN10029: Tolerances on dimensions, shape and mass for hot rolled steel plates 3mm thick or above 3. ASTM A6: Specification for General Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes and Sheet Piling
3.2 Current practice for thickness measurement:

Thickness measurement techniques are either on-line automated or off-line manual methods for hull structural steel plates. Plate is rejected if, at any confirmation point, thickness reading is below the lower tolerance limit. Number of measuring points, measuring locations and measuring time are very much diverse between on-line automated or off-line manual methods. The statistics show that the mean of average plate thickness measured during some periods is well above the nominal thickness.
Page 1 of 2

require that the measured average plate thickness in a group of neighbouring plates is equal to or greater than the plates' specified nominal thickness; define the average thickness and measuring locations require that, where plates are not shot-blasted and primed at the steel-mills, the shipyard is to take adequate precautions during storage and handling to ensure average thickness is maintained prior to use during the vessels construction In case where the steel mills apply zero minus tolerance, i.e. Class C of ISO 7452, their present recording procedure may be allowed.
5. Points of discussions or possible discussions
Although the minus tolerance is 0.3 mm irrespective of nominal thickness, actual minus tolerance is expected to be close to 0.0 mm in consideration of the requirement that the measured average plate thickness is equal to or greater than the plates' specified nominal thickness. Definition of a group of neighbouring plates and average plate thickness could not be decided in a concrete manner due to the diversity of the steel mill production system. Standardization of the systematic thickness measurements is difficult due to the diversity of measuring method and measuring equipment.
6. Attachments if any
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for UR W13 Rev.5, Feb 2012

1. Scope and objectives Amend IACS UR W13 to: Clarify the thickness measuring locations for steel plate and subsequent cut steel products. Clarify the minus tolerance for thickness when ISO 7452 Class C is applied in lieu of W13.3. Provide general modifications or reorganization to sections affected by the above changes. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 2.1 Intent of ISO 7452 Class C: W13 allows for the application of ISO 7452 Class C in lieu of W13.3. ISO 7452 Table B2 has a footnote which Part of which reads: Also a minus side of thickness of 0,3 mm is permitted. However, Class C allows no minus tolerance, which is contradicted by the footnote. To avoid confusion in ensuring no minus tolerance is allowed and to prevent incorrect interpretations of the thickness measurement method used, an amendment was made to Section W13.1.3 advising that the part of the footnote referenced above is not applicable. If ISO 7452 is to be applied, UR W13.4 and W13.5 need not be applied. Since the ISO 7452 does not include specification for the number and location of measurements to establish that the plates are at or above the specified nominal thickness, and W13.4 and W13.5 are not applied, the number and location of measurements when ISO 7452 is used is left up to the satisfaction of each individual Class Society (see the second paragraph of W13.1.3). Thickness Measuring Locations: There was confusion about the application of measure locations for steel plate rolled directly from one slab or ingot (steel plates) and the products cut from those plates (cut steel products). o Although it was understood that the steel plate needed to be measured per UR W13, it was unclear whether or not the cut steel products needed to be measured. Based on common practice and the general intent of the UR, it was agreed that the measuring locations and requrements need only apply to the steel plate and not the steel products cut from the plate. This clarification was made in UR W13 via a NOTE in section A.2 and Figures A1 and A2.
2.2
3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution ISO 7452 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: Section 13.1.1: Definition of wide flats provided.
Section 13.1.2: The in-text note was moved to Sect. 13.1.1 Section 13.1.3: This section was amended to describe the minus tolerance for thickness when applying Class C of ISO 7452 Footnotes: Footnote 1 was modified to reflect the current revision. A.2: An in-text NOTE was added to describe the application of the thickness measurement on steel plate. Figure A.1, Figure A.2: Figure A.1 was modified and Figure A.2 added to reflect the clarification on the location of thickness measurement for steel plate and the relation to the cut steel products 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any None
Technical Background (TB) IACS Unified Requirement W14 (Rev. 1)

Steel plates and wide flats with specified minimum through thickness properties (Z quality)
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to revise the existing UR W14 from the viewpoint of the consistency between the existing requirements and current best practice. Source of Proposed Requirements This revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of UR W14 Steel plates and wide flats with improved through thickness properties. Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Scope; Two Z quality steels are to be specified, Z25 for normal ship application and Z35 for more severe applications. Manufacture; The approval should follow the procedure given in UR W11 Appendix A but take into account various improved steelmaking process and the control of centre-line segregation during continuous casting. Chemical composition; Maximum sulphur content determined by the ladle analysis is to be specified. Test sampling; Batch size is to be specified according to type of product and sulphur content. Acceptance values for reduction of area; Minimum average and minimum individual values for reduction of area are to be specified for Z25 and Z35 respectively. Re-test procedure; Acceptable test result, retest-permitted result and acceptable retest result are to be specified using the schematic diagram.
b)
c)
Note: At the request of ABS, WP Chairman suggested further amendment to be added to W14.3.4 for clarity: Round test specimens including built-up type by welding are to be prepared in accordance with a recognized standard (1058aIGb, 10 May 02). Approved.
****
Steel plates and wide flats with specified minimum through thickness properties (Z quality)
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to eliminate the difficulty of the members implementation. Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W14 Steel plates and wide flats with specified minimum through thickness properties (Z quality), EN 10160 and ASTM A578. Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical point had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Ultrasonic tests; The requirement level of EN10160 is to be Level S1/E1 from the viewpoint of the conformance with ASTM A578 Level C.
*****
b)
c)
1/1
IACS Unified Requirement W16 (Rev.2) Technical Background High Strength Quenched and Tempered Steels for Welded Structures
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W16 High Strength Quenched and Tempered Steels for Welded Structures and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. Points of Discussion Nil.
*****
b)
c)
1/1
Approval of consumables for welding normal and higher strength hull structural steels
a) Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W17 Approval of consumables for welding normal and higher strength hull structural steels and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. Points of Discussion Nil.
*****
b)
c)
1/1
Technical Background Document UR W17 (Rev.3 June 2005) Approval of consumables for welding normal and higher strength hull structural steels
a) Objective/Scope The objective was to amend requirements of welding consumables for YP40 steels with a view to being consistent requirements for welding joints. b) Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W17 Approval of consumables for welding normal and higher strength hull structural steels and UR W11 Normal and higher strength hull structural steels. c) Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points for the above a) objective/Scope had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Required energy for impact tests; Required energy for impact tests on welding consumables for YP40 steels is to be amended based on those of steels in UR W11(Rev.6). Typeset errors; Several typeset errors found during consideration are to be rectified.
Submitted by WP/MW Chair 28/12/2004
Technical Background IACS Unified Requirement W18 (Rev.3)

Anchor chain cables and accessories Technical Backgrounds: a) Objective/Scope The objectives was to revise the existing UR W18 from the viewpoint of the consistency between the requirements and current techniques. Source of Proposed Requirements This revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of UR W18 Anchor chain cables and accessories (Rev.2). Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: I. For rolled steel bars for chain cables Chemical composition; Chemical composition for Grade 3 steel bar is not specified. Material suppliers or chain cable manufacturers are to submit the specification for approval. Mechanical test; Mechanical test is to be normally carried out by the steel mill. Retest; Where a retest for tensile test or Charpy V-notch impact test fails to meet requirements, the test unit represented is to be rejected. II. For chain cables and accessories Heat treatment; Normalized and tempered is newly added as heat treatment for chain cables and accessories. Breaking load test; Each manufacturing batch for the test is to be comprised of accessories which are same accessory type, grade, size and heat treatment charge. But it is not necessarily representative of each heat of steel or individual purchase order. Mechanical tests; For Grade 2 forged or cast chain cables, Charpy V-notch impact test is not needed. However, for Grade 2 forged and cast accessories, the test is to be required. ****
b)
c)
IACS Unified Requirement W18 (Rev.4)
Anchor chain cables and accessories

a) Objective/Scope The objective was to develop the requirements for the manufacture and certification of chain cables and their accessories for ETA equipment. Source of Proposed Requirements The requirements in the revised draft UR were developed referring to the IMO Resolution MSC35(63) and the corresponding specifications of individual Societies Rule. Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: General; The requirements for chafing chains used in ETA were specified as an Appendix of UR W18 Anchor chain cables and accessories. Grade of chains; The chains are to be Grade 2 and 3 chain cables in the UR W18. The minimum size of common link and breaking load for test are to be specified in accordance with the IMO Resolution MSC35(63) and the members specifications. Design, manufacture, testing and certification; The chains are to be designed, manufactured, tested and certified in accordance with the corresponding requirements of the UR W18. Chafing chain end onboard; Typical arrangement of the chain end was developed referring to on members practices. A pear-shaped open link is to be considered so that it allows connection to a shackle corresponding to the type of ETA and chain grade.
*****
b)
c)
IACS Unified Requirement W18 (Rev.5) Technical Background Anchor chain cables and accessories including chafing chain for emergency towing arrangements
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W18 Anchor chain cables and accessories including chafing chain for emergency towing arrangements and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. Points of Discussion Nil.
*****
b)
c)
1/1

UR W22 Offshore Mooring Chain
Version no. Corr.1 (June 2011) Rev.5 (Dec 2009) Rev.4 (Sept 2006) Rev.3 (May 2004) Rev.2 (July 1999) Rev.1 (1997) NEW (1993) Approval date 4 June 2011 1 December 2009 24 September 2006 24 May 2004 28 July 1999 14 February 1997 No record Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2011 -
Part A
Rev.5 Corr.1 (June 2011)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by a non-IACS entity (PRS) and PermSec
.2 Main Reason for Change: To correct the typos in the paragraph numbering (3.2.7 & 3.2.8) and the reference to the figure 3 in 3.2.7.2. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: PRS pointed out the wrong reference to the figure 3 in Para 3.2.7.2 and PermSec found some other editorial corrections required in paragraph numbering (3.2.7 & 3.2.8). PermSec made the corrections and Hull Panel approved it. As the corrections were purely editorial, no technical background document was prepared. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: 19 April 2011 Made by: PRS/PermSec Panel Approval: 23 May 2011 by: Hull Panel GPG Approval: 4 June 2011 (Ref. 11077_IGb)
Page 1 of 4
Rev.5 (Dec 2009)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To develop the requirements for higher strength mooring chains in Grade R5 and also studless mooring chains. .3 History of Decisions Made: The old IACS WP/MW was aware of industrial need for higher strength offshore mooring chains other than those specified in the present the existing UR W22 and also a requirement for studless offshore mooring chains. WP/WM raised the Form A but the work was not initiated before reorganisation of the old IACS working groups. The work item was taken over by Hull Panel as their Task 27 and allocated to Project Team 2. Following a period required to discuss issues with manufacturers, analysis of issues raised by Authorities and collation of supporting technical information, the project team found common ground on the procedures to be followed. Fracture toughness testing, for example CTOD testing, has been a requirement in UR W22 for initial approval tests of chain manufacturers since original adoption. Acceptance values have now been included in the UR and are extended to initial approval tests of the forges and foundries for accessories. These values, established through design and operational experience, are considered to give sufficient resistance against unstable fracture in general. As CTOD values can be related to design issues, other values may be considered for specific cases of specific projects. Specifying these acceptance levels in the UR enables the manufacturer to establish Charpy impact toughness and fracture toughness relationships based on the increase in strength and thickness seen in this amendment. This allows the continued use of the Charpy Vnotch impact test as the measurement of toughness during quality control release testing of the product. .4 Other Resolutions Changes None .5 Dates: Original Proposal: 2004, made by WP/MW Task No.57 Hull Panel Approval: 7 October 2009 GPG Approval: 1 December 2009 (ref. 9635_IGe)
Rev.4 (Sept 2006)
See TB in Part B, Annex 3.
Page 2 of 4
Rev.3 (May 2004)
Rev.2 (July 1999)
Rev.1 (1997)
NEW (1993)
Page 3 of 4

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR W22: Annex 1. TB for Rev.2 (July 1999)



Annex 4. TB for Rev.5 (Dec 2009)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1993), Rev.1 (1997) and Rev.5 (Corr.1, June 2011).
Page 4 of 4
Part B, Annex 1
Part B, Annex 2 IACS Unified Requirement W22 (Rev.3) Technical Background Offshore mooring chain
a) Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W22 Offshore mooring chain and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. Points of Discussion Nil.
*****
b)
c)
1/1
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background of UR W22 (Rev.4) Appendix A: Chafing Chain for Single Point Mooring Arrangements
1. Scope and objective OCIMF has requested IACS by their email of 7 June 2006 to consider some exemptions in application of IACS UR W22 for manufacturing of short lengths of chafe chains for conventional tankers single point moorings. IACS GPG Chairman tasked Hull Panel to consider OCIMFs request/proposal and if supportive, whether UR W22 needs to be amended to acknowledge/address the OCIMF Guidelines in his message 6114_IGa, dated 13 June 2006. Consequently, Hull Panel unanimously agreed to develop an Appendix to IACS UR W22, which specifies the requirements for chafe chains for single point mooring arrangements and incorporates the concerns that OCIMF has in manufacturing the chains. 2. Points of discussions or possible discussions The following OCIMFs concerns are considered in development of the Appendix: .1 Comments: W22.1.5.1 can be waived due to the requirement for small quantities of bar stock. Such materials should be subject to full chemical and mechanical testing to prove grade compatibility and 100% Non Destructively Tested (NDT) before release into production. The material should meet or exceed the requirements of W22 Table 1 and comply with 1.5.2 Proposals: A.2 specifies the materials of the chafe chain are to satisfy the requirements of materials as required by W22.2. The approval of the manufacturer by the society is no longer a condition of approval of chafe chain product. .2 Comments: The OCIMF recommended chafe chain configurations including the oblong plate
and pick up shackle component should be accepted. Individual links should comply with the dimension tolerances specified in W22 3.7. Proposals: A.4.2 specifies that the arrangements of the end connections are to be in A4.1 covers the dimensional accordance with the recognized standards, such as OCIMF. tolerances of individual links by referring to W22.3. .3 Comments: Proposals: .4 Comments: Batch heat treatment will be accepted as an alternative to linear heat treatment. The acceptance of batch heat treatment is specified in A4.1. Break load testing of 3 link samples can be waived on provision that the
manufacturer can provide documented evidence that for each size of bar stock used to manufacture the chafe chain, that the break load tests were satisfactorily performed on a sample from the same bar stock of raw material. Proposals: Appendix. The statement of waiver of the break load tests is provided in Note 1 of the
.5 Comments:
Break load testing of chafe chain accessories including oblong plate and 42
tonnes shackle can be waived on the provision that the manufacturer can demonstrate that a destructive test of the same size and grade accessory has been performed in the last 6 months. Proposals: Same proposal as above 2.4. The statement of waiver of the break load tests is provided in Note 1 of the Appendix. .6 Comments: Note: In accordance with W22 sections 4.5 and 5.5, chafe chains, including
accessories should be shot blasted and 100% Non Destructively Tested (NDT) for cracks and deformation after proof load testing and prior to coating. Proposals: These are the condition of acceptance of the materials. A4.1
.7 Other specific concerns are provided in A.1, A.4.3, A.4.4, and A.4.5. 3. Source/ derivation of proposed requirement OCIMF 4. Decision by voting N.A. Submitted by the Hull Panel 1 September 2006
Permanent Secretariat note (29 September 2006): GPG discussion led to a number of changes being made to the draft text: ABS proposed that a reference should be made to the new Appendix from the main text of W22. LR requested that the reference to specific industry standards be removed in paragraph 4.2 since they LR also proposed that Note 1 in the Appendix be amended to better clarify the requirement.
did not recall this being normal practice for IACS URs. These changes were agreed by members together with a minor typographical amendment in para 1 of the Appendix. CCS made a proposal to replace the time-based Note with a quantity-based one, but this proposal did not gain support from the other members. GPG and Council agreement was reached on 24 September 2006.
Part B, Annex 4
Technical Background (TB) document UR W22, Rev.5 (December 2009) [Hull Panel Task 27] 1. Scope and objectives To develop the requirements for higher strength mooring chains in Grade R5 and also studless mooring chains. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale The old IACS WP/MW was aware of industrial need for higher strength offshore mooring chains other than those specified in the present the existing UR W22 and also a requirement for studless offshore mooring chains. WP/WM raised the Form A but the work was not initiated before reorganisation of the old IACS working groups. The work item was taken over by Hull Panel as their Task 27 and allocated to Project Team 2. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution Following a period required to discuss issues with manufacturers, analysis of issues raised by Authorities and collation of supporting technical information, the project team found common ground on the procedures to be followed. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: Fracture toughness testing, for example CTOD testing, has been a requirement in UR W22 for initial approval tests of chain manufacturers since original adoption. Acceptance values have now been included in the UR and are extended to initial approval tests of the forges and foundries for accessories. These values, established through design and operational experience, are considered to give sufficient resistance against unstable fracture in general. As CTOD values can be related to design issues, other values may be considered for specific cases of specific projects. Specifying these acceptance levels in the UR enables the manufacturer to establish Charpy impact toughness and fracture toughness relationships based on the increase in strength and thickness seen in this amendment. This allows the continued use of the Charpy Vnotch impact test as the measurement of toughness during quality control release testing of the product. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions A number of points were raised on the final draft submitted. These were valid points and amendments were made. The CTOD acceptance values for accessories were deleted based on ongoing experience, clarifications made to the numbers and location of CTOD specimens and the inclusions of a test location diagram. Furnace calibration procedures were also amended. 6. Attachments if any No attachment.

UR W24 Cast Copper Alloy Propellers
Version no. Rev.3 (May 2012) Rev.2 (May 2004) Rev.1 (1997) NEW (1996) Approval date 11 May 2012 24 May 2004 No records No records Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2013 -
Part A
Rev.3 (May 2012)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To align Table 1 (Typical chemical compositions of cast copper alloys for propellers) with industry standards. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: In the Hull Panel, proposals were submitted to amend Table 1 as follows: (a) Removal of the lower limit of Sn for CU1 (b) Correction of maximum limit of Sn for CU2 from 0.15% to 1.5%. (c) Correction of maximum limit of Sn for CU3 from 0.1% to an undetermined percentage. The Hull Panel agreed with the proposals for amending CU1 and CU2, but rejected the proposal to amend CU3. This decision was passed onto the Machinery Panel, which is responsible for this UR. For Technical Background, see Annex 2. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: 08 February 2012 made by: HP member Panel Approval: 05 April 2012 by: Hull Panel GPG Approval: 11 May 2012 (Ref. 12057_IGc)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.2 (May 2004)
Outcome of WP/MW Task 42. Reference: 3004a. See TB in Part B, Annex 1.
Rev.1 (1997)
No records available.
NEW (1996)
No records available.
Page 2 of 3

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR W24: Annex 1. TB for Rev.2 (May 2004)


Note: There are no Technical Background (TB) documents available for the original resolution (1996) or Rev.1 (1997).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
IACS Unified Requirement W24 (Rev.2) Technical Background Cast Copper Alloy Propellers
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W24 Cast Copper Alloy Propellers and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. Points of Discussion Nil.
*****
b)
c)
1/1
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for UR W24 Rev.3, May 2012

1. Scope and objectives The objective was to align Table 1 (Typical chemical compositions of cast copper alloys for propellers) with industry standards. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale It was brought to the attention of the Hull Panel that the Sn limits for certain alloys in Table 1 of UR W24 were not in line with comparable/similar alloys specified in Industry Standards. Therefore, the Table 1 was amended to better align with these standards. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution ASTM B584-2000 BS1982-2008 JIS H5120-2006 GB 1178-1987
4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: - Lower limit of Sn for CU1 removed. - Upper limit of Sn for CU2 corrected. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions Removal of the lower limit of Sn for CU1 In many national standards, the Sn content of typical CU1 has no lower limit. Some reports show that tin is an enhancing element for corrosion resistance and strength of yellow brass, but the content of tin should not exceed 1.5% in brass. Some information shows that if the tin content is less than 0.25%, its anticorrosive effect will be non-apparent. Therefore, the proposal to remove the lower limit of Sn for CU1 was accepted. Correction of upper limit of Sn for CU2 Some information shows that if the tin content is less than 0.25%, its anticorrosive effect will be non-apparent. Therefore, the proposal to correct the upper limit of Sn for CU2 from 0.15% to 1.5% was accepted. Correction of upper limit of Sn for CU3 Based on the background of the correction to CU2, the proposal to correct CU3 was submitted. In general, Hull Panel Members were not aware of technical issues or problems raised by manufacturers and do not see a necessity for the change. Additionally, the proposal did not specify a new upper limit. Therefore, the proposal to correct the upper limit of Sn for CU3 was rejected. 6. Attachments if any None
Part A
UR W25 Aluminium Alloys for Hull Construction and Marine Structure

Version no. Rev.4 (Dec 2011) Rev.3 (May 2006) Rev.2 (Dec 2004) Rev.1 (May 2004) NEW (May 1998) Approval date 02 16 27 24 28 Dec 2011 May 2006 Dec 2004 May 2004 May 1998 Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2013 -
Rev.4 (Dec 2011)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by non-IACS entities European Aluminium Association) (The Aluminum Association and
.2 Main Reason for Change: To add reference to ASTM standards for corrosion testing To add Temper H111 for Alloys 5083, 5383, 5059, 5086, and 5754 in Table 2 To update UR W25 as necessary
.3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: 1) Two separate requests were made to IACS by outside organizations to update or modify UR W25. These requests were taken into consideration by the Hull Panel and a proposal was developed. 2) In November 2010, The Aluminum Association requested a modification to Section 8.5: Corrosion Testing. There were two main requests. a) References to ASTM B928 in Section 8.5.2 and 8.5.3. ASTM B928 provides instructions for the preparation of reference photomicrographs and the batch acceptance of metallography. The Aluminum Association was concerned that UR W25 had neither of these instructions nor references to them. Therefore, a reference to ASTM B928, Section 9.4.1 was added to Section 8.5.2 for the photomicrographs and a reference to ASTM B928, Section 9.6.1 was added to Section 8.5.3 for the metallographic examination. b) Acceptance criteria in Section 8.5.3 for the Corrosion tests. The Aluminum Association was concerned that the acceptance criteria for
Page 1 of 4
the corrosion tests was neither stated explicitly nor contained within the referenced standards, ASTM G66 and G67. These standards only contained the detailed instruction for conducting the corrosion tests. Therefore, the acceptance criteria (as set in ASTM B928) were added to Section 8.5.3. In addition to the changes in UR W25, the Aluminum Association requested clarification of the origin of the under-thickness tolerances for rolled products, as the tolerances specified in UR W28 are stricter than the current industry standards. The Hull Panel was in favour of maintaining the current UR W25 underthickness tolerances. A response was sent to the Aluminum Association. 3) In August 2011, the European Aluminium Association (EAA) requested an update to the alloys and tempers covered by UR W25 (Section 3: Aluminium Alloys and Their Temper Conditions) to Table 2: Mechanical Properties for Rolled Products, 3mm t 50mm. The EAA requested that Temper H111 for Alloy 5083 for rolled products be reintroduced into the UR W25 and that corrosion tests, as specified for H116 and H321, be required for Tempers H111 and H112 Even though their mechanical properties are the same, Temper H111 was separated from temper O for all alloys and relocated to a new line in Table 2 and Table 3 during Rev.3 to avoid any conflict with dual certification. At this time, Temper H111 was removed from Alloy 5083 for rolled products (Table 2) because it was not registered or specified by ASTM for sheets and plates (ASTM B209 and B928). However, it was also removed from all of the rolled product alloys. Since several of these alloys with temper H111 are specified by European Standards (EN 13195 and EN 485-2) for rolled products, they have been reintroduced into Table 2. The alloys that now specify temper H111 are: 5083, 5383, 5059, 5086, and 5754. Alloy 5456 was not specified in the European Standard. In Section 8.5.1, Tempers H111 and H112 were added to the list of tempers that require corrosion testing for exfoliation and intergranular corrosion resistance. 4) Additional to the requested modifications, Table 2 was updated. In the Elongation columns, missing values were added and values not applicable for given thickness ranges were deleted for alloy 5059. In the Yield Strength header, the phase or range was added, since several values are given as ranges. This phase was originally in the header, but was dropped during Rev.3. In Section 14; Documentation, h) Corrosion Test Results was added to the list of details to be supplied by the manufacturer. For Technical Background, see Annex 4. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None
Page 2 of 4
.6 Dates: Original proposal: November 2010 Made by: Non-IACS entities (The Aluminum Association and European Aluminium Association) Panel Approval: 23 September 2011 by: Hull Panel GPG Approval: 2 December 2011 (Ref. 10175_IGg)
Rev.3 (May 2006)
To modify the UR in accordance with newly developed ASTM standard for marine alloys ASTM B928. See TB in Part B, Annex 3.
Rev.2 (Dec 2004)
To review comments from ASTM task group and relevant standards, in particular ASTM B 928-04. See TB in Part B, Annex 2.
Rev.1 (May 2004)
To rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003) and to revise the UR W25 from the viewpoint of the consistency between the special requirements and industry practices regarding thickness tolerances and use of alloy 5083-H321 in marine environments. See TB in Part B, Annex 1.
NEW (May 1998)
Page 3 of 4

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR W25: Annex 1. TB for Rev.1 (May 2004)



Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (May 1998).
Page 4 of 4
Part B, Annex 1
IACS Unified Requirement W25 (Rev.1): Technical Background Aluminium Alloys for Hull Construction and Marine Structure a) Objective/Scope The objective were as follows: 1. To rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference tothe new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). 2. To revise the UR W25 from the viewpoint of the consistency between the special requirements and industry practices regarding thickness tolerances and use of alloy 5083-H321 in marine environments. b) Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W25 Aluminium Alloys for Hull Construction and Marine Structure and ASTM G66 and G67. c) Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points for the above a) objective/Scope 2 had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Aluminium alloys; The alloys of type 5383 and 5059 are to be newly specified for both rolled and extruded products. Chemical composition and Mechanical properties; Chemical composition and mechanical properties of the above alloys are also to be specified accordingly. Tolerances; Dimensional tolerances other than underthickness tolerances for rolled products are to be in accordance with the requirements of recognized international or national standard. Corrosion testing; 1. Rolled 5xxx-alloys of type 5083, 5383, 5059 and 5086 in the H116 and H321 tempers intended for use in marine hull construction or in marine applications where frequent direct contact with seawater is expected are to be corrosion tested with respect to exfoliation and intergranular corrosion resistance. 2. The corrosion tests are to be in accordance with ASTM G66 and G67 or equivalent method. 3. The manufacturers shall establish the relationship between microstructure and resistance to corrosion when the above alloys are approved. A reference photomicrograph shall be established and approved for each of the alloytempers and thickness ranges relevant. 4. For batch acceptance, metallographic examination of one sample selected from the product is to be carried out. The microstructure of the sample is to be compared to the reference photomicrograph of acceptable material in the presence of the Surveyor. Branding; Tempers corrosion-tested are to be marked M after the temper condition, e.g. 5083 H321 M. Note: GPG added the changes to W25.1.4(..or ANSI H35.1) and W25.4.3 (chemical composition product analysis). 3004aIGd of 4 May 2004 refers. ***
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background Unified Requirement W25 (Rev.2) Aluminium Alloys for Hull Construction and Marine Structure a) Objective/Scope To review comments from ASTM Task Group and relevant standards, in particular ASTM B 928-04, and propose changes to UR W25 Rev.1. b) Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W25 Aluminium Alloys for Hull Construction and Marine Structure and ASTM B 209-04 and B 928-04. c) Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points for the above a) objective/Scope had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Tempers; - To delete the temper H32 from UR W25 Rev.1, since this temper will be exempted from corrosion testing in the ASTM standards. - To add temper H116 for alloy 5086. New grades; - To add alloy 5456 with the tempers 0, H116 and H321.
***** Submitted by WP/MW Chairman 17 September 2004
Part B, Annex 3
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT IACS UR W25 (REV.3, MAY 2006) 1. Scope and objective To modify the unified requirements UR W25 in accordance with the newly developed ASTM standard for marine aluminium alloys ASTM B928. 2. Background Recent changes have been made to IACS UR W25 at Rev.2, these were based on problems experienced in service with corrosion, and subsequent investigations by the US Coast Guard. Minor issues have been raised with Rev. 2, including the need for the provision of a US alloy that is used in the marine market, this need to be addressed. The US alloy referred to above is 5456, which actually was included in connection with the previous revision of UR W25 (Rev.2). However, we also received a number of comments from the ASTM Marine Task Group regarding other issues that needed to be changed/modified (see email from 2006-12-12). One of the important issues was to list the different tempers (e.g. O/H111) separately to discourage dual certification, as the processing of the tempers is different. Further, the ASTM Marine Task Group/Harold Bushfield proposed to change some of the specified properties to be more in line with recognised ASTM standards. 3. Points of discussions or possible discussions H111 was deleted from Table 2 due to the fact that the H111 temper is not registered and not specified by ASTM for sheets and plates. However, if it is used we may include H111 in a separate row with values taken from the EN-standard. NV 5086 H321 is neither specified in ASTM B209M/B928 nor in EN 485-2, and is therefore deleted from Table 2. IACS should not specify higher values than the ones specified in recognised standards, especially in standards like ASTM, hence some of the specified strength values have been somewhat modified. Previously the values for the O and H111 tempers were identical. This is not considered correct as pointed out by the ASTM Task Group. They are separated in the present proposal to discourage dual certification, due to the fact that these tempers actually represent different processing.
4. Source/derivation of proposed requirements ASTM B928
5. Decision by Voting A member expresses their reservation to UR W25(Rev.3) with the following comments: _n the past it was our understanding of IACS objectives to establish own technical regulations valid for the specific fields of application for ship classification. The consideration and to some extent the implementation of international standards had been done as deemed necessary and based on an internal approach. The adjustment to one single national standard such as ASTM seems to be quite questionable as other national standards do exist too. Any change of strength and elongation values or cancellation of temper conditions within the UR shall be done based on technical investigations. The formal change
and following one national standard does not consider the good experience gained with the "old" UR W 25 or other existing standards. Therefore we still prefer that H111 temper condition shall remain in the table as it is produced today by the manufacturers and applied in the industry. With respect to our point of view both temper condition O/H111 shall remain in the same line of table 2 and 3 as this table does not reflect certification status of the plates. The mechanical properties of the products mentioned in the tables are one part of certification. Dual certification just exist if both conditions are mentioned on the material certificate which is not the intention of these tables. The cancellation of temper condition H321 for 5086 is accepted. Any other change shall be considered on a technical base or kept as it was proposed recently for Rev. 02. 6. Appendix N.A.
Submitted by Hull Panel Chairman 10 April 2006
Note: The member removed its reservation at GPG level as follows:

Quote: To: IACS GPG Chairman, CC: IACS GPG Members CC: IACS Permanent Secretariat 1. Regarding the acceptance of UR W25 Rev. 3 GL is going to accept the modifications. 2. In addition to the material specifications as listed in Table 2 we will continue to use the temper conditions H111 for grades 5083, 5383, 5059, 5086, 5754 H321 for grade 5086 3. We account these temper conditions as equivalent or even superior (with regard to fabrication aspects) to the materials as listed in Table 2 of Rev. 3. Best regards, IACS GPG Member Unquote: 2006-04-28
Part B, Annex 4
Technical Background for UR W25 Rev.4, Dec 2011

1. Scope and objectives To modify the unified requirements UR W25, following multiple requests from industry associations. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Two industry associations, the Aluminum Association and the European Aluminium Association, requested modification to UR W25. The Aluminum Association requested: (1) References to ASTM B928 be added in Section 8.5.2 and 8.5.3, to provided instructions for the preparation of reference photomicrographs and the batch acceptance of metallography. (2) Acceptance criteria for the corrosion test be added in Section 8.5.3. (3) Clarification of the origin of the under-thickness tolerances for rolled products and the reason the IACS requirements differ from industry requirements. The European Aluminium Association requested (1) H111 temper for Alloy 5083 be included for rolled products in Table 2. (2) Corrosion tests be required for temper H111. 3. Source/derivation of proposed IACS Resolution ASTM B928 EN 13195 EN 485-2
4. Summary of changes intended for the revised Resolution Alloys: Temper H111 was added to the list of temper conditions covered by UR W25 in Section 3.1 Temper H111 was added to Table 2 for the alloys 5083, 5383, 5059, 5086, and 5754, as specified by European Standard EN13195 and EN 485-2 . Alloy 5456 was not specified in the European Standards. Table 2 was corrected to specify that yield strength may be given as a range. In Table 2, missing values were added and values not applicable for given thickness ranges were deleted from the Elongation column. Corrosion Tests: In Section 8.5.1, Tempers H111 and H112 were added to the list of tempers that require corrosion testing for exfoliation and intergranular corrosion resistance.
A reference to ASTM B928, Section 9.4.1 was added to UR W25, Section 8.5.2 for instruction on the preparation of photomicrographs. A reference to ASTM B928, Section 9.6.1 was added to UR W25, Section 8.5.3 for instruction on the preparation of the metallographic examination. The acceptance criteria for the corrosion tests (as set out in ASTM B928) were added to UR W25, Section 8.5.3. In Section 14; Documentation, h) Corrosion Test Results was added to the list of details to be supplied by the manufacturer.
Thickness Tolerance: It is understood that the thickness tolerance values were taken from an old Standard and it was noted that vessels designed with aluminium are typically done so on close margins. The thickness tolerances on extruded products in UR W25 were changed in 2004/2005 in order to bring them in line with recognized standards. This was due to the fact that most extrusions were manufactured in accordance with recognized standards with respect to thickness tolerances. We are aware that the under-thickness tolerances for rolled products differ from recognized standards, however IACS wanted to keep the somewhat stricter under-thickness tolerances compared to recognized standards. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any None
Technical Background Document UR W26 (Rev.1 June 2005) Requirements for Welding Consumables for Aluminium Alloys
a)
Objective/Scope The objective was to develop requirements of welding consumables for aluminium alloys 5383 and 5059. Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W26 Requirements for Welding Consumables for Aluminium Alloys. Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points for the above a) objective/Scope had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Base materials for test; Aluminium alloys 5383, 5456, 5059, 6005A and 6061 are to be added as base material for the test. Requirements for the transverse tensile and bend test; The requirements of tensile strength of quality grade RC/WC are to be amended depending on the base material applied for the tests. Approval range; It is understood that a welding consumable of quality grade RC/WC can be qualified using any base materials within that quality grade. The WP pointed out the need to specify the tensile strength of butt joint for each base material and the range of application of the different welding consumables to the base materials should be specified in matrix of IACS Recommendation 70 Guidelines on welding procedure qualification tests of aluminium alloys for hull construction and marine structures. This matter should be considered under Task No.54.
b)
c)
GPG 48/5.17/WP.1/ Annex B2-3 UR W[27]

IACS Unified Requirement W [27]
Cast steel propellers

a)
Objective / Scope The objective was to newly elaborate the Unified requirement for cast steel propellers. This draft UR applies to Cr-Ni alloyed cast steel propellers.
b)
Source of Proposed Requirements The requirements in this draft UR were developed referring to the UR W24 Cast copper alloy propellers, in addition to the corresponding specifications of individual Societys Rules and National/International Standards.
c)
The discussion had been mainly made on the following technical points and achieved full agreement of the members:
Type of alloy steels; Typical 4 types of Cr-Ni alloy steels are to be specified according to their microstructures and chemical components (major elements only). Heat treatment required for each type is to be specified, i.e., austenitization and temper for martensitic castings and solution treatment for austenitic castings. Test procedures and required properties; Mechanical properties such as proof stress, tensile strength, elongation, reduction of area and CVN energy, tested with the integrally cast test specimens are to be specified. Basically, one set of test specimens is to be taken for each casting. CVN test is not required in the case of the use of general service and the lowest Ice class notation. Also, separately cast test specimens and/or batch testing procedures may be allowed subject to the prior approval of the individual Society. NDE and repair procedures; NDE procedures/criteria and repair procedures (include repair welding) are to be given according to the severity Zones which divide the propeller surface into Zones A to C, that is in line with the corresponding specifications of UR W24 for better use. Also, procedure qualification tests for repair weldings are to be specified in the Appendix, in the same manner as UR W24. __
Page 1 of 1
IACS Unified Requirement W27(Rev.1) Technical Background Cast Steel Propellers

a) Objective/Scope The objective was to rationalize all UR Ws procedures on mechanical testing by reference to the new UR W2 (Rev.2, 2003). Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing requirements of the UR W27 Cast Steel Propellers and the UR W2 Test specimens and mechanical testing procedures for materials. Points of Discussion Nil.
b)
c)
*****
1/1
Part A
UR W28 Welding procedure qualification tests of steels for hull construction and marine structures
Version no. Rev.2 (Mar 2012) Rev.1 (Nov 2006) NEW (June 2005) Approval date 26 March 2012 14 November 2006 27 June 2005 Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2013 1 January 2007 1 January 2007
Rev.2 (Mar 2012)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by a IACS member
.2 Main Reason for Change: The objective was to modify the range of approval depending on type of welded joint for test assemblies specified in Table 3 Range of approval for type of welded joint. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: With regard to Table 3, it was proposed to remove D (both sides without gouging) from the range of approval of A (one side with backing) and also proposed to add A to the range of approval of D. As a result of Hull Panel discussions regarding these proposals, the Hull Panel agreed to the proposal to remove D at the 14th Hull Panel meeting held in February 2011. However, the proposal to add A was unable to attain the 2/3 majority of Hull Panel members needed for approval because five members did not support the proposal. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: 28 December 2009 Made by: HP member Panel Approval: 15 February 2011 by: Hull Panel GPG Approval: 26 March 2012 (Ref. 12020_IGc)
Page 1 of 9
Rev.1 (Nov 2006)
NEW (Jun 2005)
Page 2 of 9

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR W28: Annex 1. TB for NEW (June 2005)

Annex 2. TB for Rev.1 (November 2006)

Page 3 of 9
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background Document UR W28 (June 2005) Welding procedure qualification tests of steels for hull construction and marine structures
a) Objective/Scope The objective was to develop a new UR concerning welding procedure qualification test for hull construction, referring to the existing Rec.32. b) Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to the existing IACS Recommendation 32 Guidelines on welding procedure qualification tests for hull construction, ISO 15614-1 Specification and qualification of welding procedures for metallic materials Welding procedure test- and other recognized standards. c) Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Scope; The requirements are applicable to the welding procedure qualification tests for steels specified in UR W7, W8, W11 and W16. Preliminary welding procedure specification and welding procedure specification; A preliminary welding procedure specification (pWPS) is to be submitted prior to the tests. A pWPS may be approved as a welding procedure specification, upon satisfactory completion of the test. Qualification of welding procedure (Longitudinal tensile test); The test is to be carried in case where the welding consumable is not approved by the Society. Qualification of welding procedure (Impact test); 1) Sampling position and notch location are to be developed depending on the thickness and the heat input. 2) The requirements(test temperature and required energy) for steels specified in UR W11 are to be specified for steels with thickness not more than 50mm and are to follow the Rec.32 which are based on the impact test requirements of welding consumable specified in UR W17. 3) The requirements for steels specified in UR W16 are to follow the requirements of base metals. 4) Test for cast and forged structural steels are to be carried out only in case where the tests are required for the base metals.
Page 4 of 9
Part B, Annex 1
Range of approval; 1) Base metal The Range of approval for steel grade is to be specified with the following key concepts: - For each strength level, welding procedures are considered applicable to the same and lower toughness grades as that tested. - For each toughness grade, welding procedures are considered applicable to the same and two lower strength levels as that tested. - For high heat input processes above 50kJ/cm, welding procedure is applicable to that toughness grade tested and one strength level below. 2) Welding position Test assemblies are to be welded with the highest heat input position and the lowest heat input position, i.e. two positions are usually tested for approval of all positions, and all applicable tests are to be made. 3) Welding consumable Welding consumable having the same grade marks including all suffixes with that tested are to be included. 4) Heat input The upper limits of heat input for high heat input welding is to be stricter than normal heat input welding. 5) Type of joint The range of approval is to be specified with the concept that one side welding is superior to both side welding. Test records; The statement included in test record that the test piece was made according to the particular welding procedure is to be signed by the surveyor witnessing the test.
Permsec Note: In connection with approval of new UR W28, GPG decided to delete Recommendation No.32 from the Blue Book.
Page 5 of 9
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background Document UR W28 (Rev. 1 November 2006) Welding procedure qualification tests of steels for hull construction and marine structures
a) Objective/Scope Prior to the implementation of UR W28 (June 2005), which was adopted by the Council on 27 June 2005, the member societies found difficulties in the implementation of the UR based on the contracted for construction date as specified therein. As unanimously agreed upon by WP/MW, Hull Panel, GPG and Council, the contents of the requirements for welding procedure qualification tests remain unchanged. Revision 1 to the UR aims to clarify the application date of the requirements. b) Source of Proposed Requirements No changes are made from W28 (June 2005) c) Points of Discussion Issues of W28 (June 2005) 1) In the footnote 1 of the UR, it specifies that the UR is to be uniformly implemented on ships contracted for construction from 1 January 2007 as well as the manufacturing of which is commenced on or after 1 January 2007. 2) This means that all current welding procedures approved by the members societies in the past and being used by shipyards/manufacturers for long time, are no longer valid as the qualified welding procedures and new qualification tests are required to be performed for compliance with the UR W28. 3) There should be no point for introduction of the situation as mentioned in 2 above.
Solutions by W28 (Rev. 1 October 2006) 1) In order to solve the implementation issue, the following limit statements are provided in the new paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4: 1.3 All new welding procedure qualification tests are to be carried out in accordance with this document from 1 July 2007. 1.4 This document does not invalidate welding procedure qualification tests made and accepted by the Classification Society before 1 July 2007 provided the welding procedure qualification tests are considered by the Classification Society to meet the technical intent of this UR or have been qualified in accordance with the recognized standards such as ISO, EN, AWS, JIS or ASME.
Page 6 of 9
Part B, Annex 2
2) The above new descriptions clarify the application/scope of the UR W28 without deletion of the footnotes 1 and 2 of W28 (June 2005) as approved by Council on 27 June 2005. 3) The accepted welding procedures according to each Classification Societys rules are considered to meet the technical intent of this UR. d) Others A member advised of the need for them to reserve on certain technical aspects of the UR as a result of it's governance body review. Member will detail its reservations to Council as soon as possible.
Submitted by Hull Panel Chair, October 2006
Permanent Secretariat Note (November 2006): - Item (d) added by GPG following their discussion. - Revised W28 approved by GPG and Council, 14 November 2006 (6183_IGd)
Page 7 of 9
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background Document UR W28 (Rev. 2 March 2012) Welding procedure qualification tests of steels for hull construction and marine structures
1.
Objective/Scope To modify the range of approval depending on type of welded joint for test assemblies specified in Table 3 Range of approval for type of welded joint.
2.
Engineering Background for Technical Basis and Rationale Qualifying a welding procedure from one side with backing implies a technique with a designated joint geometry (root face, root opening, and groove angle), a designated backing material, and a heat input to achieve a sound weld in the root against the backing whether the backing remains in place or is removed. Utilizing this same technique within the limits of the (one side) procedure variables in a weld made from both sides may or may not provide a satisfactory root weld depending on joint geometry and heat input limits of the procedure.
3.
Source/Derivation of Proposed Requirements Hull Panel Member ISO 15614-1
4.
Summary of Changes Intended for the Revised Resolution In Table 3, item D was removed from the range of approval for item A.
5.
Points of Discussion and Decision by Voting Associated International Standards Rev. 1 of UR W28 was in line with the international standard ISO 15614. There was some concern regarding the fact that the changes made in Rev. 2 made the IACS requirements stricter than the ISO requirement. However, ISO is an international standard that is used for not only ships but also other industries, while an IACS UR is a requirement dedicated to ships. There is precedent among this UR and other URs where the requirements are stricter than their ISO equivalent. Additionally, there appears to be a contradiction among the more important welding qualification standards used in industry (ie ISO 15614, AWS D1.1, ASME IX) in this regard. Removing D from the range of approval of A Table 3 showed that, in cases where the welding procedure specifications of A were approved, C (both side welding with gouging) and D could be also included in the range of approval for the welding procedure specifications.
Page 8 of 9
Part B, Annex 3
Regarding D, it is important not to leave any defects in the root pass for quality control of welded joints. The condition of a groove in the root pass is similar to that of B and the root pass is required to be a penetration bead. Accordingly, the welding condition is different from A. Therefore, it was suggested that it was not appropriate to include D in the range of approval of A. That suggestion was accepted by the Hull Panel. Adding A to the range of approval of both side without gouging D In addition to the above, it was also proposed to add A to the range of approval of D, since A would be technically covered by the qualifications for D if the qualification level required for D is properly achieved,. However, some Hull Panel members commented that the qualifications for the welding procedure for D should not cover the procedure for A, given that certain factors for A such as the type of backing strip, heat input, and weld gaps are different from those applicable to D. As a 2/3 majority was not achieved, the proposal was rejected. 6. Attachments, if any None
Page 9 of 9
Technical Background Document UR W29 (June 2005) Requirements for manufacture of anchors
a) Objective/Scope The objective was to develop the requirements for the manufacture and certification of anchors. b) Source of Proposed Requirements The revised draft UR was developed referring to UR A1 Equipment and JIS F 3301 Anchors. c) Points of Discussion The discussion on the following technical points had been made and achieved full agreement of the members: Scope; The requirements are to be specified for manufacture of any types of anchors specified in UR A1. Materials; Cast steel, forged steel and rolled steel used for anchor are to be manufactured and tested in accordance with the UR W to be applied. Product test programme; The Society can require, in addition to proof load test, either of two kinds of product test programme to anchors, depending of product form i.e. cast, forged or fabricated anchor. In stead of drop test and hammering test required in Programme A, Charpy V notch impact tests for cast anchor and extended NDE are required in Programme B. In this regards, requirement of NDE for locations of anchor was specified based on UR A1. Repair criteria Repair is not permitted for fracture and unsoundness defected in hammering test and drop test. Certification; The Classification Society issues the certificate to the manufacturer, including the information of type, mass, ID No., grade of materials, proof test load, heat treatment, and marking the applied to anchor etc.
IACS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES LTD. PERMANENT SECRETARIAT: 36 BROADWAY, LONDON, SW1H 0BH, UNITED KINGDOM TEL: +44(0)207 976 0660 FAX: +44(0)207 808 1100 INTERNET: permsec@iacs.org.uk Web Site: www.iacs.org.uk Aug 2012
History Files (HF) and Technical Background (TB) documents for URs concerning Survey and Certification (UR Z)
Res. No. UR Z1 Title Annual and intermediate classification survey coverage of IMO Resolution A.977(25) as amended by IMO Resolution A.1020(26) Special hull survey of oil tanker Periodical survey of the outside of the ship's bottom and related items Surveys of hatch covers and coamings In-service testing of large permanently installed breathing gas containers onboard diving vessels Continuous system for hull special survey Hull Classification Surveys Hull Surveys for General Dry Cargo Ships Hull Surveys for Liquefied Gas Carriers Corrosion Protection Coating for Salt Water Ballast Spaces Corrosion Protection Coatings for Cargo Hold Spaces on Bulk Carriers Hull Surveys of Oil Tankers Hull Surveys of Bulk Carriers Hull Surveys of Chemical Tankers Current Rev. Rev.4_Corr.1 Jan 2011 Deleted (1994)
Superseded by UR Z10.1
HF/TB? HF
UR Z2 UR Z3 UR Z4 UR Z5 UR Z6 UR Z7 UR Z7.1 UR Z7.2 UR Z8 UR Z9 UR Z10.1 UR Z10.2 UR Z10.3
No HF No No TB HF HF HF No No HF HF HF
Rev.5 Apr 2011 Rev.2 1996 Deleted (May 1998)

Rev.5 July 2005 Rev.19 July 2011 Rev.8 Oct 2011 Rev.3 July 2011 Rev.1 1995 Rev.2, Corr. 1997 Rev.19 July 2011 Rev.29 July 2011 Rev.14 Aug 2012
Res. No. UR Z10.4 UR Z10.5 UR Z10.6 UR Z11 UR Z12 UR Z13 UR Z14 UR Z15 UR Z16 UR Z17 UR Z18 UR Z19 UR Z20 UR Z21 UR Z22 UR Z23 UR Z24
Title Hull Surveys of Double Hull Oil Tankers Hull Surveys of Double Skin Bulk Carriers Hull Surveys for General Dry Cargo Ships Mandatory Ship Type and Enhanced Survey Programme (ESP) Notations Requirements for Safe Entry to Confined Spaces Voyage Repairs and Maintenance No record Hull, Structure, Equipment and Machinery Surveys of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units Periodical surveys of cargo installations on ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk Procedural Requirements for Service Suppliers Periodical Survey of Machinery Calibration of Measuring Equipment Planned Maintenance Scheme (PMS) for Machinery Surveys of Propeller Shafts and Tube Shafts Survey Requirements for Automatic Air Pipe Heads Hull Survey for New Construction Survey Requirements for Shell and Inner Doors of Ro-Ro Ships
Current Rev. Rev.10 July 2011 Rev.12 May 2012 Deleted (June 2003)
Re-categorised as UR Z7.1
HF/TB? HF HF TB HF No HF
Rev.4 Mar 2011 Deleted (Sept 2000) Rev.3 Jan 2011
Aug 2002 Rev.3_Corr.1 Feb 2011 Rev.9_Corr.1 Aug 2012 Rev.2 Oct 2006 Apr 1999 May 2001 Rev.2 Oct 2006 Dec 2002 Rev.2 Apr 2009_Corr.1 Aug 2012 Corr.1 July 2011
TB HF HF TB TB TB TB TB TB HF
Part A
UR Z1 Annual and intermediate classification survey coverage of IMO Resolution A.997(25) as amended by IMO Resolution A.1020(26)1
Version no. Corr.1 (Jan 2011) Rev.4 (May 2010) Rev.3 (Sept 2005) Rev.2 (June 1999) Rev.1 (1994) NEW (1982) Approval date 05 Jan 2011 18 May 2010 18 September 2005 11 June 1999 No record No record Implementation date when applicable -
Corr.1 (Jan 2011)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Suggestion by IACS members
.2 Main Reason for Change: To ensure that UR Z1 do not include requirements for classification surveys of items which purely fall within the scope of the statutory certification. A number of IACS Members raised the point that the following items, which are currently required to be surveyed within the scope of classification, as per UR Z1, are in fact outside the scope of classification surveys: Item ref. (CA) 2.2.2.29 of IMO Res.A997(25) as amended, related to the confirmation that new equipment containing asbestos was not fitted on board since last survey (SOLAS 74/00/04 reg. II-1/3-5). Item (CA) 2.2.2.33 of IMO Res.A997(25) as amended, related to the confirmation that ship's identification number is permanently marked (SOLAS74/02, reg. XI-1/3). Item (CA) 2.2.2.35 of IMO Res.A997(25) as amended, related to the confirmation (for ships other than CSR bulk carriers and CSR oil tankers), that the coating system in dedicated SWB tanks is maintained and that maintenance, repair and partial recoating are recorded in the coating technical file (SOLAS 74/00/06 reg. II-1/3-2). .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None
Title changed from Annual and intermediate classification survey coverage of IMO Resolution A.948(23) at Rev.4. Note that the title was also changed at Revs.2 and 3.
Page 1 of 4
.4 History of Decisions Made: The decision was made to clearly exclude the three above items, which are covered by the Safety Construction Annual Survey through IMO Res.A.997(25) as amended, from the annual survey requirements of UR Z.1. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 Made by the Survey Panel Panel Approval: December 2010 GPG Approval: 05 January 2011 (Ref: 10052aIGb)
Rev.4 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: IMO Res.A.948(23) which is incorporated in UR Z1(Rev.3) had been revoked by IMO Res.A.997(25). .3 History of Decisions Made: KRS volunteered for drafting UR Z1(Rev. 4) taking into accounts of new requirements in IMO Res.A.997(25). During drafting, IMO Res.A.1020(26) which is the amendment to IMO Res.A.997(25) was published, therefore this was also taken into account in Rev.4. .4 Other Resolutions Changes None .5 Any dissenting views None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 17 February 2010 made by Survey Panel Survey Panel Approval: 7 April 2010 GPG Approval: 18 May 2010 (ref. 10052_IGb)
Page 2 of 4
Rev.3 (Sept 2005)
See TB document in Part B. The existing references to Res. A.746(18) were updated to A.948(23), including within the title.
Rev.2 (June 1999)
Complete revision see TB document in Part B. The existing reference to IMCO Res. A.413(XI) was replaced with A.746(18). Title changed from Annual survey of all cargo vessels and intermediate survey of tankers covering class matters in IMCO Resolution A.413(XI) to Annual and intermediate classification survey coverage of IMO Resolution A.746(18)
Rev.1 (1994)
NEW (1982)
Page 3 of 4
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z1: Annex 1. TB for Rev.2 (June 1999)



Annex 4. TB for Corr.1 (Jan 2011)
Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1982) and Rev.1 (1994).
Page 4 of 4
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 1 UR Z 1 Proposed Rev. 2

To review existing UR Z 1 and update as required.

WP/SRC members discussed and reviewed the requirements contained in IMO Resolution A.746(18) and UR Z 1 through correspondence and their meeting. UR Z 1 was updated to reflect the changes in IMO Res. A.746(18).
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background UR Z1 (Rev.3) Annual and Intermediate Classification Survey coverage of IMO Resolution A.746(18)
WP/SRC Task 3 Review of IACS URs Relating to Surveys, set as a continuous Task, discussed at the October 2004 meeting that a revision of UR Z1 was required due to the replacement of IMO Resolution A.746(18) with IMO Resolution A.948(23), which defines the annual and intermediate coverage of classification as related to IMO. WP/SRC set a deadline to complete the Task by 31 December 2004, but was not able to complete a draft by that time. This Task was then turned over to the Survey Panel at the Panels initial meeting in February of 2005. Survey Panel Discussion A draft was submitted to Survey Panel members by the Survey Panel Secretary with comments from Panel members, mainly editorial, in addition to the following: ABS Panel member stated in PSU5011_ABa In item 2.1 Load Line survey: ABS questions the need to have reference to paragraphs 1.2.3.1 through 1.2.3.2 of Annex 2 as these paragraphs refer to signing of the Load Line Certificate. We did not make reference to signing the Safety Construction certificate in other items. Z1 is a classification document only. Item 2.3 Machinery and electrical systems: ABS noted that revision did not include paragraph 2.2.2.27; "examining visually the condition of any expansion joints in sea water systems". It is suggested that this item be included as a classification item as expansion joints are extremely important and usually visually examined anyway by any experienced classification surveyor during annual machinery surveys as part of the piping systems. A failure of a large expansion joint could lead to rapid engine room flooding. RINA Panel member stated in PSU5011_RIa As regards item 3.2 - Oil tanker additional items, it is suggested to amend the text in brackets as follows to be consistent with the contents: "(Piping systems and cargo tanks and electrical circuits in dangerous zones)". As regards item 3.3 - Chemical tanker additional items, the last item 1.3.2.6 (which refers to noxious substances) is not to be included as similarly made for annual surveys. Survey Panel Decision All Panel members agreed with the attached comments, in addition to other Panel members editorial comments, and a final draft was submitted for GPG for approval by the Survey Panel Chairman.
Note: GPG agreed that no uniform application date for this revision was needed(4181aIGf)
Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 17 August 2005
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background for UR Z1 Rev.4 (May 2010)

1. Scope and objectives To amend the current UR Z1 referring to IMO Res.A.948(23) which had been revoked by IMO Res.A.997(25) as amended by IMO Res.A.1020(26). 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale As new amendments to the survey guidelines under the harmonized system of survey and certification, 2007, IMO Res.A.1020(26), had been published, the current UR Z 1 referring to IMO Res.A.948(23) was revised in accordance with IMO Res.A.997(25) as amended by IMO Res.A.1020(26). 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution N/A 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1) To add new requirements introduced in IMO Res.A.997(25) as amended by IMO Res.A.1020(26) 2) To re-arrange items reflecting the requirement numbers changes in Res.A.997(25) as amended by IMO Res.A.1020(26) IMO
3) To remove invalid requirements including the reference to Annex 1 para 1.2.3.5 in para 2.5 of UR Z1 as proposed from GPG 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any None
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 4
Technical Background for UR Z1 Corr.1, Jan 2011

1. Scope and objectives To remove from UR Z1 items which should not be covered by classification surveys, but remain subject to statutory surveys. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Marking of ships identification number, the issue of asbestos, the coating of WBT according to the IMO PSPC for ships other than CSR bulk carriers and CSR oil tankers contracted for construction on or after 8th December 2006, are items which are not covered by classification. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution UR Z1 and IMO Res.A.997(25) as amended. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: The following amendment is made to the annual survey requirements in UR Z1: 2.2 Hull items - Annex 1 Paragraphs 2.2.2.1 through 2.2.2.6 and 2.2.2.28 through 2.2.2.34 except for 2.2.2.29 and 2.2.2.33. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any None
Part A
UR Z3 Periodical Survey of the Outside of the Ships Bottom and Related Items
Version no. Rev.5 (April 2011) Rev.4 (Oct 2006) Rev.3 (Aug 2004) Corr.1 (Feb 2004) Rev.2 (Aug 2002) Rev.1 (1996) NEW (1984) Approval date 14 Apr 2011 29 Oct 2006 4 Aug 2004 11 Feb 2004 30 Aug 2002 No record No record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2012 1 January 2008 1 July 2005 1 July 2003 1 July 1996 -
Rev.5 (April 2011)
Item 1. A member of IACS raised the point that, although the issue of IWS visibility requirements has been discussed at various times, UR Z3 states The in-water visibility is to be good which can lead to surveyors being put under pressure to accept marginal visibility. Item 2. Continuous harmonisation between IMO Res.A744(18) as amended (ESP Guidelines) and IACS survey requirements. .2 Main Reason for Change: 1. 2. To improve the wording of UR Z3 to resolve this issue. The following proposed amendment to IMO Res.A744(18) as amended was not accepted at DE54: "For ships of over 15 years of age and over , inspection of the outside.... For ships of less than 15 years of age or less, alternate inspections.."
.3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: 1. 2. The decision was made to clarify UR Z3, para. 3.3.2. The decision was made to amend UR Z3, para. 3.1.3 in accordance with IMO Res. A744(18) as amended.
Page 1 of 3
.5 Other Resolutions Changes UR Z10s related to ESP ships, through a separate task. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 Made by the Survey Panel Panel Approval: January 2011 GPG Approval: 14 April 2011 (Ref: 11050_IGd)
Rev.4 (Oct 2006)
Rev.3 (Aug 2004)
Corr.1 (Feb 2004)
This correction amends reference to UR Z10.6 to read Z7.1. Subject number: 1060g
Rev.2 (Aug 2002)
Rev.1 (1996)
NEW (1984)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z3: Annex 1. TB for Rev.2 (Aug 2002)


Annex 3. TB for Rev.4 (Oct 2006)


Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1984), Rev.1 (1996) and Corr.1 (Feb 2004).
Page 3 of 3
Part B Annex 1
Technical Background Document UR Z3 Rev.2 August 2002 Revised UR Z3-Periodical Survey of the Outside of the Ships Bottom and Related Items (WP/SRC Task 101)
Objective and Scope: To revise the dry-docking survey requirements in UR Z10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and UR Z3 to harmonise them with those in Z10.1 (Rev.9) and reflect in UR Z3 the interim application of bottom survey requirements as introduced in MSC/Circ.1013 (Res.A746(18)) Source of Proposed Requirements: WP/SRC developed the revised UR Z3 through correspondence and at their Spring meeting this year. The revised UR Z3 is in accordance with the interim application of bottom survey requirements as introduced in the revised MSC/CIRC: 1013 which was approved at MSC 75 in May 2002. A new circular number will be assigned by IMO. The dry-docking requirements in UR Z10.1(Rev 9), Z 10.2(Rev 12) and Z10.3(Rev 5) need not be further amended as a result of this revised MSC/CIRC. UR Z10.4 para 2.2.2.1 is to be updated to correspond with the text in the same para of UR Z10.1. Points of Discussion: 1. 2. The revised UR Z3 was unanimously agreed by WP/SRC. BV proposed to suppress for the time being the reference to UR Z10,5 as same has not been submitted to GPG for approval. (ref 1060hBVa) The chairman of WP/SRC is in agreement with BVs proposal and suggests that UR Z10.4, UR Z10.5 and UR Z10.6 should be considered in the harmonisation project. (WP/SRC-Task 102) The chairmen of WP/SRC and GPG asked Mr Gil-Yong Han to verify the use of the term special/class renewal survey, which appears in para 1.2 and 2.3. Mr Han suggests to use the term special survey throughout the document and add a note to Z3 para 1.2: Some member Societies use the term Special Periodical Survey, others use the term Class Renewal Survey. The chairman of WP/SRC agrees to inserting this note. With respect to the definition of any five period in SOLAS 88 and Res A.746(18), the following text was approved at MSC 75. Any five-year period is the five-year validity of the Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate(SC) or the Cargo Ship Safety Certificate. (See FSI 10/17/Annex 5. MSC 75/WP.11/Add.1/13.9 reads the Committee approved it.) The chairman of WP/SRC advises that WP/SRC found it not necessary to introduce the above interpretation into UR Z3 with change of SC to Class Certificate. Instead, WP/SRC agreed to use during each five year special survey period. 5. The revised MSC/CIRC is applicable as from 1.July 2002. The chairman of WP/SRC recommends that the revised UR Z3 is given high priority and adopted from the same date.
3.
4.
Note by the Permanent Secretariat: After a considerable length of discussion on Z3.1.1(The Owner is to notify), GPG decided to keep it as it was. (GPG subject number 1060h)
Submitted by WP/SRC Chairman in July 2002
Part B Annex 2
Technical Background UR Z 3 Rev.3. This is a partial outcome of WP/SRCs Task 110 Develop an IACS resolution on the control of extensions of class beyond the special survey due date (UR Z 7, 2.1.2) and similar extensions to drydocking due dates which was to: a). define the Exceptional Circumstances under which an extension to special (renewal) survey and/or drydocking may be granted; b). provide a specific and consistent policy and procedures for extension surveys. The task was triggered by complaints by the Marshall Islands Administration at its meeting with its ROs in 2002 of a lack of consistency in this area. Under 2222bNVb of 21 January 2004, WP/SRC submitted amendments to UR Z3 to clarify the drydocking aspects. They confirm that an extension may be granted in exceptional circumstances, which term is to be defined in a revision of PR1A. In addition, the requirements for an in-water survey in lieu of dry-docking are made more specific. GPG approved the revision to UR Z3 on 1 April 2004 (2222bIGc). In Council discussion, the definition of exceptional circumstances agreed for the revision of PR1A was added as a footnote to para 3.1.2. The wording of para 3.1.2 itself was simplified. Adopted by Council on 4 August 2004 (2222bICd).
Permanent Secretariat 13/04/04 and 09/08/04.
Part B Annex 3
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR Z3 (Rev. 4), Z 7 (Rev. 14), Z18 (Rev. 2) and Z21 (Rev. 2)
Survey Panel Meeting March 2006 New Business Item Applying UR Z3, Z7, Z18 and Z21 for Military Vessels. 1. Objective To add the following new paragraph to UR Z3, Z7, Z18 and Z21 to reflect that special consideration may be used for military vessels: Special consideration may be given in application of relevant sections of this Unified Requirement to military vessels or commercial vessels owned or chartered by Governments, which are utilized in support of military operations or service. 2. Background This task was originally discussed during the Survey Panel meeting, which took place at ABS Houston on the 1st to 3rd March 2006; it was subsequently recorded under paragraph 3 new business of the minutes of this meeting. This initial started as a proposal for ABS to remove their reservation (see below) for military vessels against UR Z3 and Z7s. However all of the members agreed to the proposal. Current ABS Reservation: ABS allows variations in survey interval in agreement with US Government for military vessels or commercial vessels owned or chartered by the Government which are utilized in support of military operations or service.
3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel members through correspondence. 4. Discussion Survey Panel member from ABS raised this issue at the March 2006 Survey Panel meeting and volunteered to propose amendments to the applicable URs for Panel members to review and comment on through correspondence. At the Fall meeting of the Survey Panel, it was agreed upon by all Panel members that the proposed amendments for UR Z3, Z7, Z18 and Z21, which were proposed by ABS, were acceptable. 5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose January 2008 as an
implementation date. However due to other on going revisions to UR Z21 this UR will be held abeyance until the other revisions are completed. 6. Discussion at GPG: GPG amended the proposal by deleting the phrase military vessels or on the basis that military vessels and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes are out of the scope of IACS URs. The adopted amendment therefore reads: Special consideration may be given in application of relevant sections of this Unified Requirement to commercial vessels owned or chartered by Governments, which are utilized in support of military operations or service.
Submitted by Survey Panel Chair, October 2006 Updated by GPG to reflect their discussion
Part B, Annex 4
Technical Background for UR Z3 Rev.5, Apr 2011

1. Scope and objectives Item 1. To clarify the requirements in UR Z3 with respect to the in-water visibility during an inwater survey. Item 2. To harmonise IMO Res.A744(18) and IACS Unified Requirements with respect to the age limit above which the bottom survey is to be carried out in dry-dock. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Panel members agreed not to use a defined visibility distance. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution UR Z3 and IMO Res.A744(18) as amended and IMO Res.A997(25) as amended. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1. The following amendment is made to UR Z3:
Z3.3.2 The In-water Survey is to be carried out with the ship in sheltered water and preferably with weak tidal streams and currents. The in-water visibility and the cleanliness of the hull below the waterline is to be clear enough to permit a meaningful examination which allows the surveyor and diver to determine the condition of the plating, appendages and the welding. The Classification Society is to be satisfied with the methods of orientation of the divers on the plating, which should make use where necessary of permanent markings on the plating at selected points. 2. The following amendment is made to UR Z3:
Z3.1.3 Examinations of the outside of the ships bottom and related items of ships is normally to be carried out with the ship in drydock. However, consideration may be given to alternate examination while the ship is afloat as an In-water Survey, subject to provisions of Z3.3. Special consideration is to be given to ships of 15 years or over before being permitted to have such examinations. For ESP ships of 15 years of age and over, such examinations are to be carried out with the ship in drydock. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any None
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 59 UR Z 6 Proposed Rev. 3

To remove the ambiguity of survey requirements for ballast tanks for ships on hull continuous survey.

WP/SRC members discussed this issue and agreed that it is an administrative problem for each society to track due dates of ballast tanks survey. However, a footnote was added to UR Z 6 to clarify that ships on CHS are not exempt from other periodical surveys.
WP/SRC unanimously agreed -to the draft UR Z 6.
Technical Background Revision (4) of UR Z6-Continuous System for Hull Special Survey
As part of its continuous review of IACS URs relating to surveys, the WP/SRC has revised the UR Z6-Continuous System for Hull Special Survey. The following draft amendments were agreed unanimously by the WP and submitted to GPG for approval. Amendments First sentence below the title to be amended to read: For ships other than ESP ships (Oil Tankers, Combination Tankers, Bulk Carriers and Chemical Tankers) subject to UR Z10s and ships other than General Dry Cargo Ships subject to UR Z7.1 Paragraph 6.4, the following sentence to be added at the end of the paragraph: The survey in dry-dock may be held at any time within the five-year class period. New Note 3: General Dry Cargo Ships. For the application of the new requirements, a General Dry Cargo Ship is defined as a self-propelled ship of 500 gross tonnes or above, constructed generally with a tween deck and intended to carry solid cargoes. This excludes bulk carriers, refrigerated cargo ships, roll on-roll off ships and ships dedicated for the carriage of containers, forest products (but not log or timber carriers), woodchips or cement as well as livestock carriers and dock/deck ships. The changeover from continuous survey to special survey is to be carried out as early as possible and should be no later than the due date of the next intermediate survey, or the due date for completion of the current Continuous survey hull cycle, whichever is earlier. In this connection:(i) all items credited for Continuous survey within the previous 15 months may be accepted without further survey at the Surveyors discretion. (ii) all other items are to be surveyed and credited at the date of conversion. Phasing-in of UR Z7.1 The members of WP/SRC agreed unanimously that for general dry cargo ships the phasing-in period of UR Z7.1 will be latest by the first Intermediate Survey or Special Survey, whatever comes first after 1 January 2004. GPG proposed that as 1 January 2004 had already passed, the changeover from continuous survey to special survey should be carried out as soon as possible but not later than the due date of the next Intermediate or Special Survey or the due date of the end of the five year class period, whichever comes first after 1 July 2005. April 2004 (corr May 2004) **********
Technical Background Document UR Z6 ( Rev. 5 July 2005)
1.
Objective:
Revise text of Z6 to ensure that vessels 10 years of age and over where the survey requirements are based upon Z7 and the vessel is also on a Continuous Survey of Hull in accordance with Z6 that the ballast tanks are being surveyed twice in each five year Special Survey Period.
2.
Background
ABS had requested that WP/SRC review the requirements for ballast tanks in Z7 and how they should be applied under Z6 (Continuous Hull Surveys) for vessels 10 years of age and over where the survey requirements require all ballast tanks are to be internally examined at the intermediate survey and special surveys. WP/SRC developed a draft revision to Z6 and WP/SRC Chairman submitted the revision of Z6 to GPG following the October 2004 meeting. The revision was considered a minor amendment however at GPG several issues were raised and no consensus could be reached so GPG tasked the Survey Panel to review the matter again taking into account the GPG Correspondence.
3.
3.1 3.2
Discussion
WP/SRC developed a draft revision to Z6 in October 2004. GPG had several issues that were raised and no decision was made to amend Z6. Survey Panel, in the beginning of 2005, was tasked to review the issues again and amend Z6 as necessary. Z6.4 was amended by the IACS Survey Panel members, which clearly defined requirements for internal examination of ballast tanks for vessels over 10 years of age as required in Z7, for vessels on Continuous Survey of Hull.
3.3
Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 20 June 2005

UR Z7 Hull Classification Surveys
Version no. Rev.19 (July 2011) Rev.18 (Jan 2011) Rev.17 (May 2010) Rev.16 (Mar 2009) Rev.15 (Nov 2007) Rev.14 (Oct 2006) Rev.13 (Aug 2006) Rev.12 (Jan 2006) Rev.11 (Jun 2005) Rev.10 (Apr 2004) Rev.9 (Oct 2002) Rev.8 (Mar 2002) Rev.7 (Nov 2000) Rev.6 (Apr 1999) Rev.5 (Jul 1998) Rev.4 (1996) Rev.3 (1994) Rev.2 (1992) Rev.1 (1990) NEW (1990) Approval date 27 July 2011 04 January 2011 20 May 2010 18 March 2009 15 November 2007 29 October 2006 17 August 2006 4 January 2006 27 June 2005 21 April 2004 22 November 2002 22 March 2002 20 November 2000 28 April 1999 1 July 1998 No record No record No record No record No record Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2012 1 January 2012 1 July 2011 1 July 2010 1 January 2009 1 January 2008 1 July 2007 1 January 2007 1 July 2006 21 April 2004 1 July 2001 -
Part A
Rev.19 (July 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following external audit a member was advised that a small temporary doubler on a cross-deck strip of a bulk carrier should have been promptly and thoroughly repaired at the time of survey. The member carried out an investigation and found that the actions of the surveyor were fully justifiable, the temporary repair and short term Condition of Class imposed were an appropriate method of dealing with such a situation. The member advised that the current requirements for Prompt and Thorough Repair stipulated under the UR 7 and UR 10 series do not give any leeway for carrying out temporary repairs (and imposing a Recommendation/Condition of Class in accordance PR 35) where the damage in question is isolated and localised, and in which the ships structural integrity is not impaired. The Survey Panel discussed the matter and agreed that under carefully defined circumstances a temporary repair and short term Recommendation/Condition of Class would be an appropriate course of action.
Page 1 of 8
.3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was discussed by correspondence within the Survey Panel and at the Autumn 2010 Panel Meeting. Following discussion at which the possibility of a Unified Interpretation being raised was considered, it was eventually decided to make direct amendment to the relevant Unified Requirements. The wording of the new paragraph to be inserted as Para 1.3.3 in all relevant Unified Requirements was extensively discussed prior to agreement. The proposal was unanimously agreed by Survey Panel Members. .5 Other Resolutions Changes The identical amendment affects UR Z7, UR Z7.1, UR Z7.2, UR Z10.1, UR Z10.2, UR Z10.3, UR Z10.4 and UR Z 10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 Made by a Member Panel Approval: March 2011 GPG Approval: 27 July 2011 (Ref: 11118_IGb)
Rev.18 (Jan 2011)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Suggestion by an IACS member, further to an external audit, where the question of the applicable requirements for intermediate survey of cargo tanks of supply vessels over 10 years of age was raised.
.2 Main Reason for Change: To include classification requirements in UR Z7, for the intermediate survey of cargo spaces of ships over 10 years of age, for ships other than ships engaged in the carriage of dry cargoes only or ships subject to Z10.1, Z10.3, Z10.4 or Z7.2. This is in order to align UR Z7 with UR Z1: UR Z1 identifies intermediate survey requirements based on IMO Res.A.997(25) as amended by IMO Res. A.1020(26) which are, as a minimum, to be covered by classification surveys. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None
Page 2 of 8
.4 History of Decisions Made: The decision was made to keep the current para. 4.2.5 of UR Z7 which reflects item (CIn) 2.3.2.4 of the IMO Res. (dry cargo ships over 15 years of age, other than bulk carriers ESP or general dry cargo ships subject to Z7.1) and to add a requirement in a new para. 4.2.6 to reflect item (CIn) 2.3.2.3 of the IMO Res. Both the items are already part of UR Z1. The Panel was also of the view that supply vessels cannot be considered as "General Dry Cargo Ships" carrying solid cargoes and thus they fall automatically outside the scope of UR Z 7.1. Consequently, no reference to supply vessels is needed in the exemption list in para. 1.1.1 of UR Z 7.1. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: July 2010 Made by the Survey Panel Panel Approval: October 2010 GPG Approval: 04 January 2011 (Ref: 10167_IGd)
Rev.17 (May 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To improve requirements in UR Z7 for access to structure for survey. .3 History of Decisions Made: The Survey Panel reviewed the AVC Chairmans report to C59 on Quality Management Review with respect to thickness measurements in the context of PR 19, but following correspondence and discussions during the 10th Survey Panel meeting, members agreed that the provisions of PR 19 were adequate though the implementation might be inconsistent. In this context ABS pointed out possible difficulties in surveying bulkheads of general dry cargo ships protected by wooden insulation. Accordingly, this issue was discussed within the Panel. Draft form A for Survey Panel Task 68 was submitted to GPG on 29 Dec 2009. GPG approved Form A on 29 Jan 2010 and invited the Panel to take into consideration the following issue raised by RINA: "it is not clear to us the reason why the Panel agreed that the proposed amendments to UR Z7 would apply to "ships other than those covered by UR Z 7.1, Z 7.2 and Z 10s" (see the last sentence of the "Background"
Page 3 of 8
section). In fact, we are of the opinion that the proposed amendments to UR Z7 should apply also to the ships subject to UR Z7.1, Z7.2 and Z10s in the zones outside the scope of UR Z7.1, Z7.2 and Z10s (i.e. zones other than cargo area and ballast tanks).". At the Panels March 2010 meeting, the RINA member explained the grounds of the above-mentioned issue and the Panel agreed to delete the proposed Note indicating that the amendments would "apply to all ships except those subject to UR Z 7.1, Z 7.2 and Z 10s". .4 Other Resolutions Changes None .5 Any dissenting views RS Survey Panel Member recommended that specific requirements about new types of insulation to be removed for examination of underlying structure be included in the UR, even if in a different way and to a different extent from other types of insulation, such as loose insulation. However, this recommendation was not supported by the majority of the panel. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 16 August 2009, made by Survey Panel Survey Panel Approval: 2 February 2010 GPG Approval: 20 May 2010 (Ref. 10002_IGb)
Rev.16 (Mar 2009)
Survey Panel Task 62 see TB document in Part B.
Rev.15 (Nov 2007)
Survey Panel Task 1 (Concurrent crediting of tanks) see TB document in Part B.
Rev.14 (Oct 2006)
Survey Panel Meeting March 2006 New Business Item Applying UR Z3, Z7, Z18 and Z21 for Military Vessels. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.13 (Aug 2006)
Rev.12 (Jan 2006)
Page 4 of 8
Rev.11 (Jun 2005)
WP/SRC Task 102 Harmonisation of UR Z7s and Z10s See TB document in Part B.
Rev.10 (Apr 2004)
Deletion of para 5.4.5 no TB document available.
Rev.9 (Oct 2002)
WP/SRC Tasks 91, 93, 95, 98 no TB document available.
Rev.8 (Mar 2002)
WP/SRC Task 83 see TB document in Part B.
Rev.7 (Nov 2000)
Rev.6 (Apr 1999)
Rev.5 (Jul 1998)
Rev.4 (1996)
Rev.3 (1994)
Rev.2 (1992)
Page 5 of 8
Rev.1 (1990)
NEW (1990)
Page 6 of 8
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z7: Annex 1. TB for Rev.6 (Apr 1999)



Annex 4. TB for Rev.11 (Jun 2005)



Annex 7. TB for Rev.14 (Oct 2006)
Page 7 of 8





Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1990), Rev.1 (1990), Rev.2 (1992), Rev.3 (1994), Rev.4 (1996), Rev.5 (Jul 1998), Rev.9 (Oct 2002) and Rev.10 (Apr 2004).
Page 8 of 8
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 44 (Z 7)

Develop requirements for examination of specific components of ships bow, stern, side and inner weathertight doors by specialist company at annual, intermediate and special classification surveys.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC members through their experience in the examination of the weathertight doors. IACS Guidelines No. 8, Checksheet for Surveyors of Ro-Ro Ships Shell and Inner Doors Guidelines for Surveyors was referenced for requirements.
Date of submission: 31/3/99 By: WP/SRC Chairmans e-mail
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 1-A UR Z 7 Proposed Rev. 6

To review existing UR Z 7 to which a reservation has been lodged with a view to eliminating the cause for the reservation and achieving full implementation.

WP/SRC members discussed and reviewed the reservation lodged against the UR. A proposal based upon the members experience with soft coatings in small tanks was agreed to and contained in the proposed draft.
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 77 UR Z7 Proposed Draft Revision 7 (Including Rev.8 of Z10.1, Rev.11 of Z10.2, Rev.4 of Z10.3)

Extend the requirements for permanent repairs at the time of survey in UR Z 10.2 to all ships.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC members through correspondence and discussions at the September 2000 meeting.
UR Z7 was amended to apply prompt and thorough repairs to all vessels. The new wording defines a prompt and thorough repair to be a repair as a result of wastage and not an incident such as contact damage where a temporary repair or deferral of repairs could be permitted. This wording is more explicit than the wording in UR Z10.2 and should achieve a uniform application among the Members. WP/SRC also agreed to include these requirements in Z10.1, Z10.2 and Z10.3 in order to not effect A.744(18). WP/SRC unanimously agreed to the draft UR.
Note by Permsec GPG 49 (11-13 Oct. 2000) agreed that the same changes be introduced to Z10s and carried out editorial review of Z 10s.
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 83 Rev.8 of Z7 (para. 2.2.6 + Table 1, also see the attached)

To introduce additional survey requirements to address machinery failures and engine room flooding problems.

WP/SRC Chairman reported by e-mail 15 January 2002 that WP/SRC Members had discussed and reviewed the requirements contained in UR Z7 through correspondence and at their last meeting. When dealing with this task the WP/SRC agreed not to address the issue of machinery component failures due to the fact that the necessary competence was not available within the WP. The WP members were also of the opinion that WP/MCH was more able to deal with this part of the task.
WP/SRC unanimously agreed to the proposed amendments to Z7.
Note by the Permanent Secretariat (0065fIGc of 19 February 2002)
GPG agreed with ABS that in lieu of the WPs proposed additional wording to item 9 of Table 1, an additional item 10 should be added to the table in order to provide clarification with regard to the plating of the sea chest. With respect to the issues of machinery component failures, GPG decided as follows: AHG/CMC review the casualty report and database developed under 9168e at their March 2002 meeting with a view to assessing the additional info on machinery/equipment damages reported therein in relation to the database of machinery/equipment failures the AHG has been developing (AHG/CMC Task 01 Rev.1); AHG/CMC is to provide both databases (information) to WP/MCH with their comments in time for WP/MCH to review and discuss the materials at their Fall 2002 annual meeting; WP/MCH is then to assess and identify problem areas and provide recommendations for improvement (MCH Task 68). WP/MCH is to provide proposals to AHG/CMC and WP/SRC(Task 83 Rev.1) for their review during 2004. Date of submission: 5 March 2002 By the Permanent Secretariat


Part B, Annex 4
WP/SRC Task 102 HARMONIZATION OF UR Z7s AND Z10s Technical Background UR Z7 (Rev. 11) UR Z7.1 (Rev. 2) UR Z10.1 (Rev. 12) UR Z10.2 (Rev. 17) UR Z10.3 (Rev. 7) UR Z10.4 (Rev. 2) UR Z10.5 (Rev. 1)
Contents: TB for Harmonization Annex 1. TB for UR Z10.1(Rev.12, C49 amendments(coating-related)) Appendix 1: Memo for Coating, submitted to Council 49(June 2004). Appendix 2: DNV proposal (25 May 2005) agreed by Council
Annex 2. TB for Verification/Signature of TM Forms for records. Annex 3. TB for revision of UR Zs concerning anodes. 1. Objective
To amend UR Z7s and Z10s in order to make the texts of the above-mentioned URs consistent eliminating all the differences both in substance and in wording (WP/SRC Task 102).
2.
Background
In the process of approving UR Z10.4, GPG found it necessary to amend the other existing URs Z10.1, Z10.2, Z10.3, Z10.6 and Z7 in order to eliminate any inconsistencies existing among them.
3.
Methodology of work
The WP has progressed its work through many sessions, both during the periodical meetings and dedicated meetings restricted to a Small Group of Members (BV, DNV, GL, LR, RINA) who developed the work in order to be more efficient. All the proposed amendments of the Small Group have regularly been circulated to all Members for comment and agreement.
Page 1 of 4
4.
Discussion
4.1 The WP/SRC has completed a comprehensive comparative review of UR Z7 and Z10s, and identified inconsistencies which existed among them. During this review, attention was given to the severity of the requirements applicable to the same spaces/structural areas on different types of ESP ships. As a result, the inconsistencies were eliminated making the URZs harmonized. However, there has been no change to the scope and extent of the survey requirements. 4.2 The starting point for each UR was the most updated version available at the time of commencement. Any revision to the URZs, which were introduced during this task, was taken into account. As for instance, the UR Z10.1 was initially amended based on Rev. 9, while the last amendments are based on Rev. 11 and the UR Z10.2 was initially amended based on Rev. 13, while the last amendments are based on Rev. 16. The proposed revisions of URs Z10.1 and Z10.4 have not been numbered, as there will be revisions to those URs before the revisions introduced by the Task 102 are adopted. In fact, GPG is currently developing a Revision 12 of Z10.1 with the view to introducing significant improvements in the survey regime for ballast tanks (including combined cargo/ballast tanks) of oil tankers and UR Z10s applicable to oil tankers will also have to be revised by incorporating the amendments to A.744(18) contained in Resolution MSC 144(77), which enter into force 1 January 2005 (see 4.3 below). 4.3 Also, in harmonizing UR Z10.1 and Z10.2 care has been taken to align the corresponding text with that of IMO Res. A.744(18). However, it has been noted that the amendments to A.744(18) contained in Resolution MSC 144(77), which enter into force 1 January 2005, have not been incorporated into the IACS UR Z10s applicable to oil tankers. It seems that the updating of the above-said UR Z10s will be done by the Perm Sec and reviewed by the WP/SRC Chairman and then circulated for adoption by GPG with concurrence of Council Members for uniform application from 1 January 2005. It is understood that the revisions of the UR Z10s affected by those amendments will not include the changes introduced by the Task 102, as the implementation date proposed for those changes is 1 January 2006 (see below 6. Implementation). 4.4 In the course of the work the WP has been developing for more than two years, several additional Tasks were assigned to the WP by GPG which affected the development of Task 102. The additional tasks which have been taken into account are the following: 1) In the course of Council discussion on UR Z10.6 (General Cargo Ships), certain inconsistencies were identified between Z10.6 and other Z10s. WP was instructed to expedite Task 102 (1060gIAa, 12 June 2002); 2) WP was instructed to include Survey Planning for Intermediate Survey into harmonization work (2108_IAa, 12 July 2002); 3) GPG instructed WP to consider whether Z10.6 should be re-assigned as Z7.1, in connection with the harmonization work. 1060gIAb, 20 Sept 2002.
Page 2 of 4
Z7.1 developed; 4) Partial outcome (Z7 and Z7.1) was submitted to GPG on 17 July 2003(1060g). Council decided that approval of Z7(Rev.10) and Z7.1(Rev.2) is postponed until the harmonization is completed (1060gICb, 6 April 2004); Council Chairman instructed WP/SRC to Members comments on the draft revision of UR Z7 and Z7.1 (collected under s/n 1060g, 1060gNKi (30/03/2004) in particular) on 6 April 2004. 5) GPG tasked WP to include the amendments to Z10.2 / Z11 (BCs with hybrid cargo hold arrangements), deleting sheets 15 and 16 for ore carriers, into the harmonized UR Z10s (2212aIGa, 19 Jan 2004); 6) GPG tasked WP to consider whether the requirements relevant to examination of Fuel Oil Tanks in the cargo area at each Special Survey should be put into Z 10s, and internal examination of FOT at Intermediate Survey after SS 2 is needed. (1060gIAf, 30 Jan 2004); 7) GPG tasked WP to harmonize tank testing requirements in Z7s and Z10s. (3006lIAa, 5 April 2004); 8) GPG tasked WP with Task 108 - Develop uniform survey requirements for air vent pipes including the welded connection to deck. Z22 developed. GPG instructed WP to incorporate Z22 into the harmonized Z10s; 9) GPG tasked WP with Task 114 - Verification and signature of TM reports. REC 77(Rev.1) developed and approved on 29 July 2004. Council approved parallel amendments to Z7.1 and Z10s (TM Forms included) and instructed WP to incorporate these into the harmonized Z10s: Recommendation No.77 was revised (Rev.1, July 2004); Z7.1 para.6.3.2 and Z10s para.7.3.2 so amended. Surveyors signature is deleted from all TM Forms in Z10s; A note is added to Annex II(Z10s) declaring that Annex II is recommendatory. WP/SRCs investigation into Members practice in dealing with verification and signature of TM reports is annexed for record keeping purpose. See Annex 2. 10) GPG tasked WP to consider the BV comments on TM may be dispensed with. and include the findings into the harmonized Z10s ( 2219iIAa, 7 April 2004).
5.
Agreement within the WP/SRC
All Members have unanimously agreed the attached final versions of URs.
6.
Implementation
WP/SRC is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming Council adoption in December 2004, WP/SRC would propose January 2006 as implementation date.
Page 3 of 4
Annex 1: TB for UR Z10.1(Rev.12, C49 amendments, see Permsecs note 1 below) Annex 2: WP/SRC Task 114, verification and signature of TM reports(see 9 above). Annex 3: TB for revision of UR Zs concerning anodes.
Note by the Permanent Secretariat 1. Annex 1 to this TB contains background for amendments to UR Z 10.1(Rev.12) relating to FAIR/POOR/GOOD (C49 amendments). Council at its 49th meeting (June 2004) agreed/decided that comparable changes should be added to Z10.3 and Z10.4.
2. Appendix 3 TM sampling method has been added to UR Z10.1 and Z10.4 to keep them consistent with IMO Res.MSC.144(77). The amendments to A.744 contained in MSC.144(77) entered into force on 1 January 2005. (GPG s/n 4181) Under s/n 4072g, paragraph 2.4.6 of UR Z10.1 and 2.4.6 and of UR Z10.4 (paragraph numbering is now harmonized) were amended in order to provide a link between the main text of the UR Z10.1 and 10.4 and the new Annex III Appendix 3 containing the MSC Res.144(77). Further, it was agreed that the requirements for evaluation of longitudinal strength of the hull girder (as written in MSC.144(77)) should not be required for Intermediate Survey unless deemed necessary by the attending Surveyor. This is covered in 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.4.1 of Z10.1 and Z10.4.
3. GPG agreed that the amended UR Zs should be implemented from 1 July 2006 altogether.
4. DNVs proposed amendments to UR Z10.1, Z10.3 and Z10.4 concerning annual survey of ballast tanks were agreed by Council (1060gICq, 27 June 2005). See Appendix 2 to Annex 1.
5.
Annex 3 contains a TB for revision of UR Zs concerning anodes.
Date: September 2004 Prepared by the WP/SRC
_ _ _
Page 4 of 4
Annex 1 to Technical Background UR Z 10.1 (Rev.12, C49 amendments(coating-related))

1. Objective To introduce significant improvements in the survey regime for ballast tanks (including combined/ballast tanks) of oil tankers as matter of strategic concern and urgency to IACS, given the aging of both the single and double hull tanker fleets and the problems encountered with corrosion of ballast tanks in several shipping casualties.
2.
Background Draft amendments to UR Z10.1 were submitted to Council 47 (June 2003) and agreed in principle.
3.
Discussion There was particular concern over accelerated corrosion with age (as the thinner the material, the more rapidly the allowable diminution margin percentage disappears) especially where coatings have broken down. There is also a disincentive for any spend on maintenance of the structure of a ship within a few years of its statutory scrapping date. Council discussion by correspondence had evolved to the position of substantive proposals summed as follows (3095_ABa, 2 June 2003): 1. Enhance the Intermediate Survey in Z10.1, Z10.3 and 10.4 for Tankers after 2nd Special / Renewal Survey to the same level (scope of work) as the preceding Special / Renewal Survey). This corresponds to the latest revision to UR Z10.2. 2. At Annual Survey of ballast tanks with substantial corrosion, the overall survey is to be replaced by close-up survey with thickness measurements of the exposed area. 3. Proposed to task WP/SRC to re-consider the acceptance criteria for the rating FAIR further. For this, eliminate FAIR, leaving only GOOD and POOR redefined as appropriate. 4. Proposed to task WP/SRC to explicitly require close-up survey of Suspect Areas identified at the previous Special Survey.
Council 47 discussed the proposals(June 2003) as follows: 1. Definition of FAIR Council 47 agreed that FAIR would be retained as a rating and that GPG should instruct WP/SRC to redefine FAIR, so that there would be a clear differences between FAIR, POOR and GOOD. It was also agreed that for oil tankers the Intermediate Survey following Special Survey No.2 would have the same scope as Special Survey No.2(Z10.1). WP/SRC should also clarify the definition of satisfactory repair. Based on the strong majority, Council agreed to discuss with Industry annual surveys of ballast tanks when coating is found in LESS than GOOD condition at special survey, with the objective to encourage the owner to carry out repairs and maintenance of coating to GOOD condition. DNV and NK stated that they could not accept a requirement for annual surveys of ballast tanks when the coating condition is less
Page 1 of 2
than GOOD and proposed that GOOD be changed to FAIR (3095_IGc, 30 June 2003) 2. 3. 4. 5. ABS proposed amendments to Z10.1(annual examination of BWTs in certain conditions) were approved. C 47 agreed that the BWT coating requirements (Z10.1.2.2.3) for intermediate Survey after SS 2 should be the same extent to the previous SS. Given the substance of the changes, the revised Z10.1 should be shown to Industry before adoption. A guidance for coating repairs needs to be developed by WP/SRC with reference to TSCF Guidelines.
Following Council 47, the draft text of Z10.1(Rev.12) was distributed to Industry and discussed at the IACS/Industry meeting on 29 August 2003. Industry indicated that UR Z10.1(Rev.12) is acceptable, provided that appropriate IACS guidelines on coating repairs are developed. The Small Group on Coating (SG/Coating) under WP/SRC prepared draft guidelines on coating repairs and considered the definitions of GOOD / FAIR / POOR. The SG/Coating did not change the definitions and found that the Guidelines provide useful clarifications on the definitions and criteria in achieving an industry wide uniform judgement of coating conditions as well as what is needed to restore GOOD conditions. Further, an IACS/Industry JWG/Corrosion was established and met in February 2004. The outcome is (3095_IGh, 4 June 2004): - Draft Guidelines on Coating Repair (IACS REC 87) - Draft UR Zxx (mandatory coating of cargo tanks on oil tankers) - Draft UI SC 122 (Rev.2) mandatory coating of ballast tanks
4.
Others 1. Z10.11.2.2bis - Definition of Combined Cargo/Ballast Tank. as a routine part of the vessels operation and will be treated as a Ballast Tank. .... By so amending, Z10s do not need to repeat Ballast Tanks and Combined cargo/salt water Ballast Tanks in addressing the ballast tanks. Hence, all the references to and Combined cargo/salt water Ballast Tanks were deleted. Z10.1.2.2.1.2: The aim of the examination is to be sufficient to discover substantial corrosion Comparable changes are to be added to other UR Zs wherever the same sentence occurs. IACS Guidelines for Coating Maintenance & Repairs for Ballast Tanks and Combined/Ballast tanks on Oil Tankers are referenced where relevant. Comparable changes are to be added to UR Z10.3 and Z10.4, after adoption of Z10.1(Rev.12).
2.
3. 4.
Attached: Memo on Coating Matters (GPG Chairman)

9 June 2004 Prepared by the Permsec
Page 2 of 2
Appendix 1 to Annex 1:
MEMO on Coating matters
1. Background and discussion within IACS on UR Z10.1 (draft Rev.12) between 29/01/03 and 14/08/03
In view of the survey experience with oil tankers, it was proposed that all ballast tanks should be examined, routinely and uniformly, at annual surveys on ESP tankers exceeding 15 years of age. IACS should amend UR Z10.1 to require the examination of ballast tanks on such ships at each annual survey. This is simple, clear and thorough and not subject to interpretation. (2242_ABq dated 29/1/03) Then, ABS modified the proposal asking, for tankers subject to URs Z10.1, Z10.3 and Z10.4, exceeding 15 years of age, that the current requirement - pertaining to annual examination of Ballast Tanks adjacent to cargo tanks with any means of heating - be deleted and replaced by a simpler and more stringent requirement that all Ballast Tanks be subject to survey at each subsequent annual survey where either substantial corrosion is found within the tank or the protective coating is found to be in less than GOOD condition and the protective coating is not renewed at special survey or intermediate survey. This will ensure that all Ballast Tanks with substantial corrosion or protective coating which is not in GOOD condition at the time of special survey or intermediate survey will be examined at each subsequent annual survey on tankers exceeding 15 years of age. (2242_ABzb dated 14/3/03) This was later expanded to include all tanks used routinely for ballast water, both ballast-only and cargo/ballast tanks (2242_ABzc dated 14/3/03). ABS further reviewed the issue of the survey of salt water ballast spaces and combined cargo/salt water ballast spaces with ABS' governing bodies in light of recent casualties and survey findings on other tankers. Their review found an increasing amount of coating breakdown/failure and subsequent rapid wastage in key structures after Special Survey No. 2, i.e. after 10 years of age. These conditions are most prevalent in the under deck structure and the side shell structure in way of the deep loadline. In a number of cases the serious wastage has caused fracturing of the under deck longitudinals and in some cases fracturing has extended to the main deck structure. This led ABS to refine proposed amendments to URs Z10.1, Z10.3 and Z10.4 to require (2242_ABzf dated 9/5/03): a. For Tankers exceeding 10 years of age Salt Water Ballast Spaces and Combined Cargo/Salt Water Ballast Spaces. For tankers exceeding 10 years of age, salt water ballast spaces and combined cargo/salt water ballast spaces are to be internally examined at each subsequent Annual Survey where substantial corrosion is found within the tank or where the protective coating is found to be less than GOOD condition and protective coating is not repaired. Internal examination to be an Overall Survey. b. For Tankers exceeding 15 years of age:
Salt Water Ballast Spaces and Combined Cargo/Ballast Spaces. For tankers exceeding 15 years of age, salt water ballast spaces and combined cargo/ballast spaces are to be examined internally at each subsequent Annual Survey. Where substantial corrosion is found within the tank, or where the protective coating is found to be in less than GOOD condition and the protective coating is not repaired then in addition to an Overall Survey, under deck structure and the side shell structure in way of the deep loadline is to be subject to Close-up Survey. NK and BV replied that the proposed amendments made by ABS need to be substantiated in a transparent manner with technical data that ABS may possess and put forward for further assessment and discussion. (2242_NKn dated 14/5/03 and 2242_BVz dated 16/5/03) DNV (2242_NVn dated 2/6/03), having carefully considered the practical consequences of taking the ship off-hire for gas freeing etc. and being concerned about the difficulties to have these surveys executed in a safe manner and whether the intended safety benefits in implementing the proposed extended scope of the annual survey of Ballast tanks will be met, proposed the following alternative measures which would be as effective and may not have such delaying effects to the ship: 1) Enhance the Intermediate Survey in UR Z10.1, 10.3, and 10.4 for Tankers after the 2 Special / Renewal Survey to the same level (scope of work) as the preceding Special / Renewal Survey. (This will correspond to the latest revised requirements of UR Z10.2 for Bulk Carriers.) 2) At Annual Survey of ballast tanks with substantial corrosion the overall survey should be replaced by close up survey with thickness measurements of the exposed area. (An overall survey of these tanks does not give sufficient information of the development of the areas with substantial corrosion.) 3) Further we will not fail to mention that the WP/SRC has proposed to extend the close up survey in cargo and combination tanks to 30% from the 3 Special / Renewal Surveys. 4) Experience has shown that the coating condition rating category FAIR has a tendency to be stretched too far into the POOR condition. We will therefore propose that we task the WP/SRC to reconsider the acceptance criteria for the rating FAIR further. 5) We do also question the need for redefining the definition of combination tanks, particularly since the category I tankers which are the ships that normally are fitted with these type of tanks are to be phased out 2 to 4 years from now. However DNV will not oppose to such a redefinition. DNV requested Members to consider the above as an alternative to the ABS proposal, bearing in mind that we ought to present this to the industry prior to deciding. ABS (3095_Aba dated 2/6/03), having further considered its earlier proposals in light of NVn, submitted a revised proposal for consideration by Council at C47 and replied to the above 5 DNV proposals as follows: 1) ABS fully supports this proposal. 2) While ABS agrees with this proposal, it is in fact already provided for in Z7 (3.2.3) and Z10.1 (3.2.5.1)--which require that "Suspect areas (which include any area where substantial corrosion is found) identified at previous Special Survey are to be examined. Areas of substantial corrosion identified at previous special or intermediate survey are to have thickness measurements taken." To us, this implies that close-up survey of these areas is to be done at annual survey in conjunction with the thickness measurements. However, we can
agree to tasking WP/SRC to explicitly require "close-up" survey in this connection and to amend Z7, and all the Z10's, appropriately to make this explicit, if there is majority support for this. 3) We agree that this has been put forward to GPG by WP/SRC via 0237hNVb, 27 May. However, these additional CAS close-up survey requirements do not apply to salt water ballast tanks; only to cargo oil tanks and combined cargo/ballast tanks. 4) We agree with this assessment and we propose that the only way to eliminate the subjectivity and raise the standard is to eliminate the category "FAIR" completely; leaving only "GOOD" and "POOR" redefined as follows: "GOOD -- condition with no breakdown or rusting or only minor spot rusting. POOR -- any condition which is not GOOD condition." 5) ABS does not agree with this proposal. We are particularly concerned that we need a very thorough and robust survey regime for these tankers precisely because they are subject to mandatory phase out over the next several years. We are very concerned that without additional IACS requirements, these tanks will receive little or no inspection and maintenance by owners or others after their last special or intermediate survey, if no substantial corrosion is found at that time. Rapid, localized wastage in way of deteriorating coatings may pose significant hazard if the survey regime is not further tightened as we are proposing. In conjunction with the above comments on DNV proposals, ABS further considered their previous proposal in ABzf and modified it as follows: ABS simplified the proposal to require annual examination of all salt water Ballast Tanks and combined Cargo/salt water Ballast Tanks irrespective of age, when either substantial corrosion is found within the tank or the protective coating is found to be in less than GOOD condition and is not repaired. the requirement for annual (close-up) examination of salt water ballast tanks and combined tanks is already required in Z10.1 (3.2.5.1). ABS proposed adding it to 2.2.3 for clarity and emphasis so that all the conditions which may lead to annual examination of such tanks are listed together in one place. Since the principal problem that we are trying to address is rapid, localized corrosion in way of breakdown or deterioration of the protective coating, we are proposing that the coating condition should be found and kept in "GOOD" condition to obviate the need for annual examination. The attached proposal is made together with the proposals in items 3.1 (intermediate following Special survey 2 to have same scope as prior Special survey) and 3.4 (eliminating "FAIR" and redefining "POOR" as any condition other than "GOOD" condition. ABS requested to decide on a course of action at C47 for tightening the survey regime for tankers. They agreed that industry be informed of Council's decisions in this regard prior to IACS making the decision public, but IACS should maintain its independence and take decisive action in this matter. Debate with industry can only lead to delay and to a watering down and compromising of these important requirements. NK agreed to task WP/SRC to reconsider the acceptance criteria of "FAIR" for clearly define the border between "FAIR" and "POOR" condition. However, NK strongly opposed the elimination of "FAIR" coating condition from UR Zs because this can not resolve to remove subjectivity of coating assessment. The three-categorization system of coating condition should be retained. (3095_NKa dated 5/5/03)
Outcome of C47 At C47, it was agreed that Fair would be retained as a rating and that GPG should instruct WP/SRC to redefine Fair, so that there would be a clear differentiation between Fair, Poor and Good. It was also agreed that for oil tankers the Intermediate Survey following Special Survey No.2 would have same scope as Special Survey No.2 (Z10.1). WP/SRC should also clarify the definition of satisfactory repair. Based on strong majority support Council agreed to discuss with Industry annual surveys of ballast tanks when coating is found in LESS than GOOD condition at special survey, with the objective to encourage the owner to carry out repairs and maintenance of coating to GOOD condition. This matter should be discussed with Industry prior to adoption of any UR by Council. In a final summary, the Chairman proposed that a constructive dialogue with Industry should take place on the IACS proposal as set out in WP1 plus maintaining 3.2.5.2 modified to say that ballast/combined ballast/cargo tanks will be subject to annual survey when considered necessary by surveyors. After discussion in the JWG (Industry/IACS), GPG should propose final rules for this matter to Council, including acceptable repair definition. FUA 17: To instruct WP/SRC to develop guidance on coating repairs and more precise definition of Fair
coating condition.
Once approved, these requirements should be incorporated into Z10.3 and Z10.4. FUA 15
1) To prepare a draft revision to UR Z10.1 incorporating C 47 decisions: The definition of FAIR remains as it is; ABS proposed amendments to Z10.1 (annual examination of BWTs in certain conditions) were approved; C47 agreed that the BWT coating requirements (Z10.1.2.2.3) for Intermediate Survey after Special Survey No.2 should be the same extent to the previous Special Survey. Given the substance of the changes, the revised UR Z10.1 should be shown to Industry (OCIMG/Intertanko first among others) before adoption for their review and comments. A guidance for coating repairs needs to be developed by WP/SRC with reference to TSCF Guidelines. 2) GPG Members are to confirm the draft revision to Z10.1 in consultation with their WP/SRC members by correspondence. See 3095_IGa of 13/06/03.
According to C47 FUA 15, GPG Chairman circulated (3095_IGa dated 13/6/03) draft amendments to UR Z10.1 as agreed in principle at C47. Having received a number on comments, GPG Chairman (3095_IGb dated 27/6/03) informed that the Council Chairman confirmed that GPG is not to amend the principles agreed at C47, i.e. we are not empowered to change "GOOD" to "FAIR" as proposed by DNV and NK, nor to amend the definitions of "FAIR" and "POOR" as proposed by DNV.
DNV's intention to possibly lodge a reservation was noted, however the matter should be raised at Council and not be dealt with by GPG. An amended draft text incorporating the nonsubstantive changes proposed by Members was circulated. DNV said that its understanding was that the draft should be circulated to the Industry (ICS, INTERTANKO, and BIMCO) prior to adoption by Council. (3095_NVc dated 30/6/03) GPG Chairman (3095_IGc dated 30/6/03) circulated a draft amendment of UR Z10.1 for Council's agreement and use in discussions with the industry associations. The draft was generally agreed by GPG but individual Members have requested that the following matters (which were deemed to be outside the remit of GPG in this task) be brought to Council's attention for further consideration: 1 DNV and NK stated that they can not accept a requirement for annual surveys of ballast tanks when the coating condition is less than GOOD and propose that GOOD be changed to FAIR. 2 In connection with item 1 above, DNV also propose to amend the definitions of FAIR and POOR in order to raise the standard of FAIR. Council Chairman (3095_ICb dated 14/8/03) concluded that Council has agreed that the draft amendments to UR Z10.1 attached to IGc reflect Councils' decision taken at C47 and that they be circulated to industry associations. Perm Sec was therefore invited to submit the draft to OCIMF and INTERTANKO in view of discussion at the IACS/ industry meeting on 29 August.
2. Discussion with Industry (29/08/2003 11/10/2003)

As requested by Council, the whole matter was presented to Industry during the general matters meeting with IACS held on 29 August 2003; comments from Industry were requested. In the following an extract from the minutes of the meeting (see message 3100aIAb dated 5 September 2003): __________________________ from Meeting minutes ________________________________ 4. & 5. Annual surveys of ballast tanks and IACS guidelines on coating repairs
M. Dogliani introduced the matter (see Items 4&5 in Appendix). A. LinoCosta gave a presentation to show where concerns and decisions stand: too many cases when coating was considered fair at SS but problems occurred just after one/two years. N. Mikelis commented on draft amendments to Z10.1 (Rev.11) stating that the extent of annual survey is not clear; it should be limited to the affected zones, e.g. coating breakdowns, only. M. Guyader clarified that, in this draft amendments, it is expected an overall survey of the whole tank and a close up survey of the affected zones. N. Mikelis noted that, in the draft amendments to Z10.1 (Rev.11), the intermediate survey at 12.5 years would have the same scope as the previous special survey and that needed a justification. See 7 a). M. Dogliani said that Z10.1 (Rev.11) was adopted in August 2003 and will be introduced into IACS Societies Rules over the next year. Conclusions: 4.1 Industry shared IACS concerns on coatings and, in general, agreed with the draft amendments to Z10.1 (Rev.11) suggesting also extending them to Z10.2 on bulk carriers
4.2 Industry agreed that a guideline for surveyor on coating would greatly improve uniform application of soamended Z10.1 including issues such as how to consider load bearing elements when judging GOOD/FAIR/POOR status and how to consider bottom pitting in connection with GOOD conditions 4.3 Industry will more precisely comment, by the end of September, the draft Z10.1 so as for IACS to finalise the matter, as planned, for the Councils December meeting.
Item Title Industry recomma ndation IACS/ M. Dogliani Introduction
4& 5
Annual survey of ballast tanks IACS guidelines on coating repairs
NN
1. IACS is considering the following: - amend UR Z10.1 (draft circulated to Industry) to the effect that in case at Special Survey or Intermediate Survey the coating in a ballast tank is found less than GOOD, either GOOD conditions are restored or the tanks coating is inspected at each annual survey;
develop IACS guideline to assist an uniform application of the so modified (if adopted) UR Z10.1; the guideline should address which repairs are necessary to restore GOOD conditions from FAIR and POOR respectively and which are the criteria for the restored (after repair) situation to be rated as GOOD.
____________________________ End of extract from minutes __________________________ INTERTANKO commented (see R. Leslie email to GPG dated 25 September 2003): - expressing their concern for the draft Z10.1 and underlining a) targeting: concerns that, if not properly dealt with, Z10.1 would target all ships and not just those which need intervention; the view was expressed that guidelines would probably solve the matter; b) definition: indicating that the current definitions of GOOD, FAIR and POOR is not clear enough and that the matter would be even worst with GOOD and NON GOOD; again it was indicated that guidelines could solve the matter; c) expertise: expressing doubts on IACS surveyors expertise and ability to judge coating conditions; in this respect they (hiddenly) suggest that IACS position is unclear when we say that we are not competent to judge the coating during construction but then we are competent to judge coating during operational life. Even if not explicitly stated, the impression is that also in this case guidelines would help. Additionaly, INTERTANKO suggested a (quite detailed) set of assessment criteria. The matter was then finally addressed at the TRIPARTITE Meeting (held in Soul on 29/30 September 2003). There Industry agreed that the way forward was the (joint) development of IACS guidelines (see minutes attached to message 3100_RIe dated 11 October 2003, an extract of which is reproduced below). ____________________________ Extract from the TRIPARTITE minutes _______________
Industry is concerned by the definition of GOOD/NOT GOOD in relation to coating repairs and acceptance criteria. Industry agreed that new guideline on this, which IACS is already producing, was the way forward.
______________________________ End of the extract from the minutes __________________
3. Further developments
a) from the above, it was concluded that, provided the guidelines are sound, Industry would accept the concept of Z10.1 (draft) Rev. 12, therefore an IACS team and a JWG were established in order to progress the matter of the guidelines (among other related matters). b) the team of IACS experts on coating developed draft guidelines and provided recommendations to GPG on the way forward (attached to message 3095bNVc dated 20 November 2003). c) the guidelines were discussed within the JWG with Industry (see draft minutes circulated within GPG with messages 3095cIGd and 3095cIGe both dated 13 March 2004) d) further suggestions and comments (as requested at the meeting) were provided by Industry (not circulated to GPG) e) Bulk Carrier Industry is recommending that similar guidelines are developed in due time also for bulk carriers f) at DE47 and MSC78, IMO is asking Industry and IACS to develop (compulsory) performance standards for coating of newbuilding (double hull spaces of DSS Bulk Carriers), a matter which is, indirectly related to the above one. 1 June 2004 M. Dogliani IACS GPG Chairman IACS JWG/COR Chairman
Page 1 of 2
DNV proposal to Z10.1, Z10.3 and z10.4
Sent Monday, July 4, 2005 4:45 pm To Gil-Yong <gilyonghan@iacs.org.uk> Cc Bcc Subject Fw: 1060gNVs; WP/SRC - Task 102 - Harmonization of UR Z 7 and Z 7.1 Attachments Doc1.doc ----- Original Message ----From: "Debbie Fihosy" <debbiefihosy@iacs.org.uk> To: "CCS" <iacs@ccs.org.cn> Cc: "IACS Permanent Secretariat" <permsec@iacs.org.uk> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 2:52 PM Subject: FW: 1060gNVs; WP/SRC - Task 102 - Harmonization of UR Z 7 and Z 7.1 Forwarding as requested -----Original Message----From: Arve.Myklebust@dnv.com [Arve.Myklebust@dnv.com] Sent: 25 May 2005 15:49 To: AIACS@eagle.org; iacs@bureauveritas.com; iacs@ccs.org.cn; johnderose@iacs.org.uk; iacs@dnv.com; iacs@gl-group.com; gilyonghan@iacs.org.uk; helenbutcher@iacs.org.uk; efs@iacs.org.uk; krsiacs@krs.co.kr; richardleslie@iacs.org.uk; external-rep@lr.org; clnkiacs@classnk.or.jp; terryperkins@iacs.org.uk; iacs@rina.org; iacs@rs-head.spb.ru; colinwright@iacs.org.uk Subject: FW: 1060gNVs; WP/SRC - Task 102 - Harmonization of UR Z 7 and Z 7.1 25K
25 May 2005 To: Mr. B. Anne, Chairman of IACS Council, cc: Council Members, IACS Perm. Sec. Ref.: My mail NVr dated 20 May 2005 DNV have further studied the amendments to UR Z10.1, Z10.3, and Z10.4, and as a result are presenting the following as a compromise solution: General comment: From the comments by other Members it is obvious that there is reluctance to accept annual surveys of ballast tanks with a common plane boundary to heated cargo tanks in the case where the coating is in good condition. This is particularly unreasonable as at the same time we enhance the Intermediate survey of Tankers between 10 and 15 years to also include examination of all ballast tanks, meaning that all ballast tanks will be close up surveyed with 2-3 years intervals from the ship is 10 years old, with the possibility for the surveyor to require thickness measurements and testing of the tanks to ensure the structural integrity of the tanks if necessary. It is also proposed for the Intermediate survey between 5 and 10 years, to increas the scope from representative to all ballast tanks, a requirement DNV find to strict, and require that we here keep the original text. If a ballast tank is found to have coating in GOOD condition at the renewal or intermediate survey, a deterioration of the tank beyond structural reliability is very unlikely even if the tank has a common plane boundary to a heated cargo tank.
http://webmail.bis-internet.co.uk/frame.html?rtfPossible=true
06/07/05
Page 2 of 2
DNV finds it particularly unreasonable to have this requirement to apply to double hull tankers for the following reasons: - these ships have double hull and the risk of pollution is here much reduced, - the double hull is constructed with small spaces giving improved structural reliability, - almost all double hull tankers below VLLC have heated cargo tanks, and all ballast tanks have common plane boundaries to these tanks, meaning that this requirement will apply to a major part of the tanker fleet in the future, - the ballast tanks of double hull tankers are so designed that a general examination of these tanks will be identical to a close up survey, - survey of ballast tanks of double hull tankers will mean either gas freeing of all cargo tanks or at least dropping the inert gas pressure of all cargo tanks in addition to proper airing of all ballast tanks. Since the single hull tankers will be faced out in the near future, and for clear political reasons, DNV will as a compromise proposal to keep paragraph 2.2.3.1 and 4.2.2.2 in Z 10.1 as amended by Council (ref. IAo) but amend it to not include 2.2.3.1.e, 4.2.2.2.e and last paragraph of 3.2.5.1 in Z10.3 and Z10.4. In addition we request that the original text of 4.2.2.1 is kept. If BV, ABS and other Members can accept this DNV is willing to drop our reservation presented at C49. DNV's proposal will then be as follows: Z10.1: 2.2.3.1: This paragraph can be accepted as is for the reasons stated above. 3.2.5.1: This paragraph is accepted as amended. 4.2.2.2: This paragraph can be accepted as is for reasons stated above. For other comments to Z10.1 see NVo and NVp. Z10.3: 2.2.3.1.e to be deleted. 3.2.5.1 delete last paragraph 4.2.2.1 the original text to be kept."For tanks used for water ballast ---" 4.2.2.2.e to be deleted Z10.4 2.2.3.1e to be deleted 3.2.5.1 delete last paragraph 4.2.2.1 the original text to be kept, "For tanks used for water ballast --" 4.2.2.2.e to be deleted. For details see attached document where the text for the requirements in Z10.3 and Z10.4 that DNV will accept is stated. Best Regards Arve Myklebust on behalf of Terje Staalstrom DNV IACS Council Member <<Doc1.doc>> ************************************************************** Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity of this message can be vouched
06/07/05
Annex 2 to TB (Harmonization Z10s) WP/SRC Task 114 Clarify the procedure of verification and signature of the thickness measurement report
Item Item No. 1 Verification onboard 1.1 1.2 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 Minimum extent of measuring points for direct verification by attending surveyor specified Preliminary TM record to be signed upon completion of the measurements onboard Final TM report Signature of all pages in TM record required Signature of cover (general particulars) page only Measuring points verified by attending surveyor required identified in TM record and signature of the corresponding pages required ABS . No Yes No Yes 7) No Yes No No (copy taken) Yes No Yes No No3) No No6) No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No8) No No BV1) CCS CRS DNV GL IRS KR LR NK RINA RS
No Yes No
No Yes No
No Yes Yes Without signature
No Yes No
Yes No No
Yes No No
No No4) Yes
No Yes No
No5) Yes No
Yes Yes No
Yes No No
2004-04-20 1) Instructions not clear regarding signature of the thickness measurement record 2) Signature on front and last page, stamp on all other pages, or signature on each page (IACS TM forms) 3) Upon completion of measurements onboard a draft report in electronic format (DNV TM template, including operators notes as relevant) to be given to attending surveyor 4) Signature of cover page, pages of meeting record and pages of attended measuring points 5) Each page to be signed in case of loose-leaf type record 6) Preliminary TM record has to be passed to the Surveyor, signed by the Operator 7) The only measures which the Surveyors can certify exact are those for which that they have seen the results on the screen of the apparatus. That means in fact few points in comparison with the numbers of recorded measures. 8) The Surveyor reviews the TM record for completeness and assessment of TM readings, but no signature required.
H:/Ellen/IACS/Task 114 20.04.04
Annex 3:
Technical Background (May 2005) UR Z7s and Z10s (Corrosion Prevention System)
1. Objective: To clarify whether the survey of anodes is a class matter, and if so, whether acceptance criteria for anode should be developed. 2. Method: GPG by correspondence (5037_) 3. Discussion 3.1 BV initiated GPG discussion as follows:
Paris La Dfense, 8 Mars 05 1 - We have noticed that, in the draft UR Z's ( 7.1, 10.1 to 10.5) issued further to the WP/SRC Task 102, the original sentence "......the examination may be limited to a verification that the hard protective coating remains efficient......" has been replaced by ....that the corrosion prevention system remains efficient....". in a number of paragraphs (such as , for instance, Z 7.1, 4.2.3.1 a) ; Z 10.2 4.2.3.3 ; ), in line with IMO Res.A744(18). 2 - However, a corrosion prevention system is defined, in the same UR Z's and in IMO Res.A744(18) , as being either a full hard protective coating or a full hard protective coating supplemented by anodes. 3 - The above would mean that the survey of the anodes is a classification matter. 4 - However, whereas coating conditions are defined as good or fair or poor, there are no criteria in the IACS URs and IMO Res. A744(18) for the anodes condition. 5 - Assessing the anodes condition to confirm that they "remain efficient" looks to BV to be a quite difficult task for the ships in service Surveyor. 6 - Member's view and interpretations on the following would consequently be appreciated: do Members consider that the above requirements in IACS URs imply that survey of anodes is part of the classification ? do Members consider that the above requirements in IMO Res. A 744 (18) imply that survey of anodes is mandatory? if yes, what is the acceptance criteria to conclude that the anodes" remain efficient" ?
3.2 The majority of GPG Members replied that they did not include requirements for anodes in their class rules. LR / ABS / DNV / KR / NK / RINA / RS were of the view that the condition of any anodes fitted should be recorded for information purposes as the survey of anodes is neither a classification matter nor a mandatory requirement in IMO A.744(18) and has no impact on future surveys (5037_LRa). [Note; LR further clarified that Whilst I agree that the performance of anodes is not normally a class matter LR does require that as part of Special Survey on oil tankers : "The attachment to the structure and condition of anodes in tanks are to be examined ." Therefore we cannot say that 'the survey of anodes is not a classification matter'. 5037_LRb]
Page 1 of 3
However, GL said that for GL, anodes are a matter of class and as such are subject to plan approval as well as surveys. In case of missing or worn-out anodes we issue a condition of class(5037_GLa&b). CCS advised that its rules have a general requirement relating to anode survey, which is only conducted, through sampling, during construction, docking survey or where there is a definite requirement for the survey of ballast tanks.
NK proposed that the following footnote be added to Z7s and Z10s: The survey of anodes is not a classification matter. No majority support was achieved.
4.
Conclusion
RINA suggested to simply amend the definition of "Corrosion Prevention System" in paragraph 1.2.9 of UR Z7 (and, of course, the paragraphs in all the other UR Zs containing the definition of "Corrosion Prevention System") in order to eliminate any reference to anodes. This proposal would leave room for Societies willing to include additional class requirements for anodes to do so in their Rules. GPG agreed.
RINA proposed amendments to paragraph 1.2.9 of UR Z7 and corresponding paragraphs in all other UR Zs (5037_RIb, 6 April 2005)
1.2.9 Corrosion Prevention System A corrosion prevention system is normally considered either: a full hard protective coating. .1 a full hard protective coating, or .2 a full hard protective coating supplemented by anodes. Hard protective coating is usually to be epoxy coating or equivalent. Other coating systems may be considered acceptable as alternatives provided that they are applied and maintained in compliance with the manufacturers specifications. Where soft coatings have been applied, safe access is to be provided for the surveyor to verify the effectiveness of the coating and to carry out an assessment of the conditions of internal structures which may include spot removal of the coating. When safe access cannot be provided, the soft coating is to be removed.
Annex: Council Chairs conclusive message.
6 May 2005 Permsec
Page 2 of 3
Annex. (5037_ICb, 15 May 2005)

To : All IACS Council Members c.c : Mr. R. Leslie, IACS Permanent Secretariat Ref. Mr G-Y. Han's message IAa dated 6 May 05 Message ICa dated 6 May 05 Admiral R.E. Kramek's message ABb dated 13 May 05 Paris La Dfense, 15 May 05 1 - All Members have agreed with the texts attached to Mr Han's message. 2 - Further to ABS comments the reference to anodes is to be deleted in Annex I and in tables IX (IV) and IX(II). 3 - further to ABS questions regarding what IACS plan to do regarding IMO and A.744(18) further to IACS deletion of reference to anodes from the UR Z7's and UR Z10's it is to noted that: The Item 1.2.9 in UR Z1O.1 and relative items in these URs states 1.2.9 10 Corrosion Prevention System: A corrosion prevention system is normally considered either: .1 a full hard protective coating, or .2 a full hard protective coating supplemented by anodes. Hard Pprotective Ccoating is to usually to be epoxy coating or equivalent. Other coating systems may be considered acceptable as alternatives provided that they are applied and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer's specification. Where Soft Coatings have been applied, safe access is to be provided for the surveyor to verify the effectiveness of the coating and to carry out an assessment of the conditions of internal structures which may include spot removal of the coating. When safe access cannot be provided, the soft coating is to be removed. - therefore the anodes are not considered as the main means of protection against the corrosion It is only a supplement; - there is no provision in UR Z7's and Z10's to evaluate the level efficiency of the anodes; - there is no specific requirements in case of lack of efficiency of the anodes. The experience has shown that ballast tanks only protected by anodes are subject to corrosion when the anodes are becoming less efficient. The anodes are active only when immersed by sea water. Therefore the upper part of the ballast tanks are not protected when the ballast is full of water and the ballast is not protected when it is empty.. The ships operators are reluctant to replace the anodes especially in upper part which request fitting of scaffolding fo welding the anode supports to the structure. The above arguments justify the reasons why IACS consider that the anodes are not class item. 4 - These arguments can be used by IACS Members attending the WG bulk carriers at MSC 80 to try to obtain deletion of the reference to anodes in A. 744(18).
Best regards, Bernard Anne IACS Council Chairman.
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 5
Survey Panel Task 22 Amend applicable URZ7s and Z10s to align Close-Up Survey and Thickness measurements to be carried out at the same time and location allowing for a more structured control of the thickness measurement process. Technical Background Z7(Rev.12) Z7.1(Rev.3) Z10.1(Rev.13, para.1.4 & 7.1.3) Z10.2(Rev.18, para. 1.4 & 7.1.3) Z10.3(Rev.8, para. 1.4 & 7.1.3) Z10.4(Rev.3, para. 1.4 & 7.1.3) Z10.5(Rev.2, para. 1.4 & 7.1.3) 1. Objective To amend the applicable URZ7s and Z10s to align Close-Up Survey and Thickness measurements to be carried out at the same time and location allowing for a more structured control of the thickness measurement process. 2. Background IACS QC findings, through audits of numerous Societies, which indicated concerns over Surveyor attendance and control of thickness measurement processes. 3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel members through correspondence.
4. Discussion To align Close-up survey requirements and thickness measurements in the applicable URZ7s and URZ10s, in accordance with PR19, all Panel members agreed through correspondence and a final vote at the fall Survey Panel meeting, that URZ7, Z7.1, Z10.1, Z10.2, Z10.3, Z10.4 and Z10.5 should include in the applicable sections of the noted URs as proposed by the Survey Panel the wording In any kind of survey, i.e. special, intermediate, annual, or other surveys having the scope of the foregoing ones, thickness measurements of structures in areas where close-up surveys are required, shall be carried out simultaneously with close-ups surveys. 5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose January 2007 as an implementation date.
Part B, Annex 6
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR Z7.1 (REV. 4) AND UR Z7 (REV.13) SURVEY PANEL TASK 39 Amend URZ7.1 to align with the requirements of URZ10.2 and URZ10.5 in accordance with SOLAS reg. II-I/23-3 and II-1/25 regarding Water level detectors on single hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers, and to propose to IMO that these requirements be included in relevant sections of IMO resolution A.948(23).
1. Objective To amend UR Z7.1 Section 2.6 and 3.3 to include survey requirements related to SOLAS reg. II-I/23-3 and II-I/25 and to propose to IMO that these requirements be included in relevant sections of IMO resolution A.948(23).
2. Background GPG member from LR requested that URZ7.1 should be amended to meet SOLAS regulations II-I/23-3(entry into force :1 January 2007) and II-I/25 (entry into force: 1 January 2009)
3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel
4. Discussion Survey Panel members at the spring 2006 meeting discussed how to address these changes in a similar manner as were carried out in Survey Panel Task 11 for URZ10.2 and Z10.5, for URZ7.1. During the discussion, the member from RINA proposed that URZ7 also be amended to refer to the applicable changes in URZ7.1. All members agreed and made necessary amendments to URZ7 section 1.1.5 and added note 5 as far as the implementation date. For URZ7.1 it was agreed that sections 2.6 and 3.3 be added to add these additional requirements.
5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council
approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose July 2007 as an implementation date. Submitted by Survey Panel Chair, 13 July 2006
Permanent Secretariat note: Council approved URZ7.1 Rev.4 and URZ7 Rev.13 on 17 August 2006 (5031fICb). In addition to the proposed changes a typographical error was corrected in Table 4 of UR Z7.
Part B, Annex 7
Part B, Annex 8
URs Z7(Rev.15), Z7.1(Rev.5), Z7.2(Rev.1), Z10.1(Rev.15), Z10.2(Rev.26), Z10.3(Rev. 9), Z10.4(Rev.6), Z10.5(Rev.8) November 2007 Survey Panel Task 1 Annual Review of Implementation of IACS Resolutions
1. Objective To review IACS Resolutions annually and discuss or propose amendments as deemed necessary. 2. Background This proposed amendment to all URZ7s and URZ 10s was raised by the Panel member from DNV due to Owners crediting tanks concurrently under intermediate and special survey. 3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel members through correspondence. 4. Discussion The Panel member from DNV raised the issue of Owners having the ability of crediting spaces and thickness measurements only once in a 54 month interval, due to the availability of concurrent crediting of spaces and thickness measurements due to the flexible time window that is currently allowed between the intermediate survey and the special survey. After a presentation and discussion lead by the DNV Panel member, all Survey Panel members agreed to the argument given by DNV, and further agreed to make the necessary changes in all URZ7s and URZ10s where Owners are not allowed to concurrently credit surveys and thickness measurements of spaces. 5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose January 2009 as an implementation date.
Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 22 October 2007
Permanent Secretariat note (December 2007): During GPG discussion DNV proposed that since this matter will be discussed between Owner and Class mainly in connection with the forthcoming Special Survey, DNV would prefer to locate this text, not only as part of Intermediate Survey, but also as a new text for the Special Survey. This was supported by BV, ABS, RINA and KR. The revised documents were approved, with DNVs proposal and an implementation date of 1 January 2009, on 15 November 2007 (ref. 7690_IGb).
Part B, Annex 9
Technical Background URs Z7(Rev.16), Z7.1(Rev.6), Z7.2(Rev.2), Z10.1(Rev.16), Z10.2(Rev.27), Z10.3(Rev.11), Z10.4(Rev.7) and Z10.5(Rev.9) - March 2009
Survey Panel Task 62: A) Harmonization of UR Z10.1, Z10.2, Z10.4 and Z10.5 with UR Z10.3 with respect to items 5.5.4.4 and 5.6.2. B) Harmonization of UR Z7, Z7.1, Z10.1, Z10.2, Z10.3, Z10.4 and Z10.5 with UR Z7.2 with respect to the definition of the corrosion prevention system and with respect to the footnote 1 related to semi-hard coatings. C) Harmonization of the definition of Ballast Tank in UR Z7(Rev.14) 1. Objective
A) Amend the texts of items 5.5.4.4 and 5.6.2 in Unified Requirements Z10.1, Z10.2, Z10.4 and Z10.5 in order to align them with those in UR Z10.3, in which they were changed while performing Task 55, whereas in the other UR Z10s they were kept unchanged on the grounds that this change was out of the scope of Task 55. B) Amend the definition of Corrosion Prevention System and include a Footnote 1 related to semi-hard coatings in Unified Requirements Z7, Z7.1, Z10.1, Z10.2, Z10.3, Z10.4 and Z10.5 in order to align them with those adopted in UR Z7.2, when this new UR was issued. C) Amend UR Z7 (Rev. 14) in all items where the term Ballast Tank is used in order to get them harmonized with the definition itself. 2. Background
The task, as regards item A), was triggered by a Member Society, while performing Task 55, on the grounds that this part was out of the scope of the task and then should have been dealt with in a separate task. The task, as regards item B), was triggered as a consequence of the New Business action item 2 of the Minutes of the September 2008 Survey Panel meting, for sake of harmonization of the various URZs. The task, as regards item C), was triggered as a consequence of the Task 54-Examination of Double Bottom Ballast Tanks at annual surveys of the Minutes of March 2008 Survey Panel meeting, for sake of harmonization of the definition of Ballast Tank in UR Z7(Rev.14). 3. Discussion
The task was carried out by correspondence. All the amended texts for the affected URs were prepared by the Survey Panel Member who had chaired the PT on Task 55, in accordance with the Form A approved by GPG. In addition to the objectives outlined in the Form A, an amendment was added to item 1.3.1 of UR Z10.2 and UR Z10.5 in which the reference 3.2.3.6 in the last item of the list was replaced by 3.2.3.10 as can be correctly verified in the text. The amended URs were circulated to all Survey Panel Members for review, comments and agreement. The texts of the URs were unanimously agreed by all Members.
Page 1 of 2
4.
Implementation
The Survey Panel is of the view that the Member Societies need at least 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules/procedures. Therefore, in the first version of all amended URs the following implementation sentence should be proposed: Changes introduced in Rev .xx are to be uniformly applied by Member Societies and Associates for surveys commenced on or after [not less than 12 months after the adoption by GPG/Council]. Since it is common practice and convenience to have implementation dates either on 1st January or on 1st July of the year, the Survey Panel proposes the 1st July 2010 as implementation date, if GPG/Council approve the URs not later than 30 June 2009.
Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 28 February 2009
Permanent Secretariat notes (April 2009): 1. The amended URs were approved by GPG on 18 March 2009 (ref. 7718bIGd). 2. During the typesetting process it was noted that para 5.1.5 of UR 7.2 was inconsistent with the amended URs and so following consultation with the Survey Panel this was also amended at this time. 3. Regarding the implementation date, GPG agreed to use 1st July 2010 provided that it was consistently used for the amended URs.
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 10
Technical Background for UR Z7 Rev.17 (May 2010)*

1. Scope and objectives Amend UR Z7 to include requirements for partial removal of casings, ceilings or linings, and loose insulation. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale To improve requirements in UR Z7 for access to structure for survey. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution C59 Follow - up Action Item 29 AVC Chairmans report UR Z7
4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: To allow partial removal of casings, ceilings or linings, and loose insulation, where fitted, to the satisfaction of the attending Surveyor upon findings (such as indents, scratches, etc.) detected during surveys of shell plating from the outside. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions N/A 6. Attachments if any None
Survey Panel Task 68 - To make amendments to UR Z7 to allow only partial removal of casings, ceilings or linings, and loose insulation, where fitted, to the satisfaction of the attending Surveyor, for examination of plating and framing and to allow for TMs
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 11
Technical Background for UR Z7 Rev.18, Jan 2011

1. Scope and objectives Starting from the example of supply vessels, to align UR Z7, Z7.1, Z1 and IMO Res. A997(25) as amended consistently. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Supply vessels may carry different types of cargo which do not fall into category of dry cargo, such as brine, mud etc. and therefore this type of ship is subject to the intermediate survey requirements of item (CIn) 2.3.2.3 of IMO Res.A.997(25) as amended, through UR Z1. This requirement is to be added to UR Z7 as well. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution UR Z1 and IMO Res.A.997(25) as amended. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: The following requirement is included in UR Z7, for intermediate surveys: 4.2.6 In the case of ships over 10 years of age, other than ships engaged in the carriage of dry cargoes only or ships subject to Z10.1, Z10.3, Z10.4 or Z7.2, an internal examination of selected cargo spaces is to be carried out. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions The Panel agreed that the above requirement was intended to cover the internal examination of selected cargo spaces intended for carriage of liquid cargo. 6. Attachments if any None
Part B, Annex 12
Technical Background for UR Z7 Rev.19, July 2011

1. Scope and objectives Review the requirement for repairs within IACS UR 7 and UR 10 series, in particular the requirement for Prompt and Thorough Repair, with a view to developing wording that would permit a temporary repair and the imposition of a Recommendation/ Condition of Class under specific and controlled circumstances, and in accordance with PR35. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale There are instances, for example a localised, isolated and very minor hole in a crossdeck strip, at which a suitable temporary repair, for example by welding or doubling, and the imposition of a suitable short term Recommendation/ Condition of Class for permanent repair at a later date, are considered very adequate methodology for dealing with the defect. Current IACS Requirements in the UR Z7 and Z10 series, for Prompt and Thorough repair, would not permit this to be an option, the defect would have to be permanently Promptly and Thoroughly repaired, which might require removing cargo, moving to a repair berth and staging inner spaces. Under the Requirements of IACS Procedural Requirement PR 35 the methodology of Temporary Repair and imposition of a suitable short term Recommendation/ Condition of Class for permanent repair at a later date is fully permissible. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution Based upon discussion within the IACS Survey Panel. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: Following the definition of Prompt and Thorough Repair in the Unified Requirement, a new paragraph is proposed to be added:1.3.3 Where the damage found on structure mentioned in Para. 1.3.1 is isolated and of a localised nature which does not affect the ship's structural integrity, consideration may be given by the surveyor to allow an appropriate temporary repair to restore watertight or weather tight integrity and impose a Recommendation/Condition of Class in accordance with IACS PR 35, with a specific time limit. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions a) The points of discussion are as indicated in Sections 2 and 4 above. b) Discussion took place on whether to prepare this amendment as a Unified Interpretation of IMO Resolution A.744(18)/UR Z7 and Z10 series, finally it was agreed to make direct amendment to the relevant URs.
c) It is proposed that this amendment be submitted directly to the IMO DE/MSC Committees for consideration of amending directly IMO Res. A744(18) 6. Attachments if any None

Version no. Rev.8 (Oct 2011) Rev.7 (July 2011) Rev.6 (Mar 2009) Rev.5 (Nov 2007) Rev.4 (Aug 2006) Rev.3 (Jan 2006) Rev.2 (June 2005) Rev.1 (June 2003) New (June 2002) Approval date 19 October 2011 27 July 2011 18 March 2009 15 November 2007 17 August 2006 04 January 2006 27 June 2005 18 June 2003 No record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2013 1 July 2012 1 July 2010 1 January 2009 1 July 2007 1 January 2007 1 July 2006 -
Part A
UR Z7.1 Hull Surveys for General Dry Cargo Ships
Rev.8 (Oct 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: The design of General Dry Cargo Ships has evolved significantly in recent years. Many of these modern multi-purpose ships are now with a double side-skin extending for the entire length and height of the cargo-carrying area, with in-built containercarrying capability. The traditional general dry cargo ship was of single-skin construction with tween decks, as indicated in Figures 1 and 2 of UR Z7.1, and it is for this structural configuration that the need was perceived to enhance surveys to include Close-Up Surveys. IMO Resolution MSC 277(85) Para 1.6.1 also makes the distinction that double-skin general dry cargo ships are of significantly different construction from conventional general dry cargo ships. The double-skin construction ship is afforded significantly more protection to cargo spaces than the traditional single skin design, and is akin to a container ship in configuration. For these reasons it was considered correct to exclude double-skin general cargo ships, with the double skin extending over the entire length and height (to the upper deck) of the cargo carrying area from the requirements of IACS UR Z7.1. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was raised by a member and agreed by the majority of panel members under job PSU 10051. Some detail discussion ensued on wording, implementation
Page 1 of 6
dates and definitions, both by correspondence and at the Spring Meeting of the Panel 2011. One member did not agree with the proposal, citing concerns with specific types of damages, including grab damages and other aspects associated with the carriage of bulk cargoes on double skin general dry cargo ships, and most particularly river/sea navigation type ships. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 17 November 2010 Made by a Member Panel Approval: 02 March 2011 GPG Approval: 19 October 2011 (Ref: 11153_IGb)
Rev.7 (July 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following external audit a member was advised that a small temporary doubler on a cross-deck strip of a bulk carrier should have been promptly and thoroughly repaired at the time of survey. The member carried out an investigation and found that the actions of the surveyor were fully justifiable, the temporary repair and short term Condition of Class imposed were an appropriate method of dealing with such a situation. The member advised that the current requirements for Prompt and Thorough Repair stipulated under the UR 7 and UR 10 series do not give any leeway for carrying out temporary repairs (and imposing a Recommendation/Condition of Class in accordance PR 35) where the damage in question is isolated and localised, and in which the ships structural integrity is not impaired. The Survey Panel discussed the matter and agreed that under carefully defined circumstances a temporary repair and short term Recommendation/Condition of Class would be an appropriate course of action. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was discussed by correspondence within the Survey Panel and at the Autumn 2010 Panel Meeting. Following discussion at which the possibility of a Unified Interpretation being raised was considered, it was eventually decided to make direct amendment to the relevant Unified Requirements.
Page 2 of 6
The wording of the new paragraph to be inserted as Para 1.3.3 in all relevant Unified Requirements was extensively discussed prior to agreement. The proposal was unanimously agreed by Survey Panel Members. .5 Other Resolutions Changes The identical amendment affects UR Z7, UR Z7.1, UR Z7.2, UR Z10.1, UR Z10.2, UR Z10.3, UR Z10.4 and UR Z 10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 Made by a Member Panel Approval: March 2011 GPG Approval: 27 July 2011 (Ref: 11118_IGb)
Rev.6 (March 2009)
Survey Panel Task 62 - Harmonization of UR Z10s to UR Z10.3(Rev.10) GPG Subject No: 7718b See TB document in Part B.
Rev.5 (Nov 2007)
Survey Panel Task 1 Concurrent crediting of tanks- GPG Subject No: 7690 See TB document in Part B.
Rev.4 (Aug 2006)
GPG Subject No: 5031f See TB document in Part B.
Rev.3 (Jan 2006)
GPG Subject No: 5066 See TB document in Part B.
Rev.2 (June 2005)
GPG Subject No: 1060g WP/SRC Task 102 - harmonization of UR Zs (also some substantive amendments). Subject nos 4072c WP/SRC Task 114 re TM report. WP/SRC harmonisation Task 102 outcome submitted to GPG 13/10/04 by 10/10/04 by 1060gNVl and as GPG57/6.1/WP-1.
Rev.1 (June 2003)

Page 3 of 6
Previously Z10.6. See TB document in Part B.
NEW (June 2002)
Page 4 of 6
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z7.1: Annex 1. TB for Rev.1 (June 2003)






Page 5 of 6
Annex 8.
TB for Rev.8 (Oct 2011)

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (June 2002)
Page 6 of 6
Part B, Annex 1
UR Z7.1 (Rev.1) (Re-categorization of Z10.6 as Z7.1, June 2003) Technical background 1. Objective WP/SRC in its Progress Report to GPG 54 reported that under their Task Harmonization of UR Z10s WP agreed that Z10.6 should be re-categorized as Z7.1 since it did not contain the whole of essential ESP requirements such as survey planning document and executive hull summary. GPG agreed.
2. Points of discussion At GPG 53 meeting, DNV raised a concern that ships whose tonnage is in excess of 500 GRT but exempted from SOLAS requirements may fall under the scope of application of UR ex-Z10.6. DNV suggested to change the application scheme in Z7.1.1.1 from 500 grt to ships having SOLAS SC certificate. DnV further clarified that IACS Members are not always the organizations issuing the SAFCON certificate and therefore the issue on whether or not a ship is issued with a SAFCON is not evident. Finally, the application scheme remains unchanged. BV suggested that livestock carriers and deck/dock ships be excluded from the application of UR Z7.1. Agreed. See 1.1.1 and a footnote of the UR 7.1. ***
submitted by the Permanent Secretariat 30 June 2003
Part B, Annex 2
2.
Background
3.
Methodology of work
Page 1 of 4
4.
Discussion
Page 2 of 4
5.
6.
Implementation
Page 3 of 4
5.
_ _ _
Page 4 of 4

2.
3.
Page 1 of 2
4.
2.
3. 4.

Page 2 of 2
coating condition.

4& 5
NN
Page 1 of 2
06/07/05
Page 2 of 2
06/07/05
No Yes No
No Yes No
No Yes No
Yes No No
Yes No No
No No4) Yes
No Yes No
No5) Yes No
Yes Yes No
Yes No No
Annex 3:
Page 1 of 3
4.
Conclusion
6 May 2005 Permsec
Page 2 of 3
Annex. (5037_ICb, 15 May 2005)

Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 3
Part B, Annex 4
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR Z7.1 (REV. 4) AND UR Z7 (REV.13) SURVEY PANEL TASK 39 Amend URZ7.1 to align with the requirements of URZ10.2 and URZ10.5 in accordance with SOLAS reg. II-I/23-3 and II-1/25 regarding Water level detectors on single hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers, and to propose to IMO that these requirements be included in relevant sections of IMO resolution A.948(23).
1. Objective To amend UR Z7.1 Section 2.6 and 3.3 to include survey requirements related to SOLAS reg. II-I/23-3 and II-I/25 and to propose to IMO that these requirements be included in relevant sections of IMO resolution A.948(23).
2. Background GPG member from LR requested that URZ7.1 should be amended to meet SOLAS regulations II-I/23-3(entry into force :1 January 2007) and II-I/25 (entry into force: 1 January 2009)
3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel
4. Discussion Survey Panel members at the spring 2006 meeting discussed how to address these changes in a similar manner as were carried out in Survey Panel Task 11 for URZ10.2 and Z10.5, for URZ7.1. During the discussion, the member from RINA proposed that URZ7 also be amended to refer to the applicable changes in URZ7.1. All members agreed and made necessary amendments to URZ7 section 1.1.5 and added note 5 as far as the implementation date. For URZ7.1 it was agreed that sections 2.6 and 3.3 be added to add these additional requirements.
5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council
approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose July 2007 as an implementation date. Submitted by Survey Panel Chair, 13 July 2006
Permanent Secretariat note: Council approved URZ7.1 Rev.4 and URZ7 Rev.13 on 17 August 2006 (5031fICb). In addition to the proposed changes a typographical error was corrected in Table 4 of UR Z7.
Part B, Annex 5
Part B, Annex 6
Page 1 of 2
4.
Implementation
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 7
Technical Background for UR Z7.1 Rev.7, July 2011

Part B, Annex 8
Technical Background for UR Z7.1 Rev.8, Oct 2011

1. Scope and objectives Double Skin General Dry Cargo Ships are increasingly common and are of a completely different structural configuration to the conventional single skin General Dry Cargo Ship. The scope and objective was to review and examine UR Z7.1 with a view to adding Double Skin General Dry Cargo Ships to the list of exempted ship types under Para 1.1.1. on the basis that their double skin configuration afforded significantly enhanced protection to the cargo holds. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale The design of General Dry Cargo Ships has been evolving over the last 20 years. Modern multipurpose general cargo ships are designed around containers configuration, ie with double skin. They are primarily intended to carry other cargoes and only occasionally carry containers. However, because of the double skin configuration the risks associated with carriage of other cargoes are significantly lower than for an older single skin general cargo ship (the side shell and frames are protected from the impact of cargo handling by the double skin). UR Z7.1 was introduced in June 2002 (as Z10.6) and focussed on traditional General Cargo Ship Construction, with tween-decks and single skin. The drawings (Figs 1 and 2) of Z7.1 indicate this structural configuration. IMO Resolution MSC 277(85) Para 1.6.1 also makes the distinction that double-skin general dry cargo ships are of significantly different construction from conventional general dry cargo ships. The Survey Panel is of the view that the traditional risks associated with the single skin configuration of General Cargo Ship are mitigated in the double-skin design, and as such, they should be exempted from the requirements of UR Z7.1, given their strong similarity to Container Ship design. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IACS UR Z7.1 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: In IACS UR Z7.1, para 1.1.1, the existing list of ship types exempted from the requirements of UR Z7.1 is to be augmented by the addition of: general dry cargo ships of double side-skin construction, with double side-skin extending for the entire length of the cargo area, and for the entire height of the cargo hold to the upper deck. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions Discussion was held on the following aspects:-
a) b)
c)
The extent of double skin required it was agreed that this would apply only to General Cargo Ships with complete double-skin for the entire length and height of the cargo area. River-Sea Navigation ships it was agreed that these ship types did not form a specific sub-type of the General Cargo Ship group and that all General Cargo Ships have some river-sea capability. Pure river navigation general cargo ships were considered outside the remit of IACS. The carriage of bulk cargoes aboard such ships was considered in view of the propensity for grab and other damages associated with these cargoes, however, general opinion was that the double skin arrangements mitigated this.

Version no. Rev.3 (July 2011) Rev.2 (Mar 2009) Rev.1 (Nov 2007) New (May 2007) Approval date 27 18 15 08 July 2011 March 2009 November 2007 May 2007 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2012 1 July 2010 1 January 2009 1 July 2008
Part A
UR Z7.2 Hull Surveys for Liquefied Gas Carriers
Rev.3 (July 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following external audit a member was advised that a small temporary doubler on a cross-deck strip of a bulk carrier should have been promptly and thoroughly repaired at the time of survey. The member carried out an investigation and found that the actions of the surveyor were fully justifiable, the temporary repair and short term Condition of Class imposed were an appropriate method of dealing with such a situation. The member advised that the current requirements for Prompt and Thorough Repair stipulated under the UR 7 and UR 10 series do not give any leeway for carrying out temporary repairs (and imposing a Recommendation/Condition of Class in accordance PR 35) where the damage in question is isolated and localised, and in which the ships structural integrity is not impaired. The Survey Panel discussed the matter and agreed that under carefully defined circumstances a temporary repair and short term Recommendation/Condition of Class would be an appropriate course of action. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was discussed by correspondence within the Survey Panel and at the Autumn 2010 Panel Meeting. Following discussion at which the possibility of a Unified Interpretation being raised was considered, it was eventually decided to make direct amendment to the relevant Unified Requirements. The wording of the new paragraph to be inserted as Para 1.3.3 in all relevant Unified Requirements was extensively discussed prior to agreement. The proposal was unanimously agreed by Survey Panel Members.
Page 1 of 3
.5 Other Resolutions Changes The identical amendment affects UR Z7, UR Z7.1, UR Z7.2, UR Z10.1, UR Z10.2, UR Z10.3, UR Z10.4 and UR Z 10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 Made by a Member Panel Approval: March 2011 GPG Approval: 27 July 2011 (Ref: 11118_IGb)
Rev.2 (March 2009)
Survey Panel Task 62 - Harmonization of UR Z10s to UR Z10.3(Rev.10) GPG Subject No: 7718b See TB document in Part B.
Rev.1 (Nov 2007)
Survey Panel Task 1 Concurrent crediting of tanks- GPG Subject No: 7690 See TB document in Part B.
New (May 2007)
GPG Subject No: 5031h Survey Panel Task 9 - develop survey requirements for gas tanker ballast spaces See TB document in Part B.
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z7.2: Annex 1. TB for New (May 2007)



Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background Document UR Z7.2 (NEW May 2007)

(Survey Panel Task 9 Develop survey requirements for Gas Tanker Ballast Spaces)
1. Objective: Develop survey requirements for ballast spaces of gas tankers. 2. Background DNV requested at WP/SRC Annual meeting October 2004 to develop survey requirements for ballast spaces of gas tankers. 3. Discussion The task has been carried out by a Project Team chaired by DNV Survey Panel member and with Survey Panel members from BV, LR, NK and RINA. The Project Team drafted a new Unified Requirement UR Z7.2 Hull Surveys for Liquefied Gas Carriers applicable to surveys of hull structure and piping systems, except piping covered by Z16, in way of pump rooms, compressor rooms, cofferdams, pipe tunnels, void spaces and fuel oil tanks within the cargo area and all ballast tanks. The requirements are additional to the classification requirements applicable to the remainder of the ship, for which Z7 is to be referred. Z16 is to be referred to for periodical surveys of cargo installations on ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk. The draft UR Z 7.2 was presented to the Survey Panel members on the 13th-15th September 2006 meeting at ABS Headquarters in Houston and was agreed upon in principle by the Panel members. Further comments by members were considered by the Project Team which proposed an updated version of the UR Z7.2 including some optional items. This version was submitted to the Panel for final decisions at the Spring meeting in February 2007. 4. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules/procedures. Assuming that GPG and Council approve the amendments during the first half of 2007, the Survey Panel would propose July 2008 as implementation date.
Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 18 April 2007
Permsec note (June 2007): New UR Z7.2 adopted by GPG 8 May 2007 (5031hIGi) with an implementation date of 1 July 2008.
Part B, Annex 2
Part B, Annex 3
Page 1 of 2
4.
Implementation
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 4


UR Z10.1 Hull Surveys of Oil Tankers
Version no. Rev.19 Rev.18 Rev.17 Rev.16 Rev.15 Rev.14 (Jul 2011) (Mar 2011) (Feb 2010) (Mar 2009) (Nov 2007) (Feb 2007) Approval date 27 24 17 18 15 10 July 2011 March 2011 February 2010 March 2009 November 2007 February 2007 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2012 1 July 2012 1 July 2010 1 January 2009 1 January 2007 / 1 January 2008 *1 1 January 2007 1 July 2006
Part A
Corr.1 (Sept 2006) Rev.13 (Jan 2006) Rev.12 (Jun 2005) Rev.11 (Aug 2003) Rev.10 (Oct 2002) Rev.9 (Mar 2002) Rev.8.1 (Jun 2001) Rev.8 (Nov 2000) Rev.7 (Sept 2000) Rev.6.1 (Dec 1999) Rev.6 (Jul 1999) Rev.5 (1997) Rev.4 (1996) Rev.3 (1995) Rev.2 (1994) Rev.1 (1994) NEW (1992)
14 September 2006 4 January 2006 27 June 2005 8 August 2003 22 November 2002 19 March 2002 22 June 2001 20 November 2000 14 September 2000 30 November 1999 16 July 1999 10 December 1997 No record No record No record No record No record
1 July 2002 / 1 year after Council adoption *2 1 July 2001 1 July 2001 1 July 2001 1 July 2000 1 September 1999 1 January 1997
* Notes: 1. Changes introduced in Rev.14 are to be uniformly implemented for surveys commenced on or after 1 January 2008, whereas statutory requirements of IMO Res. MSC 197(80) apply on 1 January 2007. 2. Changes introduced in Rev.9 to UR Z10.1, which come from Res. MSC.105(73) and MSC.108(73) are to be applied by all Member Societies and Associates from 1 July 2002. Changes introduced in Rev.9 to UR Z10.1, other than the above, are to be implemented by all Member Societies and Associates within one year of the adoption by Council.
Rev.19 (July 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following external audit a member was advised that a small temporary doubler on a cross-deck strip of a bulk carrier should have been promptly and thoroughly repaired
Page 1 of 9
at the time of survey. The member carried out an investigation and found that the actions of the surveyor were fully justifiable, the temporary repair and short term Condition of Class imposed were an appropriate method of dealing with such a situation. The member advised that the current requirements for Prompt and Thorough Repair stipulated under the UR 7 and UR 10 series do not give any leeway for carrying out temporary repairs (and imposing a Recommendation/Condition of Class in accordance PR 35) where the damage in question is isolated and localised, and in which the ships structural integrity is not impaired. The Survey Panel discussed the matter and agreed that under carefully defined circumstances a temporary repair and short term Recommendation/Condition of Class would be an appropriate course of action. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was discussed by correspondence within the Survey Panel and at the Autumn 2010 Panel Meeting. Following discussion at which the possibility of a Unified Interpretation being raised was considered, it was eventually decided to make direct amendment to the relevant Unified Requirements. The wording of the new paragraph to be inserted as Para 1.3.3 in all relevant Unified Requirements was extensively discussed prior to agreement. The proposal was unanimously agreed by Survey Panel Members. .5 Other Resolutions Changes The identical amendment affects UR Z7, UR Z7.1, UR Z7.2, UR Z10.1, UR Z10.2, UR Z10.3, UR Z10.4 and UR Z 10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 Made by a Member Panel Approval: March 2011 GPG Approval: 27 July 2011 (Ref: 11118_IGb)
Rev.18 (Mar 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: 1) Inconsistency of the definition of transverse section of the ship given in URZ7 and URZ10s.
Page 2 of 9
2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table IX. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: Item 1) was proposed by RS and item 2) was proposed by GL. Both amendments were agreed by the Panel. .5 Other Resolutions Changes UR Z10.2, Z10.3, Z10.4 and Z10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: January 2010, made by Survey Panel Survey Panel Approval: July/November 2010 GPG Approval: 24 March 2011 (Ref: 10170_IGe)
Rev.17 (Feb 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: As MARPOL I was revised, the reference to MARPOL I/13 (3) in paragraph 1.2.2bis should be changed. .3 History of Decisions Made: GL proposed the change and it was agreed by the panel. .4 Other Resolutions Changes UR Z10.4 .5 Any dissenting views None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: January 2010, made by Survey Panel Survey Panel Approval: January 2010 GPG Approval: 17 February 2010 (ref. 10009_IGd)
Page 3 of 9
Rev.16 (Mar 2009)
Survey Panel Task 62 - Harmonization of UR Z10s to UR Z10.3(Rev.10). See TB document in Part B.
Rev.15 (Nov 2007)
Survey Panel Task 1 Concurrent crediting of tanks. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.14 (Feb 2007)
Survey Panel Task 3 Maintenance of Alignment/Compatibility of IACS URs and IMO survey requirements. See TB document in Part B.
Corr.1 (Sept 2006)
Correction of typos as follows: In the note at the bottom of Table IX(iv) POOR is replaced with less than GOOD and part G) is replaced with part H). In para 1 of Annex III, Appendix 2 in the definition of Cn for 130 m L 300 m L 300 has been replaced with 300 L in accordance with IMO Resolution MSC.105(73) ( MSC 73/21/Add.2, Annex 13). No TB document available.
Rev.13 (Jan 2006)
Survey Panel Task 22 Amend applicable URZ7s and Z10s to align Close-Up Survey and Thickness measurements to be carried out at the same time and location allowing for a more structured control of the thickness measurement process plus additional changes relating to access for rafting surveys. See TB document in Part B.
Page 4 of 9
Rev.12 (Jun 2005)
WP/SRC Task 102 - Harmonization of UR Z7s and Z10s See TB document in Part B.
Rev.11 (Aug 2003)
WP/SRC Task 80 Survey reporting Principles - NMD Report on Leros Strength and WP/SRC Task 106 Incorporation of CAS requirements into A.744. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.10 (Oct 2002)
WP/SRC tasks 91, 93 and 95. No TB document available.
Rev.9 (Mar 2002)
WP/SRC Task 87 - Amend Z10.1 & 10.2 to reflect changes introduced to Res A.744 by MSC 73 See TB document in Part B.
Rev.8.1 (Jun 2001)
Clarification of Section 2.3.1. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.8 (Nov 2000)
Incorporation of outcome of WP/SRC Task 77 prompt and thorough repairs into UR Z10.1. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.7 (Sept 2000)
Introduction of Extraordinary Council Meeting (Feb 2000) decisions into UR Z10.1. See TB document in Part B.
Page 5 of 9
Rev.6.1 (Dec 1999)
Clarification of paragraph 2.2.1.3. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.6 (Jul 1999)
Amendments resulting from trilateral discussions on Enhanced Survey Program with OCIMF and INTERTANKO. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.5 (1997)
Updated in accordance with amendments to IMO Res. 744(18) as contained in Annex 4 to MSC 68 WP.14. No TB document available.
Rev.4 (1996)
Rev.3 (1995)
Rev.2 (1994)
Rev.1 (1994)
NEW (1992)
Page 6 of 9
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z10.1: Annex 1. TB for Rev.6 (Jul 1999)

Annex 2. TB for Rev.6.1 (Dec 1999)



Annex 5. TB for Rev.8.1 (Jun 2001)


Page 7 of 9






Page 8 of 9
Annex 15.
TB for Rev.19 (Jul 2011)

Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1992), Rev.1 (1994), Rev.2 (1994), Rev.3 (1995), Rev.4 (1996), Rev.5 (1997), Rev.10 (Oct 2002) and Corr.1 (Sept 2006).
Page 9 of 9
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Trilateral Discussions UR Z 10.1 Proposed Rev. 6

WP/SRC was tasked to consider OCIMF/INTERTANKO proposals to amend the Enhanced Survey Program.

WP/SRC members discussed and reviewed the proposals extensively through correspondence and their meeting.
WP/SRC unanimously agreed to the proposed draft UR Z 10.1. Consensus could not be achieved on any of the other OCIMF/INTERTANKO proposals. Refer to the Chairmans letters to GPG dated 4 February 1999 and 11 March 1999.
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for Rev. 6.1, Z10.1
1. Scope of objectives Revise the paragraph 2.2.1.3 to clarify that piping on deck is to be examined.
2. Points of discussions or possible discussions Before the ESP tripartite group meeting in October 1999, it was agreed to change the para. 2.2.1.3 by inserting "Cargo piping on deck, and" at the beginning of the sentence. The change from ".....under working CONDITIONS" to "....under working pressure" was made in the last set of amendments of Z10.1--and was considered to have the same meaning as OCIMF's proposed "...to working pressure." We are agreeable to changing "under" to "to".
However, after the ESP technical working group meeting in October 1999, it was agreed to change the para: Cargo piping ondeck, including COW piping, all piping systems within.....
3. Source/deviation of proposed requirements The final minutes of the ESP Working Group meeting reads: The agreement already reached on piping in tanks was reaffirmed. It was reported by the Chairman of the Working Group, Mr. Bourneuf, that the IACS Council agreed to include cargo piping on deck as per UR Z10.1 para. 2.2.1.3 herein after attached. It was confirmed by IACS, at the request of the Working Group that cargo piping does include COW piping.
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background Document UR Z10.1 Revision 7 For ExCM decisions Objective and Scope:
Revise UR Z10.1 to introduce ExCM (Extraordinary Council Meeting in Feb 2000) decision to UR Z10s ExCM FUA 2-1: All ballast tanks adjacent to cargo tanks with heating coils shall be examined internally on an annual basis after the ship has reached 15 years of age. ExCM FUA 2-2: Intermediate surveys of ships subject to ESP, which are over 15 years of age, will be enhanced to the scope of the preceding special survey with dry docking or under water survey as applicable.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC Chairman, shortly after GPG 48th meeting:
The para. 3.2.5.2 for ExCM FUA 2-1: The para. 4.2.2, 4.2.3 & 4.2.4 for ExCM FUA 2-2. The para. 7.1.1 for compatibility with the PR 19 (ABS GPG suggested).
Points of Discussion: Unresolved Comments: Discussions:

WP/SRC Chairman, when submitting draft revision to GPG, raised the following concerns: What tanks are required by the term ADJACENT ? WP/SRC Chairman said that tanks with a common line boundary have not been a problem since there is very little transfer of heat and should not be included. GPG exchanged views on this point and agreed to delete the wording or line from the para. 3.2.5.2 which reads: Oil Tankers exceeding 15 years of Age: All Ballast Tanks adjacent to (i.e., with a common plane or line boundary) a cargo tank with heating coils is to be examined internally. Ships using heating coils in cargo tanks Most existing single hull crude oil carriers only use heating coils in the slop tanks which usually do not have ballast tanks as boundaries. White oil product carriers do not need heating and therefore they should not be included in additional annual survey requirements for ballast tanks. Majority of GPG Members agreed.
Submitted by the Permsec On 18 Sept 2000
Part B, Annex 4


Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 75 UR Z10.1 Proposed Draft Revision & Z10.3 revision 4

Develop a definition of related piping as contained in UR Z10.1 and requirements for survey.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC members through correspondence.
The proposal limits the definition of "related piping" to the piping systems which require testing. This will not include hydraulic oil piping for remote control valves or anchor/mooring equipment which OCIMF may have wanted included. WP/SRC feels that related piping systems are those that are unique to an oil carrier and was the original intent of the wording. WP/SRC unanimously agreed to the draft UR.
Note by the Permsec: LR GPG proposed to change Z10.1 as follows: piping systems for the handling of cargo / cargo residues and water ballast and additionally bilge systems in combination carriers. 8220iLRa, 30/8/2000 GPG Chairman asked WP/SRC to discuss LRs proposal to include bilge piping systems in Z10.1 at their 2000 September meeting. WP/SRC Chairman reported back to GPG on 22 September 2000 as follows: 1. "Cargo piping" adequately covers and is understood by all members to include cargo stripping piping, just as "Ballast piping" includes ballast stripping piping. 2. WP/SRC is of the opinion that bilge piping on combination carriers should not be added to the proposed revision due to the fact that it is a separate system which usually run through a pipe tunnel and is not hydro tested at new construction. The system also operates on a vacuum and is blanked off when oil is carried. Therefore, WP/SRC maintains its agreement that the previously submitted text is the preferred by all members. GPG agreed that a similar amendment be made to Z10.3. Based on the above discussion at GPG level, the revised of Z10.1 and Z10.3 was finally approved at GPG 49.
Submitted by WP/SRC Chairman On 27 July 2000
(This view was shared by the majority of GPG Members, however, it has not been codified in Z 10.1 because no need was identified to prescribe it as a Unified Requirement.)
Identify tanks with heating coils WP/SRC Chair said that the vessels survey status does not tell us tanks fitted with heating coils.
Coating Condition and Substantial Corrosion Survey Requiremnets Ballast tanks with poor coating, no coating or substantial corrosion identified at a previous survey already requires annual survey. With enhanced intermediate survey, all ballast/cargo tanks will be examined and gauged at special/intermediate survey and coating condition & substantial corrosion should be identified at that time. If coating condition is reported good or fair, it may be adequate to only verify the coating condition at annual survey of ballast tanks adjacent to cargo tanks fitted with heating coils.
In addition, DNV and LR (GPG) proposed the following additions: The 3rd sentence in para. 3.2.5.2 (DNV): Tanks or areas where coating was found to be in GOOD condition at the previous intermediate or special internal examination are to survey may (ABS comment) be specially considered by the Classification Society. The majority GPG agreed. The second half of the para. 4.2.4.1(LR) except that testing of cargo and ballast tanks is not required unless deemed necessary by the attending surveyor. The majority GPG agreed. The paragraph 7.1.1 of Z10.1 and Z10.3, paragraph 8.1.1 of Z10.2 were revised for their compatibility with the PR 19 PR for Thickness Measurement.
-----
Part B, Annex 5
Technical Background for
Rev.8.1, Z10.1 Rev.11.1, Z10.2 Rev.4.1, Z10.3

(21 June 2001)
1.
Scope of objectives Revise section 2.3.1 for clarity.
2.
Points of discussions or possible discussions BV GPG member proposed to revise section 2.3.1 of Z10s on 12 June 2001 (0065j) IACS Council considered the ambiguity of the sentence in Special Survey section 2.3.1 For Fuel Oil Tanks the necessity for the Overall Survey is to be determined based on the ships age in the context of its application at intermediate surveys on ships over 15 years. Council agreed that the overall survey of low corrosion risk tanks such as fuel oil, lube oil and fresh water tanks could be subject to special consideration as already addressed in section 2.2.5 of UR Z7 and therefore amended the first sentence of 2.3.1, accordingly, and deleted the last sentence of 2.3.1.
* * * * *
Part B, Annex 6
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 87 Amend Z10.1&10.2 to reflect changes introduced to Res A.744 by MSC 73 (Z10.1, Rev.9) + (Z10.2, Rev.12) + (Z10.3, Rev.5) Objective and Scope:
To harmonise IACS UR Z10.1 and Z10.2 with IMO Res A744(18), as previously amended and as amended by IMO MSC105(73) and MSC 108(73). These amendments enter into force 1 July 2002. It was assumed by WP/SRC that the intention of GPG has been to revise UR Z10.3 (chemical tankers) as well with respect to the intermediate dry-docking requirement, but not to include the requirement to evaluation of longitudinal strength. In addition, the relevant changes to UR Z10.1 based on the changes introduced in IMO Res A744(18) as reported in MSC 74/24/Add1-Annex 17 have been included. These were based on IACS submission DE 44/13/1. These amendments will enter into force 1 January 2004 subject to IMO tacit acceptance procedures. POINTS OF DISCUSSION: The Chairman of WP/SRC would further draw GPG's attention to paragraph 4.2.4.3, which contains the requirement to intermediate dry-docking for oil tankers exceeding 15 years of age. The corresponding Res.A 744(18) requirement (paragraph 2.2.2) does not link the dry-docking to the intermediate survey. This issue was discussed extensively by correspondence and during three WP meetings this year. A consensus decision was achieved without reservations from any members. This process was time consuming, hence the delay in submitting this document to GPG for approval. However, at the annual meeting of the WP in October 2001 all members agreed that we should not accept the wording of Res. A 744(18) paragraph 2.2.2, but instead require that the intermediate dry-docking is to be linked to the intermediate survey and include a requirement to carry out surveys and thickness measurements of the lower portions of the tanks for oil tankers. (similarly, cargo holds/water ballast tanks for bulk carriers)
GPG is advised to note that the proposed requirement in paragraph 4.2.4.3 may result in a third dry-docking within the 5-year period of the classification certificate in case that a dry-docking is carried out prior to the window for intermediate survey. The Chairman of WP/SRC suggests that GPG approves UR Z10.1 with high priority and allows PermSec in the meantime to start the work to amend and typeset UR Z10.2 and URZ10.3 with respect to the intermediate dry-docking requirement, as well as introducing the appropriate changes to UR Z10.2 and UR Z10.3 with respect to MSC 74/24/Add 1-Annex 17.
Note: 1. GPG tasked WP/SRC to review dry-docking survey requirements in Z10.2-4 and Z3 to harmonize them with those in Z10.1 (Rev.9) and reflect in Z3 the interim application of bottom survey requirements as introduced in MSC/Circ. 1013 (Res A.746(18)). Task 101, Target 2Q-2002
2.
GPG confirmed (s/n 1060c) that 7.1.3 of A.744(MSC 74/12/Add.1/Annex 17/page 6), as quoted below, should not be included in Z10s. 7.1.3 Thickness measurements are to be carried out within 12 months prior to completion of the periodical survey or of the intermediate survey.
Reason: The above sentence will restrict the 15 month and 18 month survey window for TM during the intermediate and special surveys respectively.
3.
GPG confirmed that 7.1.4 of A.744(MSC 74/12/Add.1/Annex 17/page 6), as quoted below, should not be included in Z10s: 7.1.4 In all cases the extend of the thickness measurements should be sufficient as to represent the actual average condition.
Reason: No compelling need, in view of MSC 74/12/Add.1 being adopted by MSC 75(May 02). IACS will live with this not harmonized sentence.
4.
For IACS Council decisions to improve bulk carrier safety, see the TB for Revision 12 of Z10.2.
Submitted by WP/SRC Chairman
Part B, Annex 7
UR Z10.1(Rev.11) and Z10.2(Rev.14) (July 2003) Technical background
Part A: Survey Reporting Principles
1. Objective WP/SRC Task 80 Survey Reporting Principles
2. Points of discussion The WP/SRC carried out this task according to the work specification of Form A (Rev.1) and reported the outcome on 18 December 2002 as follows:
Review of NMD's report on "Sinking of Leros Strength", dated 6 July 2000 and the recommendations in section 5.3 Review of IACS Council's reply, dated 22 August 2000 to those recommendations For recommendations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 ,3, 4.2, 5 and 6, best practices have been identified by information exchange amongst Members and discussions at three WP-meetings. Harmonised survey reporting practices fulfilling, in so far as practicable, the recommendations of NMD have been included in the revised tables attached. Standard survey reporting terminology (recommendation 2) is in the process of being prepared and will be submitted to GPG for approval as an IACS Recommendation with the title "Surveyor's Glossary". The completion of the glossary has been delayed somewhat due to pending illustrations of typical hull structures.
Council approved on 14 July 2003 (2249_). ***
Part B: Incorporation of CAS related requirements into UR Z10s
2. Objective WP/SRC Task 106 Incorporation of CAS related requirements into A.744
2. Points of discussion The WP/SRC carried out this task according to the work specification of Form A and reported the outcome on 27 May 2003.
Since CAS was developed for tankers only, WP/SRC considered whether there is any need to further develop/modify requirements in CAS with respect to bulk carriers. Hence, amendments to Z10.15.5.5(rafting), 5.6(survey planning), 8.2.2(different survey stations) and Table 1(closeup survey). IACS will submit its proposed amendments to Res A.744 as a result of this revision. NK GPG suggested that the word alone be inserted after rafting in Z7 and Z10.1(5.5.5)~10.5. WP/SRC had considered this and felt that the insertion of the word "alone" will create a loophole as the text "Rafting alone will only be allowed..." could be interpreted that other means of access have to be used. Besides this wording would impede the use of rafting for survey of side and bottom structures of the spaces. GPG considered that rafts/boats should be accepted as a means to move about within a tank to gain access to any temporary platforms that may be erected. Consequently, the wording of 5.5.5 was re-drafted and split into three parts (5.5.5~5.5.7) beginning with Rafts or boats alone may be allowed for inspection of the under deck areas The same wording will be introduced into Z10.3, Z10.4, Z10.5, Z7 and Z7.1.
Approved on 08/08/2003 (0237h) ***

Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat 22 July 2003
Part B, Annex 8
2.
Background
3.
Methodology of work
Page 1 of 4
4.
Discussion
Page 2 of 4
5.
6.
Implementation
Page 3 of 4
5.
_ _ _
Page 4 of 4

2.
3.
Page 1 of 2
4.
2.
3. 4.

Page 2 of 2
coating condition.

4& 5
NN
Page 1 of 2
06/07/05
Page 2 of 2
06/07/05
No Yes No
No Yes No
No Yes No
Yes No No
Yes No No
No No4) Yes
No Yes No
No5) Yes No
Yes Yes No
Yes No No
Annex 3:
Page 1 of 3
4.
Conclusion
6 May 2005 Permsec
Page 2 of 3
Annex. (5037_ICb, 15 May 2005)

Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 9
UR Z10.1(Rev.13, Jan 2006) UR Z10.2(Rev.18, Jan 2006)-separate TB UR Z10.3(Rev.8, Jan 2006) UR Z10.4(Rev.3, Jan 2006) UR Z10.5(Rev.2, Jan 2006)
Part 1.
Z10s para. 1.4 and 7.1.3
Part 2.
Z10s para. 5.5.4 and 5.5.6
Technical Background UI SC 191 (Rev.2, Oct 2005) & UR Z10.1 (Rev.13, para.5.5.4 and 5.5.6, Jan 2006) UR Z10.2 (Rev.18, para. 5.5.4 and 5.5.6, Jan 2006) UR Z10.3 (Rev.8, para.5.5.4 and 5.5.6, Jan 2006) UR Z10.4 (Rev.3, para.5.5.4 and 5.5.6, Jan 2006) UR Z10.5 (Rev.2, para.5.5.4 and 5.5.6, Jan 2006)
1.
Objective to confirm whether the guidelines for approval/acceptance of alternative means of access (now REC91, ex Annex to UI SC191) is mandatory or non-mandatory. to consider other safety related proposals.
2.
Background
The DNV proposal to submit the UI SC191(Rev.1, May 2005, Annex 1) to IMO DE49 triggered a number of discussion points that led to amendments to the following resolutions: UI SC191(Rev.2) New REC 91 REC 39(Rev.2) UR Z10s
Points of Discussion 3. Is the Annex to UI SC191(Rev.1, May 05, guidelines for approval / acceptance of alternative means of access) mandatory or non-mandatory ? Answer: Non-mandatory. Hence, re-categorized as new REC 91.
4.
Limitation of use of rafts in bulk carrier holds DNV proposed that conditions for rafting should be limited to areas, such as anchorage or harbour, where swell conditions are limited to 0.5m. After discussion, GPG approved the ABS alternative proposal to use the swell condition as a basis to determine the appropriateness of rafting, instead of geographic areas(harbours or anchorage). 5.5.4 of Z10.2 refers.
Page 1 of 3
RINa proposed that para 5.5.4 should be included in all the Z10s. NKs objection is recorded as follows (3037hNKq, 29/08/2005):
1. With regard to RIm of 26 August 2005, NK considers that the proposed amendment to 5.5.4 should be limited to UR Z10.2. 2. Rafting survey for tankers are actually carried out on the open sea from a discharge port to a loading port and in such situation the rise of water within the tanks would always exceed 0.25m. It is different situation from rafting survey for hold frames of bulk carriers normally conducted in a harbour or at an anchorage. 3. If the same requirement applies to tankers, any rafting survey for cargo oil tanks and ballast tanks of tankers would be prohibited. This is not practicable under present survey procedure for tankers. 4. Therefore, NK can not support Lauras proposal that the proposed amendment to 5.5.4 of UR Z10.2 is introduced into the other URs and new Recommendation.
For compatibility with the IMOs mandatory requirements*, GPG decided to add the same amendment to all the UR Z10s. * Appendix 4 to MEPC.99(48) Mandatory requirements for the Safe Conduct of CAS Surveys MSC.197(80) amendments to A.744918), Annex A for DSS and SSS bulk carriers and Annex B for single and double hull oil tankers. As a consequence, 5.5.1 of REC 91(ex Annex to UI SC191) was also amended: -to remove the reference to dynamic /sloshing (as the 0.25m rise was considered negligible); -to refer to the rafting conditions contained for cargo holds in Z10.2 and Z10.5 and for oil cargo tanks in Z10.1 and Z10.4.
5.
Means of access from longitudinal permanent means of access within each bay to rafts GPG reviewed the proposal that the following text be added to Z10s: A means of access to the longitudinal permanent platform from rafts or boats is to be fitted in each bay. (Technical Background: for the safety of surveyors) There may be ships which are arranged in accordance with para b, page 8 of the Annex to the current SC 191 (i.e., no means of access from the LPMA in each bay to a raft is required) and therefore could not be rafted if the sentence proposed by RINA("A means of access to the longitudinal permanent platform from rafts or boats is to be fitted in each bay") is included in the Z10's. GPG therefore agreed not to include this sentence in Z10s. For the same reason, the same sentence was not added to Rec.39.
Page 2 of 3
Finally, GPG added the following sentence to UI SC191(interpretation for II1/3-6): A permanent means of access from the longitudinal platform to the water level indicated above is to be fitted in each bay (e.g permanent rungs on one of the deck webs inboard of the longitudinal permanent platform).
6.
Implementation It was agreed that the revised UI SC191 be implemented to ships contracted for construction 6 months after adoption by Council. UI SC191 was also edited in line with IMO MSC/Circular. 1176, leaving its mandatory language (is/are to, shall) unchanged. (Note: UI SC191(Rev.2) makes references to the following new Recommendations: REC 90: Ship Structure Access Manual REC 91: Guidelines for approval/acceptance of Alternative Means of Access)
23 September 2005 Permanent Secretariat Updated on 13 Oct 2005.
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 10
Technical Background UR Z10.1 (Rev.14), UR Z10.2 (Rev.23), UR Z10.4 (Rev.5) & UR Z10.5 (Rev.5)
Survey Panel Task 3 Maintenance of Alignment/ Compatibility of IACS URs and IMO survey requirements 1. Objective Maintenance of alignment/compatibility of IACS URs and IMO survey requirements regarding resolution MSC 197(80) amendments to A744(18) 2. Background IMO survey requirements to ESP vessels as amended in A744(18) as noted in MSC 197(80), with an implementation date of 1 January 2007. 3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel members through correspondence. 4. Discussion Survey Panel members, at the fall 2006 Survey Panel meeting, finalized the amendments to the applicable URs due to changes adopted at MSC(80). Additionally, Members noted that URZ10.4 paragraphs 2.2.3.1 and 4.2.2.2 does not require examination of ballast tanks adjacent to heated fuel tanks, as required by MSC197(80). The survey panel agreed that if this is the position that IACS would like to take regarding double hull tankers, then it should be brought to the attention of IMO at the next IMO meeting, DE50 in March 2007. 5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council approve the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose January 2008 as an implementation date, although the IMO implementation date is January 2007. Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 9 January 2007
GPG discussion All members agreed to omit the requirement of examination of ballast tanks adjacent to heated fuel tanks, as required by MSC197(80), from URZ10.4 for double hull tankers and
that it should be brought to the attention of IMO at DE50. In addition ABS proposed that paragraphs relating to similar requirements in URZ10.1 should also be deleted for consistency and this was agreed by members. Members also made a number of minor/editorial corrections to the text prior to their approval of the revised documents. Added by Permanent Secretariat 23 April 2007
Part B, Annex 11
Part B, Annex 12
Page 1 of 2
4.
Implementation
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 13
Technical Background document for UR Z10.1 Rev.17 (Feb 2010)

1. Scope and objectives To amend UR Z10.1 (Rev.16) for the harmonization with currently revised MARPOL Annex I. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution MARPOL 73/78 IACS UR Z10.1 (Rev.16) 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: As MARPOL I was revised, the reference to MARPOL I/13 (3) in paragraph 1.2.2bis should read MARPOL I/18(3). 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any N/A
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 14
Technical Background for UR Z10.1 Rev.18 (Mar 2011)

1. Scope and objectives 1) To amend UR Z10.1 to harmonize the definition of transverse section. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table IX. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 1) Based on that fact that bulk carriers and oil tankers have a transverse framing system applied for example on ships sides etc. and that UR Z7 is applied to all types of ships and includes an extended definition of transverse section it is necessary to unify this definition in UR Z10s. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table IX such that the introduction of extended annual surveys is noted in the Memoranda section rather than under Conditions of Class. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IACS UR Z7. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1) The following additional text is added to the definition of transverse section in para 1.2.5: For transversely framed vessels, a transverse section includes adjacent frames and their end connections in way of transverse sections. 2) In the Executive Hull Summary Table IX (iv) the reference to part H) is updated to part I) as per Table IX (ii). 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None. 6. Attachments if any None.
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 15


UR Z10.2 Hull Surveys of Bulk Carriers
Version no. Rev.29 Rev.28 Rev.27 Rev.26 Rev.25 Rev.24 Rev.23 (Jul 2011) (Mar 2011) (Mar 2009) (Nov 2007) (Jul 2007) (Apr 2007) (Feb 2007) Approval date 27 24 18 15 19 12 10 23 11 10 31 11 July 2011 March 2011 March 2009 November 2007 July 2007 April 2007 February 2007 June 2006 May 2006 February 2006 January 2006 January 2006
Part A
Rev.22 (Jun 2006) Rev.21 (May 2006) Rev.20 (Feb 2006) Rev.19 (Jan 2006) Rev.18, Corr.1 (Jan 2006) Rev.18 (Jan 2006) Rev.17 (Jun 2005) Rev.16 (Feb 2004) Rev.15, Corr.1 (Feb 2004) Rev.15 (Dec 2003) Rev.14 (Aug 2003) Rev.13 (Oct 2002) Rev.12 (Mar 2002) Rev.11.1 (Jun 2001) Rev.11 (Nov 2000) Rev.10.1 (Sept 2000) Rev.10 (Sept 2000) Rev.9 (July 1999) Rev.8 (April 1998) Rev.7 (1997) Rev.6 (1996) Rev.5 (1996) Rev.4 (1996) Rev.3 (1995) Rev.2 (1994) Rev.1 (1994) NEW (1992)
Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2012 1 July 2012 1 July 2010 1 January 2009 1 July 2008 1 July 2008 1 January 2007 / 1 January 2008 *1 1 July 2007 1 July 2007 1 January 2007 1 January 2007 1 January 2007 1 1 1 1 January 2007 July 2006 January 2005 January 2004
4 January 2006 27 June 2005 23 February 2004 23 February 2004 23 December 2003 8 August 2003 22 November 2002 19 March 2002 22 June 2001 23 November 2000 29 September 2000 14 September 2000 16 July 1999 No record 10 December 1997 (C36) No record No record No record No record No record No record No record
1 1 1 1
January 2003 / 1 July 2002 / year after Council adoption *2 July 2001 July 2001
1 July 2001 1 September 1999 Not later than 1 July 1998
Not later than 1 January 1997 Not later than 1 January 1997 Not later than 1 January 1997
* Notes: 1. Changes introduced in Rev.23 are to be uniformly implemented for surveys commenced on or after 1 January 2008, whereas statutory requirements of IMO Res. MSC 197(80) apply on 1 January 2007.
Page 1 of 11
2.
The amendments to Table I and 4.2.3 introduced in Rev.12 are to further increase the requirements for close-up survey at Special Survey No.2 and to require the scope of the Intermediate Survey thereafter to have the scope of Special Survey No.2. These requirements are to be implemented for any Special Survey No.2 or the Intermediate Survey subsequent to Special Survey No.2 commenced after 1 January 2003. Paragraph 4.2.4.3 is newly introduced in Rev.12 in accordance with Res.MSC 105(73) and is to be implemented from 1 July 2002. The other changes introduced in Rev.12 are to be implemented within one year of the adoption by Council.
Rev.29 (July 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following external audit a member was advised that a small temporary doubler on a cross-deck strip of a bulk carrier should have been promptly and thoroughly repaired at the time of survey. The member carried out an investigation and found that the actions of the surveyor were fully justifiable, the temporary repair and short term Condition of Class imposed were an appropriate method of dealing with such a situation. The member advised that the current requirements for Prompt and Thorough Repair stipulated under the UR 7 and UR 10 series do not give any leeway for carrying out temporary repairs (and imposing a Recommendation/Condition of Class in accordance PR 35) where the damage in question is isolated and localised, and in which the ships structural integrity is not impaired. The Survey Panel discussed the matter and agreed that under carefully defined circumstances a temporary repair and short term Recommendation/Condition of Class would be an appropriate course of action. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was discussed by correspondence within the Survey Panel and at the Autumn 2010 Panel Meeting. Following discussion at which the possibility of a Unified Interpretation being raised was considered, it was eventually decided to make direct amendment to the relevant Unified Requirements. The wording of the new paragraph to be inserted as Para 1.3.3 in all relevant Unified Requirements was extensively discussed prior to agreement. The proposal was unanimously agreed by Survey Panel Members. .5 Other Resolutions Changes
Page 2 of 11
The identical amendment affects UR Z7, UR Z7.1, UR Z7.2, UR Z10.1, UR Z10.2, UR Z10.3, UR Z10.4 and UR Z 10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 Made by a Member Panel Approval: March 2011 GPG Approval: 27 July 2011 (Ref: 11118_IGb)
Rev.28 (Mar 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: 1) Inconsistency of the definition of transverse section of the ship given in UR Z7 and UR Z10s. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table VII. 3) Correction of minimum allowable diminution to maximum allowable diminution in Annex II. 4) To make the survey requirements in UR Z10.2 compatible with the new requirements contained in CSRs. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: Item 1) was proposed by RS and item 2) and 3) were proposed by GL. All amendments were agreed by the panel. Regarding Item 4) The Survey Panel Members decided that the task would be carried out by a Project Team, rather than through correspondence within the Panel. The PT was composed by three Members from the Survey Panel and one Member, external to the Panel, who was expert both in surveys and in structural matters. Subsequently the PT requested the Small Group on Strategy & Steering Committee that the PT were enlarged with the joining of two additional Members of the Hull Panel, in order to increase the PTs expertise in the CSRs based on the fact that CSRs would be amended, even if limitedly to requirements related to surveys after construction. The Small Group on Strategy & Steering Committee fulfilled the PT request. Additionally Permsec had received feedback from one of the IACS Audit Managers that the 20% and 25% pitting intensity diagrams were missing from Figure 2 of Annex V. Investigation showed that this appears to have been a typographical error introduced around 2005 and so Permsec have reinstated the missing diagrams.
Page 3 of 11
.5 Other Resolutions Changes UR Z10.1, Z10.3, Z10.4 and Z10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: January 2010, made by Survey Panel Survey Panel Approval: July/November 2010 GPG Approval: 24 March 2011 (Ref: 10170_IGe)
Rev.27 (Mar 2009)
Rev.26 (Nov 2007)
Rev.25 (Jul 2007)
Replacement of the term capesize bulk carrier with 100 000 dwt and above. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.24 (Apr 2007)
Survey Panel Task 10 Develop survey requirements for void spaces of ore carriers. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.23 (Feb 2007)
Rev.22 (Jun 2006)
Page 4 of 11
Survey Panel Task 43 Amend the applicable sections of the URs to address the requirements for substantial corrosion in the Common structural rules. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.21 (May 2006)
Survey Panel Task 37 Amend UR Z10.2 to increase the scope of the survey requirements of Special Survey No.2 and the Intermediate Survey between Special Survey No. 2 and No.3 for Cape Size Bulk Carriers. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.20 (Feb 2006)
Survey Panel Task 4 Means of Access for Close-Up Surveys of Capesize Bulk Carrier hold frames. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.19 (Jan 2006)
Survey Panel Task 11 Unified Periodic Survey Requirements related to SOLAS Reg. XII/12 & Reg. XII/13. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.18, Corr.1 (Jan 2006)
Noting that Members had not fully agreed the text in para 5.3.4 of UR Z10.2 Rev.18, Rev.18 was withdrawn and a corrected version was circulated with the text of Section 5.3 being that of Rev.17. No TB document available.
Rev.18 (Jan 2006)
Rev.17 (Jun 2005)
Page 5 of 11
Rev.16 (Feb 2004)
Changes to para 1.1.4 and Special Survey 3 in Table 3 relating to close-up surveys no TB document available.
Rev.15, Corr.1(Feb 2004)
Clarifications separating UR S31 needs from other measures no TB document available.
Rev.15 (Dec 2003)
WP/SRC Task 111, relating to thickness measurements of frames of single side skin bulk carriers and ensuring consistency between UR S31 and UR Z10.2. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.14 (Aug 2003)
WP/SRC Task 80 Survey reporting Principles - NMD Report on Leros Strength and WP/SRC Task 106 Incorporation of CAS requirements into A.744. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.13 (Oct 2002)
Rev.12 (Mar 2002)
WP/SRC Task 87 Amend Z10.1 & 10.2 to reflect changes introduced to Res A.744 by MSC 73 See TB document in Part B.
Rev.11.1 (Jun 2001)
Page 6 of 11
Rev.11 (Nov 2000)
Rev.10.1 (Sept 2000)
WP/SRC Task No. 62 revision of UR Z10.2 (Rev.10) to keep the original intention that for the foremost cargo hold of the ships subject to SOLAS XII/9.1, intermediate surveys shall apply. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.10 (Sept 2000)
WP/SRC Tasks 49 and 62, and introduction of Extraordinary Council Meeting (Feb 2000) decisions into UR Z10.2. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.9 (July 1999)
Revised according to amendments to Res A.744(18). No TB document available.
Rev.8 (April 1998)
Rev.7 (1997)
Updated in accordance with amendments to IMO Res. 744(18) as contained in Annex 4 to MSC 68 WP.14. Adopted at C36. No TB document available.
Rev.6 (1996)
Page 7 of 11
Rev.5 (1996)
Rev.4 (1996)
Rev.3 (1995)
Rev.2 (1994)
Rev.1 (1994)
NEW (1992)
Page 8 of 11
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z10.2: Annex 1. TB for Rev.10 (Sept 2000)

Annex 2. TB for Rev.10.1 (Sept 2000)





Page 9 of 11






Page 10 of 11
Annex 15.
TB for Rev.24 (Apr 2007)

Annex 16. TB for Rev.25 (Jul 2007)





Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1992), Rev.1 (1994), Rev.2 (1994), Rev.3 (1995), Rev.4 (1996), Rev.5 (1996), Rev.6 (1996), Rev.7 (1997), Rev.8 (Apr 1998), Rev.9 (Jul 1999), Rev.13 (Oct 2002), Rev.15 Corr.1 (Feb 2004), Rev.16 (Feb 2004) and Rev.18, Corr.1 (Jan 2006).
Page 11 of 11
Part B, Annex 1
Revise UR Z10.2 to introduce ExCM (Extraordinary Council Meeting in Feb 2000) decision to UR Z10s ExCM FUA 2-2: Intermediate surveys of ships subject to ESP, which are over 15 years of age, will be enhanced to the scope of the preceding special survey with dry docking or under water survey as applicable.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC Chairman, shortly after GPG 48th meeting: The para. 4.2.2, 4.2.3 & 4.2.4 for ExCM FUA 2-2. For the outcome of WP/SRC Task 49 application of Z10.2 to ore carriers), the para. 4.2 was re-arranged. The paragraph 8.2.1 for compatibility with the PR 19 (ABS GPG suggested.)
GPG 48 meeting discussed whether to extend the requirement of ExCM FUA 2-1 to other ships and C 41 confirmed not to extend this requirement to other ships for the time being.
ExCM FUA 2-1: All ballast tanks adjacent to cargo tanks with heating coils shall be examined internally on an annual basis after the ship has reached 15 years of age.
Unresolved Comments: Discussions:

In addition, LR (GPG) proposed the following additions: The second half of the para. 4.2.4.1(LR) except that testing of cargo and ballast tanks is not required unless deemed necessary by the attending surveyor. The majority GPG agreed.
The paragraph 7.1.1 of Z10.1 and Z10.3, paragraph 8.1.2 of Z10.3 were revised for their compatibility with the PR 19 PR for Thickness Measurement.
Page 1 of 4
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 49 UR Z10.2 Proposed Draft Revision 10

(submitted by WP/SRC Chair on 10 June 2000)

Review UR Z10.2 for the purpose of verifying that it also fully applies to Ore Carriers as defined in UR Z11.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC Members, through correspondence and their meeting, identifying the requirements contained in Z 10.1 for Oil/Ore Carriers and incorporating them into UR Z10.2.
WP/SRC did not unanimously agreed to either of two draft URs submitted with this document.(Z102.doc and Z102strict.doc)
Unresolved Comments:
WP/SRC agree to the changes in 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.2.5 with the exception of the requirement for close-up survey of Web Frame Rings in Ballast Wing Tanks for vessels 15 years of age. Seven of the Members agreed to require that All Web Frame Rings in All Ballast Wing Tanks should be close-up surveyed. Three of the Members did not agree, but did agree to require All Web Frame Rings in One (1) Ballast Wing Tank and One (1) Web Frame Wing in all remaining Ballast Wing Tanks be close-up surveyed.
Discussions:
The Members that did agree to require that All Web Frame Rings in All Ballast Wing Tanks should be close-up surveyed, based the decision to remain consistent with the principal adopted in Z10.1 for Oil Tankers and Oil/Ore Carriers. LR and DNV were vocal in their opposition to the less strict requirements supported by BV, RINA, and KR. The Chairman requested reasons for the opposition to the stricter requirements from the three Members for inclusion in this document and are as follows: BV - When the ships in caption have 5 ballast tanks each side that means in that case they have 10 ballast tanks in total + peaks. considering 4 web rings per tanks gives in 40 web rings. If the ship's depth is 18 m and tanks' breath 10 m the developed length of a web ring is 56 m considering the 40 web rings we will have to close-up examine 56x40= 2240m. considering the scaffoldings to be erected, the physical condition requested to the attending Surveyor(s) and the other items to be inspected, it will be simply impossible to comply with the requirements ( which will correspond more or less to a Special Survey) during an intermediate survey. Unless we reduce the class term to 3 years, I do not agree with the proposals. RINA - RINA is of the opinion that requiring the close-up survey of all web frame rings in all ballast tanks (wing tanks + peak tanks) at the intermediate survey of ore carriers of 15 years of age and over is excessive and not reasonable as the assessment of these tanks can be achieved likewise through the overall survey in all of them and the close-up survey of "ALL web frame rings in ONE ballast wing tank and ONE web frame ring in EACH REMAINING ballast wing tank" and, in any case, should the condition of the web frame rings inspected be found not satisfactory, the survey will have to be extended to other rings in the same tank, as suggested in my message of 15 April. This less strict scope of survey would allow intermediate survey to be feasible and compatible with the commercial Page 2 of 4 Submitted by the Permsec On 18 Sept 2000
operations of ships (in fact these surveys are usually carried out either during loading and unloading phases or at the end of them and require extensive scaffolding to be erected or rafting to be carried out). In addition, experience in performing intermediate surveys of ore/oil carriers for which the same stricter requirements have already been implemented has proved how it is difficult for a surveyor to have these spaces adequately prepared for this kind of inspection. Thus we do not like to extend the same problem to other kinds of ships and, rather, would like to amend the corresponding requirements related to ore/oil carriers accordingly, although it is recognized that this proposal could be difficult to achieve. Anyhow, even if the majority decides to submit the original text to GPG, we are prepared to maintain our position. KR - The requirements of close-up survey of "all web frame rings in all salt water wing ballast tanks" at intermediate survey for ships older than 15 years is considered too heavy because all transverse webs in each ballast tank were close-up surveyed already at special survey No.3 as indicated in table 1 of existing UR Z10.2.
. Note of IACS Permanent Secretariat (Date: 19 July 2000) 1. Numbering of the paragraph 4.2 of Z10.2 was re-arranged due to introduction of the requirements addressing ExCM FUA 2-2 enhancement of intermediate survey to the preceding special survey for ships over 15 years of age. 2. The WP/SRCs proposed change to the para. 4.2.2.5 (now it stands as para. 4.2.3.1.b)) invited diverging views among GPG Members. However, it was found at GPG 48 meeting in March 2000 that the ExCM decision relating to enhancement of intermediate survey should be taken into account and as a result an urgent task was given to WP/SRC Chairman during GPG 48 to re-draft this paragraph. (The para. 4.2.2.5 (now 4.2.3.1.b): the extent of close-up survey of ballast tanks at intermediate survey in ore carriers over 15 years of age.) 3. 4. WP/SRC Chairman put forward a re-draft of this requirement in April 2000. GPG Chairman announced unanimous agreement on 14 August 2000 (0065aIGd, 14/8/00).
Page 3 of 4
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 62 UR Z10.2 Proposed Draft Revision 10

(submitted by WP/SRC Chair on 10 June 2000)

Revise UR Z10.2 detailing how intermediate surveys are to be applied annually to the foremost cargo holds of ships subject to SOLAS XII/9.1. Also, draft comparable amendments to A.744(18) for consideration by GPG with a view to their submission to IMO.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC members through correspondence and their meeting by incorporating the requirements of SOLAS XII/9.1 into UR Z10.2 and A.744(18).
(Note: After adoption of Z10.2 (Rev.10), amendment was made to it in order to avoid conflict between WP/SRC Task 62 and ExCM decision to extend the scope of intermediate survey of older bulkers to that of special survey. See the Rev. 10.1 of Z 10.2 (3 October 2000, note by the Permsec))
Page 4 of 4
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background Document UR Z10.2 Revision 10.1 For WP/SRC Task No. 62

Revise UR Z10.2 (Rev.10) to keep the original intention that for the foremost cargo hold of the ships subject to SOLAS XII/9.1, intermediate surveys shall apply.

The outcome of WP/SRC Task 62.
The consequence of Council's decision to extend the scope of intermediate surveys of older bulkers to that of special survey has the effect of making the annual survey required by 3.2.1.2 be a special survey (i.e. a full special hull survey every year for bulk carriers subject to SOLAS XII/9.1). See the note 5, para. 3.3 and new Annex IV.
Unresolved Comments: Discussions:

-----
Submitted by the Permsec On 3 Oct 2000
Part B, Annex 3


Part B, Annex 4
Rev.8.1, Z10.1 Rev.11.1, Z10.2 Rev.4.1, Z10.3

(21 June 2001)
1.
2.
* * * * *
Part B, Annex 5
2.
3.
4.
Part B, Annex 6
UR Z10.1(Rev.11) and Z10.2(Rev.14) (July 2003) Technical background
Part A: Survey Reporting Principles
1. Objective WP/SRC Task 80 Survey Reporting Principles
2. Points of discussion The WP/SRC carried out this task according to the work specification of Form A (Rev.1) and reported the outcome on 18 December 2002 as follows:
Review of NMD's report on "Sinking of Leros Strength", dated 6 July 2000 and the recommendations in section 5.3 Review of IACS Council's reply, dated 22 August 2000 to those recommendations For recommendations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 ,3, 4.2, 5 and 6, best practices have been identified by information exchange amongst Members and discussions at three WP-meetings. Harmonised survey reporting practices fulfilling, in so far as practicable, the recommendations of NMD have been included in the revised tables attached. Standard survey reporting terminology (recommendation 2) is in the process of being prepared and will be submitted to GPG for approval as an IACS Recommendation with the title "Surveyor's Glossary". The completion of the glossary has been delayed somewhat due to pending illustrations of typical hull structures.
Council approved on 14 July 2003 (2249_). ***
Part B: Incorporation of CAS related requirements into UR Z10s
2. Objective WP/SRC Task 106 Incorporation of CAS related requirements into A.744
2. Points of discussion The WP/SRC carried out this task according to the work specification of Form A and reported the outcome on 27 May 2003.
Since CAS was developed for tankers only, WP/SRC considered whether there is any need to further develop/modify requirements in CAS with respect to bulk carriers. Hence, amendments to Z10.15.5.5(rafting), 5.6(survey planning), 8.2.2(different survey stations) and Table 1(closeup survey). IACS will submit its proposed amendments to Res A.744 as a result of this revision. NK GPG suggested that the word alone be inserted after rafting in Z7 and Z10.1(5.5.5)~10.5. WP/SRC had considered this and felt that the insertion of the word "alone" will create a loophole as the text "Rafting alone will only be allowed..." could be interpreted that other means of access have to be used. Besides this wording would impede the use of rafting for survey of side and bottom structures of the spaces. GPG considered that rafts/boats should be accepted as a means to move about within a tank to gain access to any temporary platforms that may be erected. Consequently, the wording of 5.5.5 was re-drafted and split into three parts (5.5.5~5.5.7) beginning with Rafts or boats alone may be allowed for inspection of the under deck areas The same wording will be introduced into Z10.3, Z10.4, Z10.5, Z7 and Z7.1.
Approved on 08/08/2003 (0237h) ***

Prepared by the Permanent Secretariat 22 July 2003
Part B, Annex 7
UR Z10.2 (Rev.15, Dec 2003) 1.
Objective :
Develop criteria for the extent and methodology of thickness measurements of frames of single side skin bulk carriers so as to ensure that UR S31 and UR Z10.2 include consistent, accurate and sufficient requirements.
2.
WP/SRC Task 111
WP/SRC Task 111 completed on 10 Nov 2003 with new report form on Thickness Measurements of Cargo Hold Frames. In addition, WP/SRC proposed the following changes: 1) to enhance the close-up survey requirements of the shell frames at Special Survey No.3 to include all shell frames in the forward and one other selected cargo hold and 50 % of frames in each of the remaining cargo holds. GPG agreed. 2) ships which are required to comply with UR S31 are subject to the additional thickness measurement guidelines for the gauging of side shell frames and brackets as given in the proposed new Annex V. GPG agreed.
3.
GPG Discussion
GPG agreed to the following further changes: 1) Annex V, item 3.1: further modified to indicate that the 5 deepest pits within the cleaned area be gauged and the minimum thickness found recorded; 2) WP/SRCs proposed paragraphs relevant to face plates in both items 4.1 and 4.2 of Annex V were deleted; 3) Gauging method on flange and shell plating for bending check was newly introduced as item 4.3 of Annex V. *** 2219fICa
Part B, Annex 8
2.
Background
3.
Methodology of work
Page 1 of 4
4.
Discussion
Page 2 of 4
5.
6.
Implementation
Page 3 of 4
5.
_ _ _
Page 4 of 4

2.
3.
Page 1 of 2
4.
2.
3. 4.

Page 2 of 2
coating condition.

4& 5
NN
Page 1 of 2
06/07/05
Page 2 of 2
06/07/05
No Yes No
No Yes No
No Yes No
Yes No No
Yes No No
No No4) Yes
No Yes No
No5) Yes No
Yes Yes No
Yes No No
Annex 3:
Page 1 of 3
4.
Conclusion
6 May 2005 Permsec
Page 2 of 3
Annex. (5037_ICb, 15 May 2005)

Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 9
TB UR Z10.2(Rev.18, Corr.1 Jan 2006)

1. Para. 1.4 and 7.1.3
2.
Para. 5.5.4 and 5.5.6
Technical Background UI SC 191 (Rev.2, Oct 2005) & UR Z10.1 (Rev.13) UR Z10.2 (Rev.18) UR Z10.3 (Rev.8) UR Z10.4 (Rev.3) UR Z10.5 (Rev.2)
1.
2.
Background
4.
Page 1 of 3
5.
Page 2 of 3
6.
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 10
Survey Panel Task 11 Unified Periodic Survey Requirements related to SOLAS Reg. XII/12 & Reg. XII/13. Technical Background Amendments to UR Z10.2(Rev.19, Jan 2006) and UR Z10.5 (Rev.3, Jan 2006)
1. Objective To amend UR 10.2 Section 2.6 and 3.4 and UR Z10.5 Section 2.6 and 3.3 to include survey requirements related to SOLAS reg. XII/12 and XII/13. 2. Background This task was originally discussed during the WP/SRC annual meeting which took place at DNV Headquarters on the 26th to 28th October 2004; it was subsequently recorded under paragraph 9 any other business of the minutes of this meeting. While the SOLAS Reg.XII/12 (hold, ballast and dry spaces water level detectors) and XII/13 (availability of pumping systems) retroactive requirements for existing bulk carriers have entered into force on 1st July 2004, as required by IMO Res.MSC.134(76), the IACS UR S 24 has been deleted on 1st January 2004.In addition, SOLAS does not include any periodical survey requirements for such detection systems and pumping systems. 3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel members through correspondence.
4. Discussion Survey Panel member from BV raised this issue at the February 2005 Survey Panel meeting and volunteered to propose amendments to the applicable URs for Panel members to review and comment on through correspondence. At the Fall meeting of the Survey Panel, it was agreed upon by all Panel members that the proposed amendments for UR Z10.2 and Z10.5 as applicable, which were proposed by BV were acceptable. 5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose January 2007 as an implementation date. Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 4 Nov 2005 approved on 31 Jan 2006 (5031fICa)
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 11
Survey Panel Task 4 Means of Access for Close-Up Surveys of Capesize Bulk Carrier hold frames Technical Background UR Z10.2 / Section 5.3 (Rev. 20, s/n 4110a, 10 Feb 2006)
1. Objective To amend the requirements of UR 10.2 section 5.3.2 regarding the Close-up survey of hold frames with respect to acceptable means of access. 2. Background In a report to Council at C50 on the loss of side shell on a capesize vessel, it was stated that issues regarding the means of access for survey of hold frames was raised by the incident which had Council request the Survey Panel to review the current requirements for means of access for the surveyor, especially on existing capesize vessels. 3. Methodology of Work The Survey Panel, at its February 2005 meeting decided that this task should be dealt with by a project team, led by NK with members from BV, ABS, KR and CCS participating. 4. Discussion The members of the project team, through correspondence and one meeting in Japan, came to an agreement on the revisions to URZ10.2 Section 5.3..2 on how to address the concerns of Council. It was decided that the requirements for means of access be divided into two sections to better define the requirements applicable to each size of vessel; capesize and all bulk carriers under capesize. In addition, the requirements for capesize bulk carriers were then divided to indicate different requirements for annual, intermediate and special survey. Regarding the amendments for acceptable means of access, it was agreed upon by the Project team that hydraulic arm vehicles, boats or rafts, and portable ladders for bulk carriers less than capesize, should be added to the list of equipment for means of access. The Project Team representative at the Fall Survey Panel meeting from BV, presented the project team proposals to the Panel, which after some editorial changes, unanimously agreed to the proposed amendments to URZ10.2 section 5.3.2.
5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose 1 January 2007 as an implementation date.
Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 2 Nov 2005
Page 1 of 3
Permsecs Note 1. LR sought confirmation from the Survey Panel as to whether these amendments did not go against SOLAS regulation II-1/3-6 and TP and IACS UIs and MSC Circular. LR added that Bulk carriers being built today would have Access Manuals which would define means of access for close-up surveys approved by ROs on behalf of Administrations. 2. It was then confirmed that the Survey Panels proposal was consistent with all IMO and IACS requirements and recommendations except that for capesize and above, it limited the use of portable ladders. In that regard, ABS proposed an editorial modification to achieve consistent text with REC.91 and that REC.91 be revised to refer to the limitation of ladders introduced in 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of UR Z10.2 (Rev.18). See REC 91, para. 5.6.1 (Rev.1, Nov 2005). 3. For reference, ABS clarifications to the points raised by LR are attached (4110aABb, 16 Nov 2005).
4. Council discussion
4.1 Editorial nature: Council approved the NK proposal to re-number the paragraphs 5.3.2~5.3.4, and to relocate references to "shell frames" / "hold frames" from the bulleted items to the chapeaux of the renumbered paragraphs by referring to these cargo hold structural members as "cargo hold shell frames". This is consistent with the current text of Z10.2 which predominantly refers to these cargo hold structural members as "shell frames".
4.2 Substantive nature - para.5.3.4 4.2.1 NKs first proposal:
The following NKs proposed revision of paragraph 5.3.4 of Z10.2 did not achieve 3/4 majority support by Council Members. "5.3.4 For close-up surveys of the cargo hold shell frames of capesize bulk carriers (100,000 dwt and above), the use of free standing portable ladders irrespective of their length, is not accepted, and one or more of the following means for access, acceptable to the surveyor, is to be provided:" Not adopted, Reason: The introduction of "free standing" portable ladders is contrary to what GPG and the Survey Panel unanimously agreed with respect to prohibiting the use of any type of portable ladders (free standing, articulated, or otherwise) for close up surveys of cargo hold shell frames of bulk carriers (100k dwt and above). The text of the re-numbered paragraph 5.3.4 therefore remained without changes.
Page 2 of 3
4.2.2 NKs 2nd proposal: NKc offered a "compromise" proposal with a view to resolving this dilemma which would retain the original text of 5.3.4 but add a paragraph allowing the use of portable ladders fitted with a mechanical device to secure the upper end of the ladder only for Annual Survey of cargo hold shell frames of capesize bulk carriers Under 5.3.4 Notwithstanding the above requirements, for close-up surveys of the cargo hold shell frames at Annual Survey, the use of portable ladder fitted with a mechanical device to secure the upper end of the ladder is accepted.
4.2.3
LR agreed but expressed the following view:
If the argument for limiting the use of ladders is still valid then there is a need to specify that their use is permitted only for "Close-up examination of sufficient extent, minimum 25% of frames, to establish the condition of the lower region of the shell frames including approx. lower one third length of side frame at side shell and side frame end attachment and the adjacent shell plating in the forward cargo hold", however "Where this level of survey reveals the need for remedial measures, the survey is to be extended to include a Close-up Survey of all of the shell frames and adjacent shell plating of that cargo hold as well as a Close-up survey of sufficient extent of all remaining cargo holds" the ladders should not be used and the hold should be staged.
LRs text was then modified by the Chairman to address the minimum extent of close-up survey of frames of capesize bulkers age 10 and older, at annual survey as required in 3.2.4 of UR Z10.2: Under 5.3.4:
Notwithstanding the above requirements, the use of a portable ladder fitted with a mechanical device to secure the upper end of the ladder is acceptable for the "close-up examination of sufficient extent, minimum 25% of frames, to establish the condition of the lower region of the shell frames including approx. lower one third length of side frame at side shell and side frame end attachment and the adjacent shell plating of the forward cargo hold" at Annual Survey, required in 3.2.4.1.b, and the one other selected cargo hold" required in 3.2.4.2.b.
Adopted on 10 Feb 2006.
Attached: ABS clarifications to the points raised by LR are attached (4110aABb, 16 Nov 2005).
Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 1
From: Sent: To:
AIACS@eagle.org 16 November 2005 19:46 iacs@bureauveritas.com; clnkiacs@classnk.or.jp; colinwright@iacs.org.uk; efs@iacs.org.uk; iacs@lr.org; gilyonghan@iacs.org.uk; helenbutcher@iacs.org.uk; iacs@ccs.org.cn; iacs@dnv.com; iacs@rina.org; iacs@rs-head.spb.ru; iacs@gl-group.com; johnderose@iacs.org.uk; krsiacs@krs.co.kr; richardleslie@iacs.org.uk; terryperkins@iacs.org.uk
Subject: 4110aABb: Close-up surveys of bulk carrier hold frames, P/SU Task [4] (C50 FUA 7)
Date: 16 Nov 05 TO: Mr. Steven McIntyre, IACS GPG Chairman CC: IACS GPG Members CC: IACS Permanent Secretary: Mr. R. Leslie FROM: S. R. McIntyre File Ref: T-12-2 Subject: 4110aABb: Close-up surveys of bulk carrier hold frames, P/SU Task [4] (C50 FUA 7) I note Kosta's LRb request to "know the effect the proposed amendment will have on the designs already formally accepted to comply with SOLAS and IACS UI" before giving final approval to the amendments. While the effect will only be known for each ship depending on the arrangement provided, I have the following comments to the numbered points Kosta raises: 3. I do not consider that a "significant impact" will result if IACS limits the use of portable ladders > 5m in length, since use of these ladders would otherwise greatly increase the time to survey, gauge and, if necessary, repair the side shell relative to employing other alternatives (e.g., cherry pickers). While the owner would have paid for these ladders based on RO's approval, the proposed UR would limit their use for survey only and these ladders are still available for use by the crew (which is included in the objectives of the TP's) to carry out maintenance and inspection. 4. Until such time that the TP's, MSC/Circ.1176 and/or the UI SC 191 are revised, ABS will ensure that those responsible for approving the SSAS are aware of the more limited choice of alternative means of access for capesize bulk carriers as per draft provisions of UR Z10.2. 4.1 The draft proposals for Z10.2 do not address, and therefore allow, the use of portable ladders > 5 m in spaces other than cargo holds. Regards, S. R. McIntyre ABS IACS GPG Member
17/11/2005
Part B, Annex 12
Survey Panel Task 37 Amend UR Z10.2 to increase the scope of the survey requirements of Special Survey No.2 and the Intermediate Survey between Special Survey No. 2 and No.3 for Cape Size Bulk Carriers Technical Background Document UR Z10.2 (Rev.21, May 2006)
1. Objective:
Amend UR Z10.2 to increase the scope of the survey requirements of Special Survey No.2 and the Intermediate Survey between Special Survey No. 2 and No.3 for Cape Size Bulk Carriers 2. Background
The project team from Survey Panel Task 4, which dealt with amending the close-up surveys of bulk carrier hold frames, recommended to the Survey Panel at the Fall 2005 meeting that the Survey Panel should be tasked to amend the relevant sections of UR Z10.2 to increase the scope of requirements for Cape size bulk carriers because of the intermediate survey between SS No2 and & 3 is more critical than Special survey no.2 in respect of the close-up survey of hold frames. 3. Discussion
The member from NK proposed the following: NK does not agree with the draft amendments of special survey No.2 in IAb which are completely same as the requirements of special survey No.3. There should be some difference between the requirements of special survey No.2and No.3 because the requirements in the Table I are become stricter as ships become older. NK proposed to reduce "one other selected cargo hold from the draft. All members agreed to the proposal from NK, with further minor amendments from RINA and BV, which was agreed upon unanimously by Panel members at the Spring 2006 meeting. 4. Implementation
The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules/procedures. Assuming that GPG and Council approve the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose July 2007 as an implementation date.
Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman
Part B, Annex 13
Survey Panel Task 43 Amend the applicable sections of the URs to address the requirements for substantial corrosion in the Common structural rules.
Technical Background (UR Z10.2, Rev.22, June 2006) (UR Z10.4, Rev.4, June 2006) (UR Z10.5, Rev.4, June 2006)
1. Objective Amend applicable sections of the URs to address the requirements for substantial corrosion in the Common structural rules. 2. Background Due to the different application of substantial corrosion in the CSR from the current Unified Requirements. 3. Methodology of Work Panel members discussed the proposed revisions through correspondence up to the Spring Panel meeting where final amendments were agreed upon for submittal to the IACS Hull Panel for review. 4. Discussion After much discussion between all Panel members at the March 2006 Survey Panel members, a unanimous decision was reached as to the wording of CSR Substantial corrosion in UR Z10.2, 10.4, and 10.5 in section 1.2.9 and was then submitted to the Hull Panel for review and approval. The hull panel concluded that the Survey Panel definition for CSR substantial corrosion was not entirely accurate and recommended further amendments to clarify the actual requirements. The new definition was then circulated to the Survey Panel for a final review and was unanimously agreed upon. 5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules/procedures. Assuming that GPG and Council approve the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose July 2007 as an implementation date.
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 14
Part B, Annex 15
Technical Background Document UR Z10.5 (Rev.6 April 2007) & UR Z10.2 (Rev.24 April 2007)
(Survey Panel Task 10 Develop survey requirements for void spaces of ore carriers)
1. Objective: Develop survey requirements for void spaces of ore carriers 2. Background DNV requested at WP/SRC Annual meeting October 2004 to develop survey requirements void spaces of ore carriers. See the attached document Ore Carriers, Hull Survey Requirements for easy reference. NK submitted a A case study on a certain Ore Carrier dated 22 October 2004 for this purpose. 3. Discussion The task has been carried out by a Project Team chaired by DNV Survey Panel member and with Survey Panel members from BV, LR, NK and RINA. The Project Team drafted new amendments to Unified Requirement UR Z 10.5 Hull Surveys of Double Skin Bulk Carriers using the same principles contained in the survey requirements of UR Z10.1 for ballast spaces of single hull oil tankers with appropriate adjustments recognizing that void spaces do not carry ballast water. In that respect, a new TABLE I/Sheet 2 was developed to cover the minimum requirements for close-up surveys at special hull surveys of ore carriers. The existing TABLE I, renamed TABLE I/Sheet 1, was made applicable to double skin bulk carriers excluding ore carriers. Accordingly, TABLE III/Sheet 3 (REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENT OF THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS AT THOSE AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL CORROSION OF DOUBLE SKIN BULK CARRIERS WITHIN THE CARGO LENGTH AREA) was renamed STRUCTURE IN DOUBLE SIDE SPACES OF DOUBLE SKIN BULK CARRIERS INCLUDING WING VOID SPACES OF ORE CARRIERS. In addition, Sheets 15 and 16 of URZ10.2 Annex II are to be removed. The draft amendments to UR Z10.5 were presented to the Survey Panel members on the 13th-15th September 2006 meeting at ABS Headquarters in Houston and were finally agreed by all members on the 22nd September 2006. 4. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class Rules/procedures. Assuming that GPG and Council approve the amendments by the end of 2006, the Survey Panel would propose as an implementation date for surveys commenced on or after the 1 July 2008 Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 22nd March 2007
Permsec note (May 2007): Revisions adopted by GPG 12 April 2007 (5031hIGg).
Attachment:
Ore Carriers, Hull Survey Requirements

"Ore carrier" means a single deck ship having two longitudinal bulkheads and a double bottom throughout the cargo region and intended for the carriage of ore cargoes in the centre holds only. Side tanks are generally arranged for the carriage of water ballast. In accordance with UR Z10.5, for close-up surveys of side ballast tanks of ore carriers, the survey requirements of side ballast tanks for oil tankers as given in UR Z10.1 apply.
However, the amount of ballast water required to meet draught requirements for navigation / harbour operations, are generally less than the total capacity of the side tanks. Hence ore carriers are often designed with several side tanks as void spaces.
The internal structures are generally as for side ballast tanks with transverse web frame rings. The protective coating, if any, may be less durable than coating applied for ballast tanks and the void spaces are exposed to corrosion.
Ore carriers are generally large sized vessels and the overall survey of side void spaces may not be sufficient in order to carry out a meaningful survey for detection of corrosion and other structural defects. It is proposed to consider minimum requirements for close-up surveys for side void spaces. Requirements given in UR Z10.1 applicable to side cargo tanks may be used as basis.
DNV 2004-10-19
Part B, Annex 16
Technical Background UR Z10.2, Rev.25 (July 2007) Amendments to 5.3.3 , 5.3.4 and Table 1
(Survey Panel Task 1 Annual Review of Implementation of IACS Resolutions)
1. Objective Maintenance of alignment/compatibility of IACS URs and IMO survey requirements
2. Background This proposed change was raised by the ABS member from the Survey Panel, due to questions raised by industry.
3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel members through correspondence.
4. Discussion Due to the many different interpretations of what size a Cape size bulk carrier is, the wording Cape Size is proposed to be removed and replaced with .100,000 dwt and above., to make the additional requirements very clear, regarding applicability. All members of the Survey Panel unanimously agreed to this proposed change.
5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose July 2008 as an implementation date.
Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 22 June 2007
Permanent Secretariat note (July 2007): Adopted by GPG with an implementation date of 1 July 2008 on 19 July 2007 (ref. 5031kIGd).
Part B, Annex 17
Part B, Annex 18
Page 1 of 2
4.
Implementation
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 19

1. Scope and objectives 1) To amend UR Z10.2 to harmonize the definition of transverse section. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table VII. 3) Correction of minimum allowable diminution to maximum allowable diminution in Annex II. 4) Review IACS URZ10.2 to determine if there are issues which need to be addressed to ensure that the IACS survey regime and the CSRs are compatible. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 1) Based on that fact that bulk carriers and oil tankers have a transverse framing system applied for example on ships sides etc. and that UR Z7 is applied to all types of ships and includes an extended definition of transverse section it is necessary to unify this definition in UR Z10s. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table VII such that the introduction of extended annual surveys is noted in the Memoranda section rather than under Conditions of Class. 3) Correction of minimum allowable diminution to maximum allowable diminution in Annex II to be consistent with the other UR Z10s. 4) Some requirements in CSRs for Bulk Carriers were relevant to ships in operation and it was decided to move them from CSRs to UR 10.2 in more consistent way. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution CSRs, IACS UR Z7 and other UR Z10s. Proposed amendments to UR Z10.2 is based on internal discussion of IACS which is always striving to produce consistent and compatible rule requirements. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1) The following additional text is added to the definition of transverse section in para 1.2.7: For transversely framed vessels, a transverse section includes adjacent frames and their end connections in way of transverse sections. 2) In the Executive Hull Summary Table VII (iv) the reference to part G) is updated to part H) as per Table VII (ii). 3) The wording minimum allowable diminution is corrected to maximum allowable diminution in Annex II
Page 1 of 2
Part B
4) The main amendment has consisted in removing the requirements found in the CSRs related to surveys after construction and locating them in the applicable sections of UR Z10.2. The rationale of that is to have only one place where survey requirements are given and avoid any duplication of requirements in different documents, which would give rise to problems of maintenance and alignment. Another important amendment has been the requirement for annual examination of the identified substantial corrosion areas for bulk carriers. One Member Society was of the opinion that there should be no difference between the CSRs and non-CSRs bulk carriers. The other Member Societies were of the opinion to consider an alternative examination, which was the original requirement in CSRs, and thus the following text was adopted in UR Z10.2: For vessel built under IACS Common Structural Rules, the identified substantial corrosion areas may be: a) protected by coating applied in accordance with the coating manufacturers requirements and examined at annual intervals to confirm the coating in way is still in good condition, or alternatively b) required to be gauged at annual intervals. Other important amendments have been made moving the following items from the CSRs to UR Z10.2 as applicable: a) the paragraphs regarding the different corrosion patterns, such as pitting corrosion, edge corrosion and grooving corrosion, and their different acceptance criteria, b) the items regarding the number and locations of thickness measurements, together with the associated table and referenced figures. Another notable change has been introduced in the "ANNEX II - Recommended Procedures for Thickness Measurements" of UR Z10.2, which, however, are only recommendatory and not mandatory, where thickness measurements forms specific to CSRs single skin bulk carriers have been produced in addition to the existing ones, which only apply to non-CSRs ships. Finally, for CSRs bulk carriers the requirement has been introduced which stipulates that the ships longitudinal strength is to be evaluated by using the thickness of structural members measured, renewed and reinforced, as appropriate, during the special surveys carried out after the ship reached 15 years of age (or during the special survey no. 3, if this is carried out before the ship reaches 15 years) in accordance with the criteria for longitudinal strength of the ships hull girder for CSRs bulk carriers specified in Ch 13 of CSRs. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions See item 4 above. 6. Attachments if any None.
Part B, Annex 20


Version no. Rev.14 (Aug 2012) Rev.13 (July 2011) Rev.12 (Mar 2011) Rev.11 (Mar 2009) Rev.10 (Dec 2008) Rev.9 (Nov 2007) Rev.8, Corr.1 (Sept 2006) Rev.8 (Jan 2006) Rev.7 (Jun 2005) Rev.6 (Oct 2002) Rev.5 (Mar 2002) Rev.4.1 (Jun 2001) Rev.4 (Nov 2000) Rev.3 (Sept 2000) Rev.2 (July 1999) Rev.1 (1997) NEW (1996) Approval date 20 August 2012 28 July 2011 24 March 2011 18 March 2009 2 December 2008 15 November 2007 14 September 2006 4 January 2006 27 June 2005 22 November 2002 19 March 2002 22 June 2001 23 November 2000 14 September 2000 16 July 1999 1 October 1997 May 1996 at C33
Part A
UR Z10.3 Hull Surveys of Chemical Tanker
Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2013 1 July 2012 1 July 2012 1 July 2010 1 January 2009 1 January 2007 1 January 2007 1 July 2006 1 July 2002 / 1 year after Council adoption *1 1 July 2001 1 July 2001 1 July 2001 1 September 1999 1 July 2007
* Notes: 1. Paragraph 4.2.4.3 is newly introduced in Rev.5 in accordance with Res.MSC 105(73) and is to be implemented from 1 July 2002. The other changes introduced in Rev.5 are to be implemented within one year of the adoption by Council.
Rev.14 (August 2012)
.2 Main Reason for Change: To modify the figures showing areas for close up surveys, i.e. Fig.2.1, 2.2 and Fig. 3.1-3.3 in Rev.13, as they are different from typical transverse sections of chemical tankers. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None
Page 1 of 8
.4 History of Decisions Made: A member pointed out that figures showing areas for close up surveys, i.e. Fig.2.1, 2.2 and Fig. 3.1-3.3 seem not to be suitable for chemical tankers because they are different from typical transverse sections of chemical tankers. The member proposed that the above-mentioned figures should be modified to show typical transverse section of chemical tanker such as Fig. 6 of UR Z11, in order to avoid any confusion. Survey Panel developed the updated the figures and submitted the corrected UR for GPG approval. GPG agreed to consider this is a revision with an implementation date of 1 July 2013 to provide members with sufficient time to complete the UR implementation process. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 19 July 2011 Made by a Member Panel Approval: 26 June 2012 GPG Approval: 20 August 2012 (Ref: 10079aIGj)
Rev.13 (July 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following external audit a member was advised that a small temporary doubler on a cross-deck strip of a bulk carrier should have been promptly and thoroughly repaired at the time of survey. The member carried out an investigation and found that the actions of the surveyor were fully justifiable, the temporary repair and short term Condition of Class imposed were an appropriate method of dealing with such a situation. The member advised that the current requirements for Prompt and Thorough Repair stipulated under the UR 7 and UR 10 series do not give any leeway for carrying out temporary repairs (and imposing a Recommendation/Condition of Class in accordance PR 35) where the damage in question is isolated and localised, and in which the ships structural integrity is not impaired. The Survey Panel discussed the matter and agreed that under carefully defined circumstances a temporary repair and short term Recommendation/Condition of Class would be an appropriate course of action. Also, Table I was split to into 2 tables for enhanced clarity, Table I.1 for Single Skin and Table I.2 for Double skin ships and miscellaneous editorial errors in the Table I.1 and I.2 are corrected.
Page 2 of 8
.3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was discussed by correspondence within the Survey Panel and at the Autumn 2010 Panel Meeting. Following discussion at which the possibility of a Unified Interpretation being raised was considered, it was eventually decided to make direct amendment to the relevant Unified Requirements. The wording of the new paragraph to be inserted as Para 1.3.3 in all relevant Unified Requirements was extensively discussed prior to agreement. The proposal was unanimously agreed by Survey Panel Members. .5 Other Resolutions Changes The identical amendment affects UR Z7, UR Z7.1, UR Z7.2, UR Z10.1, UR Z10.2, UR Z10.3, UR Z10.4 and UR Z 10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 Made by a Member Panel Approval: March 2011 GPG Approval: 28 July 2011 (Ref: 10079aIGe & 11118_IGb)
Rev.12 (Mar 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: 1) Due to the fact that the figures showing areas for close-up survey were deleted in Rev.10 of UR Z10.3 and that Table I of UR Z10.3 only has references to zones marked as A-D which are covered by the figures shown in UR Z10.1, references to zones 1-7, as shown in URZ10.4, should be added to Table I of UR Z10.3. 2) Inconsistency of the definition of transverse section of the ship given in UR Z7 and UR Z10s. 3) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table IX. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None.
Page 3 of 8
.4 History of Decisions Made: Items 1) and 2) were proposed by RS and item 3) was proposed by GL. All amendments were agreed by the Panel. .5 Other Resolutions Changes UR Z10.1, Z10.2, Z10.4 and Z10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: January 2010, made by Survey Panel Survey Panel Approval: July/November 2010 GPG Approval: 24 March 2011 (Ref: 10170_IGe)
Rev.11 (Mar 2009)
Rev.10 (Dec 2008)
Survey Panel Task 55 Harmonization of UR Z10.3 to UR Z10.4. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.9 (Nov 2007)
Rev. 8, Corr.1 (Sept 2006)
Correction to Table III. No TB document available.
Rev.8 (Jan 2006)
Survey Panel Task 22 Amend applicable URZ7s and Z10s to align Close-Up Survey and Thickness measurements to be carried out at the same time and location allowing for a more structured control of the thickness measurement process plus additional changes relating to access for rafting surveys.
Page 4 of 8
Rev.7 (Jun 2005)
Rev.6 (Oct 2002)
Rev.5 (Mar 2002)
Comparable amendments to Z10.3 based on Z10.1(Rev.9) (ref. WP/SRC Task 87 Amend Z10.1 & 10.2 to reflect changes introduced to Res A.744 by MSC 73) See TB document in Part B.
Rev.4.1 (Jun 2001)
Rev.4 (Nov 2000)
Rev.3 (Sept 2000)
WP/SRC Tasks 49 and 62, and introduction of Extraordinary Council Meeting (Feb 2000) decisions into UR Z10.2. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.2 (July 1999)
Revised according to amendments to Res A.744(18).
Page 5 of 8
Rev.1 (1997)
Update to the applicability of UR Z10.3. No TB document available.
NEW (1996)
Page 6 of 8
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z10.3: Annex 1. TB for Rev.3 (Sept 2000)






Page 7 of 8




Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the original resolution (1996), Rev.1 (1997), Rev.2 (July 1999), Rev.6 (Oct 2002), Rev.8, Corr.1 (Sept 2006) and Rev.14 (Aug 2012).
Page 8 of 8
Part B, Annex 1
Revise UR Z10.3 to introduce ExCM (Extraordinary Council Meeting in Feb 2000) decision to UR Z10s ExCM FUA 2-1: All ballast tanks adjacent to cargo tanks with heating coils shall be examined internally on an annual basis after the ship has reached 15 years of age. ExCM FUA 2-2: Intermediate surveys of ships subject to ESP, which are over 15 years of age, will be enhanced to the scope of the preceding special survey with dry docking or under water survey as applicable.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC Chairman, shortly after GPG 48th meeting:
The para. 3.2.5.2 for ExCM FUA 2-1: The para. 4.2.2, 4.2.3 & 4.2.4 for ExCM FUA 2-2. The paragraph 7.1.1 for compatibility with the PR 19 (ABS GPG proposed)
Points of Discussion: Unresolved Comments: Discussions:

WP/SRC Chairman, when submitting draft revision to GPG, raised the following concerns: What tanks are required by the term ADJACENT ? WP/SRC Chairman said that tanks with a common line boundary have not been a problem since there is very little transfer of heat and should not be included. GPG exchanged views on this point and agreed to delete the wording or line from the para. 3.2.5.2 which reads: Oil Tankers exceeding 15 years of Age: All Ballast Tanks adjacent to (i.e., with a common plane or line boundary) a cargo tank with heating coils is to be examined internally. Identify tanks with heating coils WP/SRC Chair said that the vessels survey status does not tell us tanks fitted with heating coils. Coating Condition and Substantial Corrosion Survey Requiremnets Ballast tanks with poor coating, no coating or substantial corrosion identified at a previous survey already requires annual survey. With enhanced intermediate survey, all Submitted by the Permsec On 19 July 2000
ballast/cargo tanks will be examined and gauged at special/intermediate survey and coating condition & substantial corrosion should be identified at that time. If coating condition is reported good or fair, it may be adequate to only verify the coating condition at annual survey of ballast tanks adjacent to cargo tanks fitted with heating coils.
In addition, DNV and LR (GPG) proposed the following additions: The 3rd sentence in para. 3.2.5.2 (DNV): Tanks or areas where coating was found to be in GOOD condition at the previous intermediate or special internal examination are to survey may be be specially considered by the Classification Society. The majority GPG agreed. The second half of the para. 4.2.4.1(LR) except that testing of cargo and ballast tanks is not required unless deemed necessary by the attending surveyor. The majority GPG agreed. The paragraph 7.1.1 of Z10.1 and Z10.3, paragraph 8.1.1 of Z10.2 were revised for their compatibility with the PR 19 PR for Thickness Measurement.
-----
Submitted by the Permsec On 19 July 2000
Part B, Annex 2


Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 75 UR Z10.1 Proposed Draft Revision & Z10.3 revision 4

Develop a definition of related piping as contained in UR Z10.1 and requirements for survey.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC members through correspondence.
The proposal limits the definition of "related piping" to the piping systems which require testing. This will not include hydraulic oil piping for remote control valves or anchor/mooring equipment which OCIMF may have wanted included. WP/SRC feels that related piping systems are those that are unique to an oil carrier and was the original intent of the wording. WP/SRC unanimously agreed to the draft UR.
Note by the Permsec: LR GPG proposed to change Z10.1 as follows: piping systems for the handling of cargo / cargo residues and water ballast and additionally bilge systems in combination carriers. 8220iLRa, 30/8/2000 GPG Chairman asked WP/SRC to discuss LRs proposal to include bilge piping systems in Z10.1 at their 2000 September meeting. WP/SRC Chairman reported back to GPG on 22 September 2000 as follows: 1. "Cargo piping" adequately covers and is understood by all members to include cargo stripping piping, just as "Ballast piping" includes ballast stripping piping. 2. WP/SRC is of the opinion that bilge piping on combination carriers should not be added to the proposed revision due to the fact that it is a separate system which usually run through a pipe tunnel and is not hydro tested at new construction. The system also operates on a vacuum and is blanked off when oil is carried. Therefore, WP/SRC maintains its agreement that the previously submitted text is the preferred by all members. GPG agreed that a similar amendment be made to Z10.3. Based on the above discussion at GPG level, the revised of Z10.1 and Z10.3 was finally approved at GPG 49.
Submitted by WP/SRC Chairman On 27 July 2000
(This view was shared by the majority of GPG Members, however, it has not been codified in Z 10.1 because no need was identified to prescribe it as a Unified Requirement.)
Identify tanks with heating coils WP/SRC Chair said that the vessels survey status does not tell us tanks fitted with heating coils.
Coating Condition and Substantial Corrosion Survey Requiremnets Ballast tanks with poor coating, no coating or substantial corrosion identified at a previous survey already requires annual survey. With enhanced intermediate survey, all ballast/cargo tanks will be examined and gauged at special/intermediate survey and coating condition & substantial corrosion should be identified at that time. If coating condition is reported good or fair, it may be adequate to only verify the coating condition at annual survey of ballast tanks adjacent to cargo tanks fitted with heating coils.
In addition, DNV and LR (GPG) proposed the following additions: The 3rd sentence in para. 3.2.5.2 (DNV): Tanks or areas where coating was found to be in GOOD condition at the previous intermediate or special internal examination are to survey may (ABS comment) be specially considered by the Classification Society. The majority GPG agreed. The second half of the para. 4.2.4.1(LR) except that testing of cargo and ballast tanks is not required unless deemed necessary by the attending surveyor. The majority GPG agreed. The paragraph 7.1.1 of Z10.1 and Z10.3, paragraph 8.1.1 of Z10.2 were revised for their compatibility with the PR 19 PR for Thickness Measurement.
-----
Part B, Annex 3
Rev.8.1, Z10.1 Rev.11.1, Z10.2 Rev.4.1, Z10.3

(21 June 2001)
1.
2.
* * * * *
Part B, Annex 4
2.
3.
4.
Part B, Annex 5
2.
Background
3.
Methodology of work
Page 1 of 4
4.
Discussion
Page 2 of 4
5.
6.
Implementation
Page 3 of 4
5.
_ _ _
Page 4 of 4

2.
3.
Page 1 of 2
4.
2.
3. 4.

Page 2 of 2
coating condition.

4& 5
NN
Page 1 of 2
06/07/05
Page 2 of 2
06/07/05
Item Item No. 1 Verification onboard 1.1 1.2 Minimum extent of measuring points for direct verification by attending surveyor specified Preliminary TM record to be signed upon completion of the measurements onboard Final TM report Signature of all pages in TM record required Signature of cover (general particulars) page only Measuring points verified by attending surveyor required identified in TM record and signature of the corresponding pages required ABS . No Yes No Yes 7) No Yes No No (copy taken) Yes No Yes No No3) No No6) No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No8) No No BV1) CCS CRS DNV GL IRS KR LR NK RINA RS
2 2.1 2.2 2.3
No Yes No
No Yes No
No Yes No
Yes No No
Yes No No
No No4) Yes
No Yes No
No5) Yes No
Yes Yes No
Yes No No
Annex 3:
Page 1 of 3
4.
Conclusion
6 May 2005 Permsec
Page 2 of 3
Annex. (5037_ICb, 15 May 2005)

Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 6
Part 1.
Z10s para. 1.4 and 7.1.3
Part 2.
Z10s para. 5.5.4 and 5.5.6
1.
2.
Background
4.
Page 1 of 3
5.
Page 2 of 3
6.
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 7
Part B, Annex 8
Technical Background Document UR Z10.3 (Rev.10 Dec 2008)

Survey Panel Task 55: Harmonization of UR Z10.3 Requirements for Chemical Tankers to UR Z10.4 Requirements for Double Hull Oil Tankers, as they both follow the ESP requirements for ESP Tankers
1. Objective
Amend UR Z10.3 Requirements for Chemical Tankers with a view to harmonizing to UR Z10.4 Requirements for Double Hull oil Tankers, taking into account that both URs follow ESP requirements for ESP tankers. 2. Background
The task was triggered by the DNV Member, at the September 2007 Survey Panel meeting, on the grounds that UR Z10.3, which deals with survey requirements for chemical tankers, is not harmonized with UR Z10.4, which deals with survey requirements for double hull oil tankers, while the two types of ships often have identical structural arrangements. DNVs initial proposal was to merge the two URs into a single UR, but after discussion within the Panel (by correspondence and at the March 2008 Survey Panel meeting) the decision was made to retain the two URs separate. The task was performed by setting up a Project Team, with members from RINA, acting as PT Manager, BV, CCS, DNV and GL. 3. Discussion
The Member from DNV, who had triggered the task, prepared a first partial draft highlighting the differences between the two URs. The PT Manager developed the first draft completing the comparison between the two URs. The Project Team held one-day meeting in June 2008, during which a final draft was prepared, which, after further discussion by correspondence among the PT Members, was submitted to all Survey Panel Members for comments / agreement with the view to finalizing the task at the September 2008 Survey Panel meeting. At that meeting, the task could not be finalized and it was decided that Members would review the draft once more and provide their comments in due course by correspondence. The task was then finalized on 24 October 2008 upon unanimous agreement from all the Survey Panel Members. The harmonization process has mainly consisted in introducing in UR Z10.3 those requirements of UR Z10.4 that had been adopted for all the other UR Z10s, except for UR Z10.3 as they had come from IMO Resolution A.744(18). An important amendment has been made to TABLE I - MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSE-UP SURVEY AT SPECIAL SURVEY OF CHEMICAL TANKERS, where different survey requirements have been introduced for chemical tankers of single hull construction and double hull construction. Also TABLE IV - Requirements for extent of Thickness Measurements at those areas of substantial corrosion - Special Survey of Chemical
Page 1 of 2
tankers within the Cargo Area Length, which is composed of four sheets, has been amended in accordance with the aforementioned differences between single and double hull chemical tankers. Another notable change has been introduced in the "ANNEX II - Recommended Procedures for Thickness Measurements of Chemical Tankers which, however, is only recommendatory and not mandatory, where the existing thickness measurements forms have been suppressed and reference has been made to ANNEX II of URZ10.1 for Single Hull Chemical and to Annex II of URZ10.4 for Double Hull Chemical Tankers. 4. Implementation
The Survey Panel is of the view that the implementation date for the revision 10 of UR Z10.3 should be after 12 months from the adoption date by GPG and Council. Therefore the implementation sentence (Note 9 of the UR) should read Changes introduced in Rev.10 are to be uniformly applied by IACS Societies for surveys commenced on or after the [one year after the adoption by GPG/Council].
Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 12 November 2008
Permanent Secretariat note (December 2008): Rev.10 of UR Z10.3 was approved by GPG on 2 December 2008 (ref. 7718aIGb) with an implementation date of 1 January 2010
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 9
Page 1 of 2
4.
Implementation
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 10

1. Scope and objectives 1) To amend UR Z10.3 Table I to include references on zones of ships structures subject to close-up survey according to URZ10.4. 2) To amend UR Z10.3 to harmonize the definition of transverse section. 3) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table IX. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 1) Assignment of zones subject to close-up survey in URZ10.1 and UR10.4 is different. Chemical tankers may be of single hull as well as double hull construction. 2) Based on that fact that bulk carriers and oil tankers have a transverse framing system applied for example on ships sides etc. and that UR Z7 is applied to all types of ships and includes an extended definition of transverse section it is necessary to unify this definition in UR Z10s. 3) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table IX such that the introduction of extended annual surveys is noted in the Memoranda section rather than under Conditions of Class. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IACS UR Z10.1 and Z10.4 for item 1) and UR Z7 for item 2). 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1) In Table I references to figures of areas (1) to (7) illustrated in URZ10.4 are added to be used for chemical tankers of double hull construction and references to figures of areas (A) to (D) illustrated in URZ10.1 are added to be used for chemical tankers of single hull construction. 2) The following additional text is added to the definition of transverse section in para 1.2.5: For transversely framed vessels, a transverse section includes adjacent frames and their end connections in way of transverse sections. 3) In the Executive Hull Summary Table IX (iv) the reference to part H) is updated to part I) as per Table IX (ii). 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None. 6. Attachments if any None.
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 11

1. Scope and objectives Review the requirement for repairs within IACS UR 7 and UR 10 series, in particular the requirement for Prompt and Thorough Repair, with a view to developing wording that would permit a temporary repair and the imposition of a Recommendation/ Condition of Class under specific and controlled circumstances, and in accordance with PR35. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale There are instances, for example a localised, isolated and very minor hole in a crossdeck strip, at which a suitable temporary repair, for example by welding or doubling, and the imposition of a suitable short term Recommendation/ Condition of Class for permanent repair at a later date, are considered very adequate methodology for dealing with the defect. Current IACS Requirements in the UR Z7 and Z10 series, for Prompt and Thorough repair, would not permit this to be an option, the defect would have to be permanently Promptly and Thoroughly repaired, which might require removing cargo, moving to a repair berth and staging inner spaces. Under the Requirements of IACS Procedural Requirement PR 35 the methodology of Temporary Repair and imposition of a suitable short term Recommendation/ Condition of Class for permanent repair at a later date is fully permissible. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution Based upon discussion within the IACS Survey Panel. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: Following the definition of Prompt and Thorough Repair in the Unified Requirement, a new paragraph is proposed to be added:1.3.3 Where the damage found on structure mentioned in Para. 1.3.1 is isolated and of a localised nature which does not affect the ship's structural integrity, consideration may be given by the surveyor to allow an appropriate temporary repair to restore watertight or weather tight integrity and impose a Recommendation/Condition of Class in accordance with IACS PR 35, with a specific time limit. Also, Table I was split to into 2 tables for enhanced clarity, Table I.1 for Single Skin and Table I.2 for Double skin ships and miscellaneous editorial errors in the Table I.1 and I.2 are corrected. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions a) The points of discussion are as indicated in Sections 2 and 4 above.
b) Discussion took place on whether to prepare this amendment as a Unified Interpretation of IMO Resolution A.744(18)/UR Z7 and Z10 series, finally it was agreed to make direct amendment to the relevant URs. c) It is proposed that this amendment be submitted directly to the IMO DE/MSC Committees for consideration of amending directly IMO Res. A744(18) 6. Attachments if any None

Version no. Rev.10 (Jul 2011) Rev.9 (Mar 2011) Rev.8 (Feb 2010) Rev.7 (Mar. 2009) Rev.6 (Nov. 2007) Rev.5 (Feb. 2007) Corr.1 (Sept. 2006) Rev.4 (Jun. 2006) Rev.3 (Jan. 2006) Rev.2 (Jun. 2005) Rev.1 (Oct. 2002) New (Dec. 2001) Approval date 27 24 17 18 15 10 July 2011 March 2011 February 2010 March 2009 November 2007 February 2007
Part A
UR Z10.4 Hull Surveys of Double Hull Oil Tankers
Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2012 1 July 2012 1 July 2010 1 January 2009 1 January 2007 / 1 January 2008 *1 1 July 2007 1 January 2007 1 July 2006
14 September 2006 23 June 2006 4 January 2006 27 June 2005 22 November 2002 14 December 2001
Rev.10 (July 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following external audit a member was advised that a small temporary doubler on a cross-deck strip of a bulk carrier should have been promptly and thoroughly repaired at the time of survey. The member carried out an investigation and found that the actions of the surveyor were fully justifiable, the temporary repair and short term Condition of Class imposed were an appropriate method of dealing with such a situation. The member advised that the current requirements for Prompt and Thorough Repair stipulated under the UR 7 and UR 10 series do not give any leeway for carrying out temporary repairs (and imposing a Recommendation/Condition of Class in accordance PR 35) where the damage in question is isolated and localised, and in which the ships structural integrity is not impaired. The Survey Panel discussed the matter and agreed that under carefully defined circumstances a temporary repair and short term Recommendation/Condition of Class would be an appropriate course of action. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None
Page 1 of 7
.4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was discussed by correspondence within the Survey Panel and at the Autumn 2010 Panel Meeting. Following discussion at which the possibility of a Unified Interpretation being raised was considered, it was eventually decided to make direct amendment to the relevant Unified Requirements. The wording of the new paragraph to be inserted as Para 1.3.3 in all relevant Unified Requirements was extensively discussed prior to agreement. The proposal was unanimously agreed by Survey Panel Members. .5 Other Resolutions Changes The identical amendment affects UR Z7, UR Z7.1, UR Z7.2, UR Z10.1, UR Z10.2, UR Z10.3, UR Z10.4 and UR Z 10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 Made by a Member Panel Approval: March 2011 GPG Approval: 27 July 2011 (Ref: 11118_IGb)
Rev.9 (Mar 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: 1) Inconsistency of the definition of transverse section of the ship given in URZ7 and URZ10s. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table IX. 3) To make the survey requirements in UR Z10.4 compatible with the new requirements contained in CSRs. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: Item 1) was proposed by RS and item 2) was proposed by GL. Both amendments were agreed by the Panel. Regarding item 3), The Survey Panel Members decided that the task would be carried out by a Project Team, rather than through correspondence within the Panel. The PT
Page 2 of 7
was composed by three Members from the Survey Panel and one Member, external to the Panel, who was expert both in surveys and in structural matters. Subsequently the PT requested the Small Group on Strategy & Steering Committee that the PT were enlarged with the joining of two additional Members of the Hull Panel, in order to increase the PTs expertise in the CSRs based on the fact that CSRs would be amended, even if limitedly to requirements related to surveys after construction. The Small Group on Strategy & Steering Committee fulfilled the PT request. .5 Other Resolutions Changes UR Z10.1, Z10.2, Z10.3 and Z10.5. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: January 2010, made by Survey Panel Survey Panel Approval: July/November 2010 GPG Approval: 24 March 2011 (Ref: 10170_IGe)
Rev. 8 (Feb 2010)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by IACS member .2 Main Reasons for Change: As MARPOL I was revised, the reference to MARPOL I/13 (3) in paragraph 1.2.2bis should be changed. .3 History of Decisions Made: GL proposed the change and it was agreed by the panel. .4 Other Resolutions Changes UR Z10.1 .5 Any dissenting views None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: January 2010, made by Survey Panel Panel Approval: January 2010, made by Survey Panel GPG Approval: 17 February 2010 (Ref. 10009_IGb)
Rev. 7 (Mar. 2009)
Survey Panel Task 62 - Harmonization of UR Z10s to UR Z10.3 (Rev.10)
Page 3 of 7
Rev. 6 (Nov. 2007)
Rev. 5 (Feb. 2007)
Corr.1 (Sept. 2006)
Correction of typos as follows: In the note at the bottom of Table IX(iv) POOR is replaced with less than GOOD and part G) is replaced with part H). In para 1 of Annex III, Appendix 2 in the definition of Cn for 130 m L 300 m L 300 has been replaced with 300 L in accordance with IMO Resolution MSC.105(73) ( MSC 73/21/Add.2, Annex 13). No TB document available.
Rev. 4 (Jun. 2006)
Addition of text in paragraph 1.2.9 relating to CSR. See TB document in Part B.
Rev. 3 (Jan. 2006)
Rev. 2 (Jun. 2005)
Page 4 of 7
Rev. 1 (Oct. 2002)
UR Z10.1, 2, 3 and 4 revisions (WP/SRC tasks 91, 93 and 95) No TB document available.
New (Dec. 2001)
WP/SRC submitted the draft Z10.4 (Task 66) to GPG for approval. GPG/Council approved Z10.4 for submission to IMO DE 45 on 14 December 2001. See TB document in Part B.
Page 5 of 7
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z10.4: Annex 1. TB for New (Dec 2001)






Page 6 of 7



Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for the Rev.1 (Oct 2002) and Corr.1 (Sept 2006).
Page 7 of 7
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 66 New UR Z10.4 for Double Hull Oil Tankers

To Develop a Unified Requirement for Enhanced Surveys of Double Hull Tankers along the
lines of UR Z10.1 but tailored to the structural configuration of double hull tankers and other features which distinguish double hull tankers from single hull tankers and with a view to submitting the outcome to IMO for incorporation in future amendments of A.744(18).

WP/SRC developed Z10.4 in collaboration with the Permanent Secretariat through correspondence and their meeting. IACS Post Erika measures have been incorporated in the proposed draft. In addition, Res MSC.105(73) and 108(73) have been introduced into Z10.4 since entry into force date of the aforesaid MSC Resolutions is 1 July 2002.
WP/SRC unanimously agreed to the proposed draft UR Z 10.4 except with respect to 3.2.5.2. The majority of WP/SRC agreed to the proposed text of 3.2.5.2 whereas ABS and NK preferred the corresponding text of Z10.1.
Submitted by the permanent Secretariat On 11 December 2001
Part B, Annex 2
2.
Background
3.
Methodology of work
Page 1 of 4
4.
Discussion
Page 2 of 4
5.
6.
Implementation
Page 3 of 4
5.
_ _ _
Page 4 of 4

2.
3.
Page 1 of 2
4.
2.
3. 4.

Page 2 of 2
coating condition.

4& 5
NN
Page 1 of 2
06/07/05
Page 2 of 2
06/07/05
No Yes No
No Yes No
No Yes No
Yes No No
Yes No No
No No4) Yes
No Yes No
No5) Yes No
Yes Yes No
Yes No No
Annex 3:
Page 1 of 3
4.
Conclusion
6 May 2005 Permsec
Page 2 of 3
Annex. (5037_ICb, 15 May 2005)

Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 3
Part 1.
Z10s para. 1.4 and 7.1.3
Part 2.
Z10s para. 5.5.4 and 5.5.6
1.
2.
Background
4.
Page 1 of 3
5.
Page 2 of 3
6.
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 4
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 5
Part B, Annex 6
Part B, Annex 7
Page 1 of 2
4.
Implementation
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 8
Technical Background for UR Z10.4 Rev.8, Feb 2010

1. Scope and objectives
To amend UR Z10.4 (Rev.7) for the harmonization with currently revised MARPOL Annex I.
2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale

None
3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution

MARPOL 73/78 IACS UR Z10.4 (Rev.7)

As MARPOL I was revised, the reference to MARPOL I/13 (3) in paragraph 1.2.2bis should read MARPOL I/18(3).

None
6. Attachments if any
None
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 9

1. Scope and objectives 1) To amend UR Z10.4 to harmonize the definition of transverse section. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table IX. 3) Review IACS URZ10.4 to determine if there are issues which need to be addressed to ensure that the IACS survey regime and the CSRs are compatible. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 1) Based on that fact that bulk carriers and oil tankers have a transverse framing system applied for example on ships sides etc. and that UR Z7 is applied to all types of ships and includes an extended definition of transverse section it is necessary to unify this definition in UR Z10s. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table IX such that the introduction of extended annual surveys is noted in the Memoranda section rather than under Conditions of Class. 3) Some requirements in CSRs for Oil Tankers were relevant to ships in operation and it was decided to move them from CSRs to UR 10.4 in more consistent way. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution CSRs, IACS UR Z7. Proposed amendments to UR Z10.4 is based on internal discussion of IACS which is always striving to produce consistent and compatible rule requirements. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1) The following additional text is added to the definition of transverse section in para 1.2.5: For transversely framed vessels, a transverse section includes adjacent frames and their end connections in way of transverse sections. 2) In the Executive Hull Summary Table IX (iv) the reference to part H) is updated to part I) as per Table IX (ii). 3) The main amendment has consisted in removing the requirements found in the CSRs related to surveys after construction and locating them in the applicable sections of UR Z10.4. The rationale of that is to have only one place where survey requirements are given and avoid any duplication of requirements in different documents, which would give rise to problems of maintenance and alignment. Other important amendments have been made moving the following items from the CSRs to UR Z10.4 as applicable:
Page 1 of 2
Part B
a) the paragraphs regarding the different corrosion patterns, such as pitting corrosion, edge corrosion and grooving corrosion, and their different acceptance criteria, b) the items regarding the number and locations of thickness measurements, together with the associated table and referenced figures. Another notable change has been introduced in the "ANNEX II - Recommended Procedures for Thickness Measurements" of UR Z10.4, which, however, are only recommendatory and not mandatory, where thickness measurements forms specific to CSRs double hull oil tankers have been produced in addition to the existing ones, which only apply to non-CSRs ships. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None. 6. Attachments if any None.
Part B, Annex 10


Version no. Rev.12 (May 2012) Rev.11 (Jul 2011) Rev.10 (Mar 2011) Rev.9 (Mar 2009) Rev.8 (Nov 2007) Rev.7 (Jul 2007) Rev.6 (Apr 2007) Rev.5 (Feb 2007) Rev.4 (Jun 2006) Rev.3 (Jan 2006) Rev.2 (Jan 2006) Rev.1 (Jun 2005) Corr.1 (Jan 2004) NEW (Dec 2003) Approval date 12 27 24 18 15 14 12 10 May 2012 July 2011 March 2011 March 2009 November 2007 July 2007 April 2007 February 2007
Part A
UR Z10.5 Hull Surveys of Double Skin Bulk Carriers
23 June 2006 31 January 2006 4 January 2006 27 June 2005 26 January 2004 10 December 2003
Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2013 1 July 2012 1 July 2012 1 July 2010 1 January 2009 1 July 2008 1 July 2008 1 January 2007 / 1 January 2008 *1 1 July 2007 1 January 2007 1 January 2007 1 July 2006 1 January 2005
Rev.12 (May 2012)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Based upon queries by both owners and surveyors, clarification was required for the SSH No. 2 requirements in Table I. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: Completed through correspondence. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None
Page 1 of 7
.6 Dates: Original Proposal: 21 October 2011 2010 Made by Survey Panel Panel Approval: March 2012 GPG Approval: 12 May 2012 (Ref: 12067_IGb)
Rev.11 (July 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Following external audit a member was advised that a small temporary doubler on a cross-deck strip of a bulk carrier should have been promptly and thoroughly repaired at the time of survey. The member carried out an investigation and found that the actions of the surveyor were fully justifiable, the temporary repair and short term Condition of Class imposed were an appropriate method of dealing with such a situation. The member advised that the current requirements for Prompt and Thorough Repair stipulated under the UR 7 and UR 10 series do not give any leeway for carrying out temporary repairs (and imposing a Recommendation/Condition of Class in accordance PR 35) where the damage in question is isolated and localised, and in which the ships structural integrity is not impaired. The Survey Panel discussed the matter and agreed that under carefully defined circumstances a temporary repair and short term Recommendation/Condition of Class would be an appropriate course of action. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was discussed by correspondence within the Survey Panel and at the Autumn 2010 Panel Meeting. Following discussion at which the possibility of a Unified Interpretation being raised was considered, it was eventually decided to make direct amendment to the relevant Unified Requirements. The wording of the new paragraph to be inserted as Para 1.3.3 in all relevant Unified Requirements was extensively discussed prior to agreement. The proposal was unanimously agreed by Survey Panel Members. .5 Other Resolutions Changes The identical amendment affects UR Z7, UR Z7.1, UR Z7.2, UR Z10.1, UR Z10.2, UR Z10.3, UR Z10.4 and UR Z 10.5.
Page 2 of 7
.6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 Made by a Member Panel Approval: March 2011 GPG Approval: 27 July 2011 (Ref: 11118_IGb)
Rev.10 (Mar 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: 1) Inconsistency of the definition of transverse section of the ship given in URZ7 and URZ10s. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table VII. 3) To make the survey requirements in UR Z10.5 compatible with the new requirements contained in CSRs. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None. .4 History of Decisions Made: Item 1) was proposed by RS and item 2) was proposed by GL. Both amendments were agreed by the Panel. Regarding item 3), The Survey Panel Members decided that the task would be carried out by a Project Team, rather than through correspondence within the Panel. The PT was composed by three Members from the Survey Panel and one Member, external to the Panel, who was expert both in surveys and in structural matters. Subsequently the PT requested the Small Group on Strategy & Steering Committee that the PT were enlarged with the joining of two additional Members of the Hull Panel, in order to increase the PTs expertise in the CSRs based on the fact that CSRs would be amended, even if limitedly to requirements related to surveys after construction. The Small Group on Strategy & Steering Committee fulfilled the PT request. .5 Other Resolutions Changes UR Z10.1, Z10.2, Z10.3 and Z10.4. .6 Dates: Original Proposal: January 2010, made by Survey Panel Survey Panel Approval: July/November 2010 GPG Approval: 24 March 2011 (Ref: 10170_IGe)
Page 3 of 7
Rev.9 (Mar 2009)
Rev.8 (Nov 2007)
Rev.7 (Jul 2007)
Alignment of TM requirements in UR Z10.5 with other UR Z10s (Survey Panel Task 1). See TB document in Part B.
Rev.6 (Apr 2007)
Survey Panel Task 10 Develop survey requirements for void spaces of ore carriers. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.5 (Feb 2007)
Rev.4 (Jun 2006)
Survey Panel Task 43 Amend the applicable sections of the URs to address the requirements for substantial corrosion in the Common structural rules. See TB document in Part B.
Rev.3 (Jan 2006)
Survey Panel Task 11 Unified Periodic Survey Requirements related to SOLAS Reg. XII/12 & Reg. XII/13. See TB document in Part B.
Page 4 of 7
Rev.2 (Jan 2006)
Rev.1 (Jun 2005)
Corr.1(Jan 2004)
To keep consistency between Z10.2 and Z10.5 for ships of 10-15 years, paras 4.2.3.1 - 4.2.3.3 were corrected to read: the extent of intermediate survey is to be equivalent to the previous special survey. See TB document in Part B.
NEW (Dec 2003)
WP/SRC Task 69 to amend URZ10.2 or develop a new UR for Hull Surveys of Double Side Skin Bulk Carriers. See TB document in Part B.
Page 5 of 7
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z10.5: Annex 1. TB for NEW (Dec 2003) and Corr.1 (Jan 2004)






Page 6 of 7





Page 7 of 7
Part B, Annex 1
UR Z10.5 (New, November 2003, Correction Jan 2004) Technical background

1. Objective WP/SRC to develop a new UR for Hull Surveys of Double Side Skin Bulk Carriers 2. Points of discussion 2.1 In 1999, GPG identified a need to develop a UR (or amend Z10.2) applicable to double side skin bulk carriers. WP/SRC was so tasked to develop a UR tailored to the structural configuration of double hull bulk carriers and other features which distinguish double hull bulk carriers from single skin bulk carriers. The UR, when developed, would be submitted to IMO for incorporation in future amendments to A.744(18). 2.2 GPG, after the first round of the draft UR in 2003, then tasked WP/SRC to further consider the definition of bulk carriers, how to treat bulk carriers with hybrid cargo hold arrangements, survey requirements for wing ballast tanks of ore carriers (WP/SRC Task 113). Taking into account the draft definitions of bulk carrier, single side skin bulk carrier, double side skin bulk carrier as developed at IMO MSC 77 (MSC 77/WP.13/Annex 2), GPG agreed to the definition as proposed by WP/SRC (Z10.5.1.2.1). Ore carriers are included. GPG agreed that for bulk carriers with hybrid cargo hold arrangements, Z10.2 apply to cargo holds of single side skin(Z10.5.1.1.2). For close-up surveys of wing ballast tanks of ore carriers, Z10.1 Table 1 (for oil tankers) shall apply (Z10.5.2.3.3). Rafting requirements in 5.5.5 -5.5.7 are aligned with other UR Z10s. ***
2.3
2.4 2.5 2.6
Correction (2212_IGi, 26 January 2004) 2.7 WP/SRC Small Group identified inconsistency between UR Z10.2 and UR Z10.5 and proposed modifications. In Z10.2, the extent of the intermediate survey of ships between 10-15 years is to be equivalent to the previous special survey. Accordingly, the 2nd column of Table IV for
intermediate survey requirements also needs to be replaced by the requirements of the previous special survey.
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) UR Z10.2(Rev.15, Dec 2003) 4.2.3 reads that for BCs 10-15 years of age, IS shall be the same extent of the previous SS. The current version of Z10.5 for double skin bulk carriers does not have this requirement. Also, the draft UR Z10.1 (definition of POOR , draft Rev.12 3095_IGc of 08/08/2003) contains the same requirement for IS of oil tankers 10-15 years. Z10.5.2.3.3 clearly defines the extent of overall and close-up surveys at the time of Special Surveys. To keep consistency between Z10.2 and Z10.5, paras 4.2.3.1-4.2.3.3 are corrected.
*****
Part B, Annex 2
2.
Background
3.
Methodology of work
Page 1 of 4
4.
Discussion
Page 2 of 4
5.
6.
Implementation
Page 3 of 4
5.
_ _ _
Page 4 of 4

2.
3.
Page 1 of 2
4.
2.
3. 4.

Page 2 of 2
coating condition.

4& 5
NN
Page 1 of 2
06/07/05
Page 2 of 2
06/07/05
No Yes No
No Yes No
No Yes No
Yes No No
Yes No No
No No4) Yes
No Yes No
No5) Yes No
Yes Yes No
Yes No No
Annex 3:
Page 1 of 3
4.
Conclusion
6 May 2005 Permsec
Page 2 of 3
Annex. (5037_ICb, 15 May 2005)

Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 3
Part 1.
Z10s para. 1.4 and 7.1.3
Part 2.
Z10s para. 5.5.4 and 5.5.6
1.
2.
Background
4.
Page 1 of 3
5.
Page 2 of 3
6.
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 4
Survey Panel Task 11 Unified Periodic Survey Requirements related to SOLAS Reg. XII/12 & Reg. XII/13. Technical Background Amendments to UR Z10.2(Rev.19, Jan 2006) and UR Z10.5 (Rev.3, Jan 2006)
1. Objective To amend UR 10.2 Section 2.6 and 3.4 and UR Z10.5 Section 2.6 and 3.3 to include survey requirements related to SOLAS reg. XII/12 and XII/13. 2. Background This task was originally discussed during the WP/SRC annual meeting which took place at DNV Headquarters on the 26th to 28th October 2004; it was subsequently recorded under paragraph 9 any other business of the minutes of this meeting. While the SOLAS Reg.XII/12 (hold, ballast and dry spaces water level detectors) and XII/13 (availability of pumping systems) retroactive requirements for existing bulk carriers have entered into force on 1st July 2004, as required by IMO Res.MSC.134(76), the IACS UR S 24 has been deleted on 1st January 2004.In addition, SOLAS does not include any periodical survey requirements for such detection systems and pumping systems. 3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel members through correspondence.
4. Discussion Survey Panel member from BV raised this issue at the February 2005 Survey Panel meeting and volunteered to propose amendments to the applicable URs for Panel members to review and comment on through correspondence. At the Fall meeting of the Survey Panel, it was agreed upon by all Panel members that the proposed amendments for UR Z10.2 and Z10.5 as applicable, which were proposed by BV were acceptable. 5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose January 2007 as an implementation date. Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 4 Nov 2005 approved on 31 Jan 2006 (5031fICa)
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 5
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 6
Part B, Annex 7
Technical Background Document UR Z10.5 (Rev.6 April 2007) & UR Z10.2 (Rev.24 April 2007)
(Survey Panel Task 10 Develop survey requirements for void spaces of ore carriers)
1. Objective: Develop survey requirements for void spaces of ore carriers 2. Background DNV requested at WP/SRC Annual meeting October 2004 to develop survey requirements void spaces of ore carriers. See the attached document Ore Carriers, Hull Survey Requirements for easy reference. NK submitted a A case study on a certain Ore Carrier dated 22 October 2004 for this purpose. 3. Discussion The task has been carried out by a Project Team chaired by DNV Survey Panel member and with Survey Panel members from BV, LR, NK and RINA. The Project Team drafted new amendments to Unified Requirement UR Z 10.5 Hull Surveys of Double Skin Bulk Carriers using the same principles contained in the survey requirements of UR Z10.1 for ballast spaces of single hull oil tankers with appropriate adjustments recognizing that void spaces do not carry ballast water. In that respect, a new TABLE I/Sheet 2 was developed to cover the minimum requirements for close-up surveys at special hull surveys of ore carriers. The existing TABLE I, renamed TABLE I/Sheet 1, was made applicable to double skin bulk carriers excluding ore carriers. Accordingly, TABLE III/Sheet 3 (REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENT OF THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS AT THOSE AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL CORROSION OF DOUBLE SKIN BULK CARRIERS WITHIN THE CARGO LENGTH AREA) was renamed STRUCTURE IN DOUBLE SIDE SPACES OF DOUBLE SKIN BULK CARRIERS INCLUDING WING VOID SPACES OF ORE CARRIERS. In addition, Sheets 15 and 16 of URZ10.2 Annex II are to be removed. The draft amendments to UR Z10.5 were presented to the Survey Panel members on the 13th-15th September 2006 meeting at ABS Headquarters in Houston and were finally agreed by all members on the 22nd September 2006. 4. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class Rules/procedures. Assuming that GPG and Council approve the amendments by the end of 2006, the Survey Panel would propose as an implementation date for surveys commenced on or after the 1 July 2008 Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 22nd March 2007
Permsec note (May 2007): Revisions adopted by GPG 12 April 2007 (5031hIGg).
Attachment:
Ore Carriers, Hull Survey Requirements

"Ore carrier" means a single deck ship having two longitudinal bulkheads and a double bottom throughout the cargo region and intended for the carriage of ore cargoes in the centre holds only. Side tanks are generally arranged for the carriage of water ballast. In accordance with UR Z10.5, for close-up surveys of side ballast tanks of ore carriers, the survey requirements of side ballast tanks for oil tankers as given in UR Z10.1 apply.
However, the amount of ballast water required to meet draught requirements for navigation / harbour operations, are generally less than the total capacity of the side tanks. Hence ore carriers are often designed with several side tanks as void spaces.
The internal structures are generally as for side ballast tanks with transverse web frame rings. The protective coating, if any, may be less durable than coating applied for ballast tanks and the void spaces are exposed to corrosion.
Ore carriers are generally large sized vessels and the overall survey of side void spaces may not be sufficient in order to carry out a meaningful survey for detection of corrosion and other structural defects. It is proposed to consider minimum requirements for close-up surveys for side void spaces. Requirements given in UR Z10.1 applicable to side cargo tanks may be used as basis.
DNV 2004-10-19
Part B, Annex 8
Technical Background UR Z10.5, Rev. 7 (July 2007) - Amendment to Table II

Survey Panel Task 1 Annual Review of Implementation of IACS Resolutions
1. Objective Maintenance of alignment/compatibility of IACS URs and IMO survey requirements.
2. Background This proposed change was raised by the DNV Survey Panel member due to inconsistencies found in the UR Z10s. 3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel members through correspondence.
4. Discussion The DNV Survey Panel members raised the issue of alignment of TM requirements for vessels falling under the Z10s, where at Renewal Survey#2, TM was required for selected wind and water strakes outside the cargo area, except for vessels under UR Z10.5. All Survey Panel members agreed to the inconsistency and further agreed to the proposed changes. 5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose July 2008 as an implementation date.
Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman, 25 June 2007
Permanent Secretariat note (July 2007): Adopted by GPG with an implementation date of 1 July 2008 on 14 July 2007 (ref. 7596_IGb).
Part B, Annex 9
Part B, Annex 10
Page 1 of 2
4.
Implementation
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 11

1. Scope and objectives 1) To amend UR Z10.4 to harmonize the definition of transverse section. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table IX. 3) Review IACS URZ10.5 to determine if there are issues which need to be addressed to ensure that the IACS survey regime and the CSRs are compatible. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale 1) Based on that fact that bulk carriers and oil tankers have a transverse framing system applied for example on ships sides etc. and that UR Z7 is applied to all types of ships and includes an extended definition of transverse section it is necessary to unify this definition in UR Z10s. 2) Update of references in the Executive Hull Summary Table VII such that the introduction of extended annual surveys is noted in the Memoranda section rather than under Conditions of Class. 3) Some requirements in CSRs for Bulk Carriers were relevant to ships in operation and it was decided to move them from CSRs to UR 10.5 in more consistent way. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution CSR, IACS UR Z7. Proposed amendments to UR Z10.5 are based on internal discussion of IACS which is always striving to produce consistent and compatible rule requirements. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: 1) The following additional text is added to the definition of transverse section in para 1.2.6: For transversely framed vessels, a transverse section includes adjacent frames and their end connections in way of transverse sections. 2) In the Executive Hull Summary Table VII (iv) the reference to part G) is updated to part H) as per Table VII (ii). 3) The main amendment has consisted in removing the requirements found in the CSRs related to surveys after construction and locating them in the applicable sections of UR Z10.5. The rationale of that is to have only one place where survey requirements are given and avoid any duplication of requirements in different documents, which would give rise to problems of maintenance and alignment. Another important amendment has been the requirement for annual examination of the identified substantial corrosion areas for bulk carriers. One Member Society was
Page 1 of 2
Part B
of the opinion that there should be no difference between the CSRs and non-CSRs bulk carriers. The other Member Societies were of the opinion to consider an alternative examination, which was the original requirement in CSRs, and thus the following text was adopted in UR Z10.5: For vessel built under IACS Common Structural Rules, the identified substantial corrosion areas may be: a) protected by coating applied in accordance with the coating manufacturers requirements and examined at annual intervals to confirm the coating in way is still in good condition, or alternatively b) required to be gauged at annual intervals. Other important amendments have been made moving the following items from the CSRs to Z10.5 as applicable: a) the paragraphs regarding the different corrosion patterns, such as pitting corrosion, edge corrosion and grooving corrosion, and their different acceptance criteria, b) the items regarding the number and locations of thickness measurements, together with the associated table and referenced figures. Another notable change has been introduced in the "ANNEX II - Recommended Procedures for Thickness Measurements" of UR Z10.5, which, however, are only recommendatory and not mandatory, where thickness measurements forms specific to CSRs double skin bulk carriers have been produced in addition to the existing ones, which only apply to non-CSRs ships. Finally, for CSRs bulk carriers the requirement has been introduced which stipulates that the ships longitudinal strength is to be evaluated by using the thickness of structural members measured, renewed and reinforced, as appropriate, during the special surveys carried out after the ship reached 15 years of age (or during the special survey no. 3, if this is carried out before the ship reaches 15 years) in accordance with the criteria for longitudinal strength of the ships hull girder for CSRs bulk carriers specified in Ch 13 of CSRs. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions See item 4 above. 6. Attachments if any None.
Part B, Annex 12

Part B, Annex 13
Technical Background for UR Z10.5 Rev.12 May 2012

1. Scope and objectives To clarify the SSH No. 2 requirement of Table I regarding close-up surveys. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale N/A 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution N/A 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: The requirement for close-up surveys at SSH No.2 as contained in Table I was clarified to indicate that close-up survey of the forward and aft transverse bulkheads including stiffening system in a transverse section including topside, hopper side and double side ballast tanks only applied to the tanks on one side of the ship. This clarification is consistent with the requirements of IACS Z10.2 for single skin bulk carriers. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any None
Technical Background Document UR Z 10.6 New (June 2002), WP/SRC Task 82 Objective and Scope:
To develop enhanced survey requirements for Special Survey No.3 and subsequent surveys as a UR for general dry cargo ships carrying solid cargoes and having SOLAS Safety Construction Certificate other than: .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 vessels subject to UR Z10.2; dedicated container carriers; ro-ro cargo ships; pure car carriers; refrigerated cargo ships; dedicated wood chip carriers; dedicated cement carriers.

WP/SRC developed UR Z10.6 through correspondence and two meetings during 2001. The first draft was prepared by LR using UR Z7 as the base document, but also taking into account consideration some of the requirements included in UR Z10.2 The draft also took into account data held on dry cargo ships within the LR casualty database.
1. WP/SRC has decided not to limit the development of enhanced survey requirements for these ship types to Special Survey No.3 and subsequent surveys, as it was considered technically sound to have a similar format of the survey requirements for these exposed ship types as for the other UR Zs. WP/SRC discussed the need for a Survey Programme/Survey Planning Document and concluded not to include such a requirement.
2.
3. 4.
5.
WP/SRC further decided that a survey in dry dock is to be part of the Special Survey. The proposed draft UR Z10.6 was unanimously agreed by WP/SRC.
TM Requirements for Special Survey No.3 & No.4 in Table II: Item 4 of SS 3: Item 2(b) of SS 4: Within the cargo length, each deck plate outside line of cargo hatch openings Within the cargo length, each deck plate outside line of cargo hatch openings
Council agreed to change Table II as shown above (1060dICb, 17 June 2002).
Attached: GPG Report to Council on Safety of General Cargo Ships (extracts)

Date of submission: 20 May 2002 WP/SRC Chairman
Date: 24 November 2000 GPG Report to Council
GPG Report on Safety of General Cargo Ships
Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction Actions undertaken by GPG GPG 49 decisions Casualty Statistics
Annex 1. WP/SRC Task 82 Form A. Annex 2. WP/SRC Task 83 Form A.
1.
Introduction.
Following from the proactive initiative taken with respect to Bulk Carrier Safety, IACS Council focused attention on the safety of General Cargo Ships and published General Cargo Ships Guidelines for Surveys, Assessment and Repair of Hull Structure in May 1999. In association with this, an analysis of LRs casualty Database was initiated by Council at the C39 Meeting and GPG were given the following terms of reference: if the analysis identifies the need for enhanced surveys this could be difficult to implement in view of the nature of this segment of the industry. Owners of bulk carriers and tankers were, to a degree, driven to accept the Enhanced Survey Program by external pressures. General cargo ship owners are different and will be much more difficult to pursuade to expend additional fees on additional surveys. Council considered that a strategic approach was needed to the question of general cargo ship casualties and that IACS should learn from previous mistakes, talk to the industry (sector involved) and differentiate between the different types of general cargo ships. For example, container ships may not be a cause of concern. It was also reiterated that daily maintenance on board is the most important factor in mitigating general cargo ship maintenance and that members should be urging this upon owners. Council decided that a GPG Small Group undertake a preliminary assessment as already agreed at GPG 46, initialize the work in line with the established plan on the evaluation and analysis of the casualty data, and report its outcome in good time to C40.
Page 1 of 18
2.
Actions undertaken by GPG
In pursuance of the C39 decision, a GPG Small Group was established and comprised representatives from ABS, BV, DNV, KR, LR, NK and IACS Secretariat. The Small Group has met twice, on 19 August 1999 in London and 12 October 1999 in Berlin, and the subject has been further discussed at GPG 47 and 48. The findings and recommendations of the Small Group, as endorsed by GPG, are given in this report. Following GPG 47 and C 40 (December 1999), WP/SRC was tasked to, first, study means to identify ships carrying logs which are prone to extensive damage and rapid deterioration due to normal loading procedures and, second, to develop additional survey requirements for application at the periodical survey. In addition, GPG submitted to Council 40th meeting a White Paper for WP/S describing the current status of general cargo ship safety issue, the need to develop a new UR for new log carriers with emphasis upon its political implications. As a consequence, Council tasked GPG to investigate steps regarding the construction of new ships carrying logs, based on the last paragraph of the White Paper which reads: To create classification rules for construction of new ships carrying logs as a special type would be a major commitment by IACS Members and Councils views whether this is justifiable or not are requested by GPG. In the course of deliberations on this topic, GPG has gone through the following three steps for LRs casualty data analysis: - 1st tier analysis: high level analysis in long term trend for 18 years from 1980 1998 on all ship types of not less than 1,000 GT versus general cargo ships, tankers, bulk carriers and all ships other than general cargo ships to show both first event non contact incidents and all incidents irrespective of causes ; 2 nd tier analysis: break down of casualty analysis of ships not less than 1,000 GT for ten years from 1998-1999 in three categories, i.e. hull failure, machinery/equipment failure, fire/explosion, third tier analysis: break down of casualty of all incidents from 1987-1998 for ships not less than 1,000 GT. This included analysis of narrative casualty data of the incidents of general cargo ships.
3.
GPG 49 decisions (11-13, October 2000, Tokyo)
The most recent benchmark for IACS actions taken was conclusions drawn at GPG 49 meeting which was held on 13-15 October 2000 in Tokyo, which are summarized hereunder: The principles applied in the course of decisions made before and during GPG 49 was: strengthening survey requirements for general cargo ships
Page 2 of 18
grouping ships not only by age but by size, if new survey requirements are to be developed.
GPG discussed a scope of task to be given to WP/SRC, based on LRs statistical data embracing the first and second tier analysis and narrative of casualty data for the third tier analysis. LRs own conclusions are summarized underneath Fig. 9 of section 4 of this report (9/18 page). Against LRs view that there was no distinction between ship sizes and types for which new survey requirements might be developed, a general consensus was that certain type of ships are not prone to lack of maintenance problems as others, therefore, can be easily excluded. Consequently, it was decided to task WP/SRC to develop ESP requirements for Special Survey No.3 and subsequent surveys as a UR Z10.5 for cargo ships carrying solid cargoes and having SOLAS SC Certificate other than: vessels subject to Z 10.2; dedicated container carriers; ro-ro cargo ships; pure car carriers; refrigerated cargo ships; dedicated wood chip carriers; dedicated cement carriers, barges.
It should be noted that the target of this task has been specified to ships holding SOLAS Safety Construction (SC) certificate. GPGs desire was expressed for WP/SRC to have a fresh look at the target ship types and not extrapolate the ESP applicable to large ships. The relevant WP/SRC Task 82 Form A is attached to this report as Annex 1, which will replace the previous WP/SRC Task 73 to identify ships carrying logs for additional survey requirements. As a byproduct of this study, GPG also paid its attention to machinery failure including flooding incidents and decided that WP/SRC should be tasked to investigate whether additional survey requirements are necessary to address machinery failures and engine room flooding problems of all types of ships, with a view to an amendment to UR Z 7. The relevant WP/SRC Task 83 Form A is attached as Annex 2.
4.
Casualty Statistics (provided by LR for GPG 49 discussion)
Lloyds Registers Maritime Information Publishing Group (MIPG) maintains a casualty database which is comprised of information collected from multiple sources worldwide. However, this database is dependent on casualties being reported. Experience over many years has shown that, in some parts of the world, there is a lack of reporting on casualties of small ships. It has been established that poor reporting on general cargo ships of less than 1000 GT would bias the rate of risk statistics and these have not been included in the analysis. There are about 7000 general cargo ships of less than 1000 GT. Thus, this leaves about 10,0000 general cargo ships to be considered in the statistical analysis.
Page 3 of 18
In order to establish the primary focus of the work it was decided to examine Actual Total Losses (ATLs) based on first event, non-contact (thus possible class related) ship casualty incidents for ships above 1000 GT. The results are shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3. Figure 1 shows the average yearly ATL rate per 1000 sh ips at risk for each 5-year period from 1980 to 1994 for all ship types and general cargo ships. It shows a decreasing tendency from the first five years to the second five years and an almost imperceptible decreasing tendency for the next five-year period.
Actual Total Losses - first event non contact (possible class related) incidents (ships of not less than 1,000 GT)
4
average ATL rate per 1,000 ships at risk f or each 5 year period
all shi p ty p es ge ne ral c ar go sh ip
3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5
All Ship Types
General Cargo Ships

1 0.5 0
p
1 98 0 - 84 1 9 85 - 89 1 9 90 - 94
Figure 1
Figure 2 gives bar charts of an average yearly ATL rate per 1000 ships at risk for the entire 15-year period of the world fleet and the IACS fleet for all types and general cargo ships. There is no significant difference between the world fleet and the IACS fleet. Since the possible bias from non-reporting has been eliminated by exclusion of ships less than 1000 GT, the chart only indicates that IACS Members class the majority of the world fleet and that Members have an annual loss rate of about 26 general cargo ships.
Page 4 of 18
Actual total losses - first event non contact (possible class related) incidents (ships of not less than 1000 GT)
3. 5 3 2. 5 2 1. 5 1 0. 5 0 all ship types G/C ships
all ship types general cargo ships
G/C ships
all ship types
world
IACS
Figure 2 Figure 3 shows the average yearly ATL rate per 1000 ships at risk for the entire 15-year period in five yearly age blocks. There is a sharp increase of the ATL rate on the second age group (5-9 years) with a steady sharp increase to the age group of 15-19 years. A steady ATL rate of 4.5 ships per 1000 ships is shown for the age group of 15-19 years and above for general cargo ships. This chart establishes a direct relationship of increasing risk with a vessels age and that general cargo ships are more at risk than other ship types.
Actual total loss - first event non contact (possible class related) incident s (ships of not less than 1000 GT)
5 4 .5 4 3 .5 3 2 .5 2 1 .5 1 0 .5 0
all ship types general cargo ships general cargo ships
all ship types
less than 5 years
5 - 9 years
1 0 - 14 ye a r s 1 5 - 19 y e a r s
2 0 or mo r e years
Figure 3 For comparative purposes the average yearly loss rates for various ship types are shown in the following figures, numbers 4 to 9:-
Page 5 of 18
General Cargo Ships - actual total losses (possible class related incidents) (ships of not less than 1000 GT)
5 4.5
average yearly loss rate per 1000 ships at risk
93-98 87-98 87-92
4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 - 4 yrs 5 - 9 yrs 10 - 14 yrs age range 15 - 19 yrs 87-98 87-92
1987-98 1987-92 1993-98
20 + yrs
Figure 4 - General Cargo Ships (greater than 1000 GT)

All cargo carrying ships - actual total losses (possible class related incidents) (ships of not less than 1000 GT)
3.5
2.5
1987-98 1987-92 1993-98
1.5
0.5
87-98 87-92 93-98
0 0 - 4 yrs 5 - 9 yrs 10 - 14 yrs age range 15 - 19 yrs 20 + yrs
Figure 5 - All cargo carrying ships
Page 6 of 18
All cargo carrying ships (except General Cargo Ships) - actual total losses (possible class related incidents) (ships of not less than 1000 GT)
3
2.5
1.5
1987-98 1987-92 1993-98
0.5
87-98 87-92 93-98
Figure 6 - All cargo carrying ships (except general cargo ships greater than 1000 GT)
Carriers of bulk dry cargo (bulk carriers, etc.) - actual total losses (possible class related incidents) (ships of not less than 1000 GT)
6
1987-98 1987-92 1993-98
87-98 87-92
93-98
87-98
87-92
Figure 7 - Bulk Carriers
Page 7 of 18
Carriers of bulk liquid cargo (oil tankers etc.) - actual total losses (ships of not less than 1000 GT)
1.2
average yearly loss rate per 1000 ships at risk (for each 3-year period)
all incidents
0.8
0.6
class related incidents
possible class related incidents all incidents
0.4
0.2
0 1981-83 1984-86 1987-89 1990-92 1993-95 1996-98
Figure 8 - Bulk liquid cargo carriers (tankers)
All ships - actual total losses (ships of not less than 1000 GT)
4
3.5
all incidents
2.5
possible class related incidents all incidents
1.5
0.5
0 1981-83 1984-86 1987-89 1990-92 1993-95 1996-98
Figure 9 - All ships ATL
Page 8 of 18
In general, the foregoing figures indicate that general cargo ships have a loss rate of up to four times that of other cargo-carrying ships and nearly three times that of dry bulk carriers, the next most at risk group. In addition, although the loss rates for general cargo ships decreased steadily in the 1980s and early 1990s, there has been no corresponding decrease in the mid to late 1990s. This statistical evidence confirms the need for IACS action in respect of enhancing the existing hull survey regime for general cargo ships once they reach [10 or 15] years of age. However, in proposing an enhanced survey regime, it was also clear that a more detailed study of all the available casualty narrative texts could assist the determination of more precise survey requirements if these could be focused, where possible, on the root cause the reported incidents. A further objective of this third tier analysis was to identify, in as much detail as possible, any trends and/or key areas that could be addressed in the short and medium term to enhance the safety of general cargo vessels. The available statistical data on general cargo ship incidents addresses 1942 incidents during the period between 1987 to 1998 during which the number of people killed or missing was reported as 1344. Further analysis of the data has indicated the following : (1) the age of a vessel is not the only factor when investigating the potential for serious vessel incidents to occur. (2) the nature of the key trends/areas identified are common to most vessel types. (3) three key areas need to be simultaneously addressed: - machinery/equipment failure - hull related incidents - fire/explosion incidents. (4) the integrity of main engines and their associated systems, the integrity of machinery spaces with respect to flooding and fire/explosion damage and the integrity of hull structures in the forepart of general cargo vessels all need to be urgently addressed. (5) increased survey requirements in the areas identified in (3) above need to be supported by both improved design criteria and an improved maintenance monitoring programme to be effective. LR suggests that IACS should focus its attention in the three core areas identified and considers that an overall enhanced survey program for general cargo ships focused in this way is likely to be more effective in the short to medium term. The first tier analysis concentrated on ATLs and, as Figure 10 shows, the cause of the majority of ATL incidents may be associated with Class Related issues. Hull failure was also identified as a major area for further investigation with respect to ATLs.
Page 9 of 18
All cargo carrying ships (except General Cargo Ships) - actual total losses (ships of not less than 1000 GT)
1.8
1.6
all incidents
1.4
1.2
1 possible class related incidents all incidents 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1981-83 1984-86 1987-89 1990-92 1993-95 1996-98
Figure 10 The results of the second tier analysis also concentrated on ATLs and identified three primary areas to be addressed: hull failures, machinery/equipment failures and fire/explosion incidents. Figure 11 shows the relative proportion of such incidents in the data examined.
General Cargo Ships - actual total losses (possible class related incidents) (ships of not less than 1000 GT)
3
2.5
hull failure
2 hull failure mach/equipt. failure fire/explosion unknown mach fail
1.5
0.5
fire/expl unknown
0 1987-89 1990-92 year 1993-95 1996-98
Figure 11 Unlike the previous studies the third tier study considered all the incident data that was reported. For those incidents where all the relevant facts have not been reported no assumptions have intentionally been made to identify the cause of the incident. Only the facts as report have been used. Unfortunately, the level of detail provided with the many of the
Page 10 of 18
incident reports is such that any further analysis beyond that contained in this Report would be inconclusive. In addition to further supporting the results of the ATL study, and despite the limitations of the data used, specific areas which need attention to enhance the safety of general cargo vessels were clearly identified. Previous work on this subject suggested a direct link between incident rate and the age of a vessel. Figures (12) and (13) show the number of incidents for each vessel age group and the percentage of those incidents which resulted in an ATL. Total Losses have occurred across the full age profile, however, the percentage of CTLs and ATLs in each age group does increase as the vessel age increases and this confirms that vessel age is a contributing factor.
GENERAL CARGO SHIPS

CTL and ATL incidents
140
120
Number of incidents not including CTL and ATL
100
80
60
40
20
0
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >35
A GE OF VES SEL A T TI M E OF I NCI DENT
Figure 12
Page 11 of 18
GENERAL CARGO SHIPS
CTLs & ATLs AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS IN EACH AGE GROUP
average yearly ATL rate per 1000 ships at risk for the entire 15-year period
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 AGE OF THE VESSEL AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT
Figure 13 Figures (14A & 14B) reflect the general age profile of general cargo vessels worldwide. However, the results also indicate that serious incidents of a similar nature to those associated with total losses can occur on any vessel irrespective of the age of the vessel. These phenomena would suggest that other influencing factors such as vessel design, maintenance and operation are also direct contributing factors.
AGE PROFILE OF GENERAL CARGO VESSELS > 1000 GRT
700 600
NUMBER OF VESSELS
500 400 300 200 100 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 > 35
AGE OF VESSEL
Page 12 of 18
DEADWEIGHT
No. 499or less 500 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 8 000 9 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000 45 000 50 000 WORLD TOTALS
TOTALS
Dwt Age 29 24 21 21 18 16 17 18 18 16 16 22 20 16 14 15 16 12 8 4 21 No.
0-4 YEARS
Dwt 46 662 89 747 348 165 285 572 463 779 782 950 621 969 507 178 348 616 822 257 279 252 525 484 330 595 1 288 748 768 696 258 125 188 090 698 935 797 453 833 299 No.
5-9 YEARS
Dwt 66 107 215 445 524 938 498 022 905 809 667 762 432 297 447 911 503 003 235 234 198 413 386 479 564 760 454 730 26 288 .. .. 339 473 467 651 ..
10-14 YEARS
No. 301 304 444 185 170 61 76 68 63 28 35 47 81 38 12 11 10 17 7 .. Dwt 92 908 203 575 639 417 457 537 559 851 271 264 407 670 447 624 466 083 241 725 335 244 636 884 1 393 404 838 174 337 827 352 986 387 387 711 409 319 689 ..
15-19 YEARS
No. 236 261 521 240 304 150 105 194 78 67 31 115 186 66 15 6 12 13 .. .. Dwt 79 698 178 015 754 517 600 865 1 013 688 671 823 559 707 1 248 193 581 597 567 849 295 212 1 512 236 3 135 424 1 482 039 391 416 188 955 466 044 549 236 .. ..
20-24 YEARS
No. Dwt
25+ YEARS
No. Dwt 331 308 832 095 1 557 612 1 732 217 1 599 965 1 058 525 1 038 008 1 071 173 996 825 520 340 392 134 3 033 372 2 118 942 388 777 173 939 195 045 193 471 .. 47 909 ..
COMPLETIONS
No. 6 6 12 12 16 20 23 17 4 18 4 13 5 16 .. 2 3 2 2 3 Dwt 2 993 4 299 19 026 31 275 56 857 90 200 125 965 109 406 29 178 156 318 36 589 159 099 86 403 343 158 .. 65 126 109 961 86 342 92 446 153 310
999 1 999 2 999 3 999 4 999 5 999 6 999 7 999 8 999 9 999 14 999 19 999 24 999 29 999 34 999 39 999 44 999 49 999 59 999
2 210 676 887 2 517 1 764 383 3 189 4 549 602 1 778 4 370 146 1 612 5 459 227 925 4 091 235 656 3 565 365 731 4 691 220 510 3 799 017 393 3 344 878 175 1 659 842 742 9 426 801 789 13 181 047 366 8 187 724 87 2 403 894 34 1 090 856 43 1 659 668 66 2 824 612 39 1 814 136 18 933 799
137 130 233 121 134 175 114 78 47 95 30 45 19 57 27 8 5 16 17 16
202 316 357 207 266 153 79 68 69 28 21 32 33 20 1 .. .. 8 10 ..
186 60 204 1 148 349 245 506 1 157 499 724 953 1 135 319 795 933 706 271 916 135 467 146 638 911 240 94 505 714 188 153 969 141 170 120 902 893 133 113 957 473 62 17 159 587 41 262 3 332 346 241 337 5 637 922 133 167 3 735 256 18 26 705 728 6 3 95 745 6 11 424 676 5 12 525 559 .. 4 181 434 1 2 100 500 ..
16 880 79 494 339
1 504 10 285 5721 870 6 934 322 1 958
9 100 658 2 600 14 276 5143 091 21 615 6165 857 17 281 657
184 1 757 951
Figure 14B
Page 13 of 18
The third tier analysis confirmed that the previously identified three key areas of concern are still valid. The variation of the relative weighting of each key area is shown in Figure (15), and although different from that seen in the second tier analysis, is indicative of the whole incident data base now being used. The important feature of this incident profile compared with previous profiles is the high frequency of reported machinery/equipment failures.
2%
10%
Fire/Expl
FIRE/EXPLOSION 10%
Hull Failure
25%
HULL FAILURE
25%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT FAILURE 63 % UNKNOWN 2%
63%
Mach/Equip failure
Figure 15
The third tier study focused on each of the above key incident areas. (1) Hull Related Incidents. The number of incidents associated with hull related issues are 488 compared with 1224 with machinery/equipment. The profile of hull related incidents are shown in the Figure (16). Heavy weather damage accounted for 204 incidents i.e. 42%. Of the majority of the 71 vessels reported lost (foundered/disappeared) no information on the cause of the incident was provided. This is also the case with the majority of the 53 incidents associated with flooding where details of the cause and/or the location of the flooded area were not provided. Of particular significance is the number of incidents associated with engine-room damage and hold damage. Figure (16) also indicates that the integrity of the bow structure, forepeak and forward holds are areas where improvements in structural integrity, inspection and maintenance programs are needed.
Page 14 of 18
NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
C
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Figure 17
100 150 200 250
ap
Figure 16
An
ch
50
or C si ze d
am G ol lis io
Br
ok e
ag ed
To w
in
H ea vy
ry
W ea th
Ve s
do ck
71
er D am
se ll
os
20
ag e
t
67
204
en e
ra l
11
53
M
45
ac
Fl
hi
ne
oo di
ry
17
ng
40
Is
su es
ee p
Ta nk
HULL DAMAGE ANALYSIS
HEAVY WEATHER DAMAGE: HULL DAMAG E
Figure (17) shows the profile of 204 hull-related incidents associated with heavy weather damage and again flooding, machinery and hold-related incidents predominate.
AREA / TYPE OF DAMAGE
Page 15 of 18
CAUSE OF INCIDENT
36
Ba
lla
st
Tw ee
Ta n
at c
ec k
54
C ov er
H ol
el at e
Fo rw d
10
EN
1 1
ul l
ro n un Ve din g ss H ea Ve el L vy os s W t ea sel Li th st er ed D am a g F En Po loo e di rt gi n ne Ins g p R oo ect io m n D am W ag e in g Ba Ta C lla nk ar go st Ta D am nk Bi ag lg e ed W by ell C ar W go at er O pe r a H tio at ns ch C H o ol d vers D am a D ee ge p Bo T Fo an w re k Th c ru as st er Fo tle C rep om e D pa ak am rt ag C ha me e nt D i n et Lo ai ck ls er N ot G ive n
The majority of the engine room area hull related incidents were engine-room flooding (46) compared with 7 incidents associated with main engine failure. (see Figure 18) The available details relating to the flooding incidents, although limited, does suggest that the integrity of the engine room hull fittings and salt water cooling lines and the inspection of engine room load-line issues need to be better addressed.
ENGINE ROOM RELATED HULL INCIDENTS
50 45
46
NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 FIRE FLOODI NG MAIN ENGINE FAILURE STE ERING GEAR FAILURE 1 7 1
INCIDENT TYPE
Figure 18 The incidents associated with hold damage were examined in more detail. Of the 90 incidents reported 36 were associated with heavy weather conditions. The type and location of the hold damage (including heavy weather damage) is shown in Figure (19). Although there are 24 cases where the locations of the hold damage/flooding have not been given the remaining data clearly indicates that the frequency of hold damage/flooding is greater in the forward areas of the vessel. This trend is also seen when the hold damage incident data is re-examined without the heavy weather incident data.
Page 16 of 18
NUMBER NUMBER CTLs NUMBER NUMBER & OF ATLs OF INCIDENTS INCIDENTS AS OF OF A INCIDENTS INCIDENTS
NUMBER OF CASES
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER OF OF INCIDENTS INCIDENTS OF CTLs & ATLs AS AINCIDENTS PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL
An
EACH AGE GROUP
NUMBER OF CASES
PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS NUMBER OF VESSELS NUMBER OF INCIDENTS IN
ch ol
10 15 20 0 5
Figure 20
d H
NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
25
NUMBER OF VESSELS NUMBER OF INCIDENTS IN NUMBER OF INCIDENTS EACH AGE GROUP
Figure 19
(U
or ag e
300 200 100

H
600 500 400
900 800 700
30
0
en t
3
Eq ui
pm
54
C tc h
3
ou pl
lu
in
1
lu re
Fa i
18
El
1
ec tr i al
41 6
1 1
Fl
(2) Machinery/Equipment Related Incidents.
16 9 8 37 5
1 4 1 2 5
HOLD DA MAGE ALL IN CIDENTS
TYPE/LOCATION OF DAMAGE
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT RELATED FAILURES
There are 1224 incidents on the database associated with machinery/equipment failure of which 794 (65%) are related to the operation of the main engine. (see Figure (20)). Of these main engine related incidents 16% can be attributable to mechanical failure and 5% are associated with heavy weather conditions. Unfortunately the cause of the remaining 79% main engine failure incidents has not been specified in the incident reports.
MACHINERY FAILURE TYPE
Page 17 of 18
794 4 21 1 65 27 54 7 66
1 3 8 3 3 1 1 3 1 25
Fi re oo di Fu ng el R el at ed G ea rB oa G x en er at Lo or ss (s ) of Po w M M er ai oo n rin En g g in Eq e ui pm e Pr nt op el Pu le rt m ot pi al ng Sy st em R ud de Sh r U St af ns tin ee pe g rin ci g fie St Ge d e M ar ac rn G hi la ne ry nd D am ag e
ul lS ns he l ul p ec l D a l( U ns ified ma ge ST pec ) D a ifi D ed ma W ) F ge in g lo Ta od nk N ed o H Fl ol 5 oo d H N N ol di o o d ng 4 4 Fl H an oo ol d di d 5 ng H Fl ul oo lP N de la o tin d 4 g H F o el N No ld lo o D 4 3 a f D Ho ma ee ld g e p d T Fl N ank ood o H ing 3 u H N o ol ll C 2 d ra N H D o ol am ck d 3 In ag te Ho ed rn ld al F N Was loo o d 2 tag ing e H Fl o N o No ld D ood 1 an 2 H am ed ag d o N 2 ld o ed H F 1 an old loo di s d N D ng 2 o am H 1 ol an ds ag d Fl ed 4 oo H N di o o ld ng 1 s ha Fl tc oo h N di o. C ng ov 1 H e N old r L o 1 hu oss H ll N old Cra o D ck 1 H am ol d age Fl oo d de d
(3) Fire and Explosion Damage Incidents Figure (21) shows the location of the 198 fire/explosion related incidents reported. The majority of such incidents (72%) have occurred in the engine room and 21% in the cargo holds. The lack of detail in the majority of these cases did not allow any further accurate observations to be made. However, the trend clearly shows that there is a need for greater attention to fire safety issues in engine room spaces.
FIRE/EXPLOSION INCIDENTS
NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
160
14 2
140 120 100 80 60

42
40 20 0
9 1 1 1 2
TL
(S
LD
RO
AS
IF
EC
EC
FO
O T
EN
SOURCE OF FIRE/EXPLOSION
Figure 21
Page 18 of 18
EP AI
RY
SP
IN
AI
YA R
EC
IE
Part A
UR Z11 Mandatory Ship Type and Enhanced Survey Programme (ESP) Notations
Version no. Rev.4 (Mar 2011) Rev.3 (July 2004) Rev.2 (June 2000) Rev.1 (1996) New (1993) Approval date 11 March 2011 13 July 2004 15 June 2000 No record No record Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2012 1 January 2005 -
Rev.4 (Mar 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Since UR Z11 contains single hull arrangements, include a provision which states vessels that do not comply with MARPOL I/19 may be subject to International and/or National Regulations requiring phase out. Also, include double hull arrangements for ORE/OIL CARRIER. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: Discussed at Spring 2010 Survey Panel meeting and completed through correspondence. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 25 February 2010 Made by: Survey Panel Panel Approval: October 2010 GPG Approval: 11 March 2011 (Ref: 11039_IGb)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.3 (July 2004)
To amend Z11 to take into account the adoption of URs Z10.4 and Z10.5, and amendments to UR Z10.2 relating to hybrid hold arrangements, clarification in respect of combination carriers and ore carriers and new definition of bulk carriers and double hulled oil tankers (WP/SRC Task 117). See TB in Part B.
Rev.2 (June 2000)
To reflect the IMO interpretation of single side skin construction in the Z11.2.2 definition of a bulk carrier. WP/S submitted the draft revision to Z 11. Approved by GPG 48. See TB in Part B.
Rev.1 (1996)
New (1993)
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents: Annex 1 TB for Rev.2 (June 2000) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Annex 2 TB for Rev.3 (July 2004) See separate TB document in Annex 2. Annex 3 TB for Rev. 4 (March 2011) See separate TB document in Annex 3. Note: There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document for New (1993) and Rev.1 (1996).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
(Rev.2, Z11)
Technical Background to changes proposed in respect of Z11.2.2 Bulk Carriers

The objective of the proposal is to reflect the IMO interpretation of single side skin construction in the Z11.2.2 definition of a bulk carrier. The Working Party on Strength discussions yielded unanimous agreement and no matters remain unresolved.
S E Rutherford Chairman IACS WP/S 4th May 2000
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background UR Z 11 (Rev. 3)

1. Objective To amend Z11 to take into account the adoption of URs Z10.4 and Z10.5, and amendments to UR Z10.2 relating to hybrid hold arrangements, clarification in respect of combination carriers and ore carriers and new definition of bulk carriers and double hulled oil tankers (WP/SRC Task 117). 2. Background When approving UR Z10.5 and reviewing draft amendments to Z10.2 in 2003/2004, GPG found it necessary to amend UR Z11 in order : to take into account hybrid cargo hold arrangements in Z11 ; to introduce new definitions of bulk carriers, ore carriers and combination carriers; to clarify application of UR Z10s to various types of ships according to their hull arrangements.
3.
Amendment GPG tasked WP/SRC to amend UR Z11 accordingly. Task 117 given. Outcome reported on 11 May 2004 (4072bNVa). [Due to the implementation date of Z10.5 being 1 January 2005, changes introduced in Rev.3 to Z11 are to be implemented from 1 January 2005]
2 July 2004
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background for UR Z11 Rev.4, Mar 2011

1. Scope and objectives Since UR Z11 contains single hull arrangements, include a provision which states vessels that do not comply with MARPOL I/19 may be subject to International and/or National Regulations requiring phase out. Also, include double hull arrangements for ORE/OIL CARRIER. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale N/A 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution IMO MARPOL Annex I Regulation 19 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: A provision was added for each which states vessels that do not comply with MARPOL I/19 may be subject to International and/or National Regulations requiring phase out. Also, include double hull arrangements for ORE/OIL CARRIER. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions None 6. Attachments if any None

UR Z13 Voyage Repairs and Maintenance
Version no. Rev.3 (Jan 2011) Rev.2 (Feb 2010) Rev.1 (1995) NEW (1995) Approval date 05 January 2011 11 February 2010 No Record No Record Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2011 1 January 2011 -
Part A
Rev.3 (Jan 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: A member queried the definition of extreme in the phrase extreme emergency circumstance. The phrase was introduced in Rev.2 to Z13. The document MSC/Circ.1070, upon which the amendments in Rev.2 were based, does not refer to extreme emergency circumstances. It was therefore decided to delete the word extreme, referring only to emergency circumstance. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was raised by the member prior to the Autumn Survey Panel Meeting, and discussed at the meeting. It was agreed that to define an extreme emergency circumstance would be problematic, and in order to closer align Z13 with MSC/Circ.1070 it was agreed that the word extreme should be deleted. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original proposal: September 2010 Made by a Member (PSU 10038) Panel Approval: 16 September 2010 GPG Approval: 05 January 2011 (Ref. 10166_IGd)
Page 1 of 3
Rev. 2 (Feb 2010)
.1 Origin for Change: ; Suggestion by IACS member .2 Main Reasons for Change: According to the fact that MSC/Circ.1070 substitutes MSC/Circ.807 and the latter is no longer valid, existing UR Z13 which has made reference to MSC/Circ.807 needs to be modified in order to correspond with MSC/Circ.1070. .3 History of Decisions Made: Hull Panel chairman advised Survey Panel chairman that UR Z13 may have to be revised in order to correspond to the requirements of MSC/Circ.1070 instead of MSC/Circ.807, which is no longer valid, via the e-mail, PH9018_IHa, Response to industry question - Mr Isbester - Application of MSC/Circ.1070 dated 10 September 2009. According to this e-mail, the panel members discussed about this issue and the panel concluded that UR Z13 should be revised under Task 69 (PSU9031). CCS has introduced the draft amendments to UR Z13 Voyage Repairs and Maintenance at the 10th Survey Panel meeting (16 - 17 September 2009), and based on the drafts the panel members discussed about proper texts to insert in the existing UR Z13. .4 Other Resolutions Changes None .5 Any dissenting views None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2009, made by Hull Panel Panel Approval: January 2009, made by Survey Panel GPG Approval: 11 February 2010 (Ref. 10003_IGd)
Rev. 1 (1995)
New (1995)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z13:
Annex 1.
TB for Rev.2 (Feb 2010)


Note: 1) There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z13 New (1995) and Rev.1 (1995).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR Z13 Rev.2, Feb 2010

To amend UR Z13 (Rev.1) for the harmonization with the requirements of the MSC/Circ. 1070 which supersedes MSC/Circ. 807.
2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale

Remove technical discrepancies between the referenced IACS documents and IMO documents.
3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution

MSC/Circ.1070 IACS UR Z13 (Rev.1)

1) In case of extreme emergency circumstance, emergency repairs are always to be effected immediately, and the repairs should be verified by the classification society in near future. 2) Review of the application of repair coating is to be carried out as appropriate, as part of the survey of voyage repairs. 3) Riding repairs to primary hull structures is prohibited except in extreme circumstances.

Compare IACS UR Z13 with MSC/Circ. 1070 and develop the wording to be inserted into UR Z13 for harmonizing two documents.
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background for UR Z13 Rev.3, Jan 2011

1. Scope and objectives To amend Z13 by removal of the word extreme from the phrase extreme emergency circumstance and thereby further align Z13 to MSC/Circ. 1070. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Further remove technical discrepancy between referenced IACS documents and IMO documents. It was further agreed that to define an extreme emergency circumstance, as opposed to any other emergency circumstance, would be problematic. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution MSC/Circ.1070 IACS UR Z13 (Rev.2) 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: To remove the word extreme from the phrase extreme emergency circumstance in Para 2 of UR Z13. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions A member raised the issue of defining an extreme emergency circumstance, a phrase that had been introduced in Rev.2 of Z13. Various attempts were made to define this. Z13 Rev.2 had been introduced to harmonise requirements with MSC/Circ.1070, though it was noted that this source document made no mention of extreme emergencies, referring only to emergency repairs. Consequently it was decided that rather than define an extreme emergency, the word extreme should be removed from Para 2 of UR Z13. 6. Attachments if any None

To review existing UR D 12 and relocate it as a UR under UR Z.

WP/SRC members discussed and reviewed the requirements contained in UR D 12 through correspondence and their meeting. Reservations against UR D 12 were also dealt with at this time as contained in the proposed draft.
Technical Background Document New UR Z 15 and deletion of D12 (Survey after Construction, MODUs)

Re-locate the current MODU survey requirements from UR D12 to a new UR Z.

WP/SRC Chairman reported in his annual progress report(March 1999, GPG 46) that WP/SRC Members had discussed and reviewed the requirements contained in UR D 12 through correspondence and at their last meeting and had relocated the text of D 12 to a new UR Z15. The task was carried out as part of Annual review of Implementation of IACS Requirements.
WP/SRC unanimously agreed to the proposed draft UR Z 15. Council in May 1999 decided that the proposed draft paragraph 2.2.2 should be deleted since it would require Members to periodically check all CSDUs lightship characteristics as a condition of class in the event that it was not checked as a statutory requirement. Paragraph 2.2.2, which has now been deleted, read as follows:
2.2.2 For Column Stabilized Units, a deadweight survey is to be conducted as part of classification surveys at interval not exceeding 5 years or at time of Special Surveys, or as part of statutory surveys at interval specified by the Flag Administrations. Where the deadweight survey indicates a change from the calculated light ship displacement in excess of 1% of the operating displacement, an inclining test is to be conducted.
Note: Council Chairman announced approval of UR Z15(ex D12) on 15 May 1999 subject to the following conditions: Deletion of paragraph 2.2.2; Adoption of UR Z18(ex M20) for Z15.5.1 and Z15.6.1; Editorial corrections. UR Z18 was finally approved on 23 November 2001(9056aIAe, 29/01/2002): M20 was deleted; Z18 Periodical Survey of Machinery created excluding tail shaft survey requirements; Z21 created for the tail shaft survey requirements. ABS suggested to re-word Z15.5.1 to avoid the need for filing of reservations on Z15.5.1 simply because it invokes the requirements of Z21. Agreed.
***** Date of submission: 14 August 2002 By the Permanent Secretariat
Part A
UR Z16 Periodical surveys of cargo installations on ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk
Version no. Rev.3, Corr.1 (Feb 2011) Rev.3 (Mar 2010) Rev.2 (May 2007) Rev.1 (Mar 2006) NEW (June 1999) Approval date 11 February 2011 3 March 2010 14 May 2007 3 March 2006 28 June 1999 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2011 1 July 2011 -
Rev.3, Corr.1 (Feb 2011)
.2 Main Reason for Change: UR Z16 was amended in Mar 2010 in order to clarify NDT requirements for Type C LNG tanks. However the amendment might lead to misunderstanding that it also applies to Type A LNG tanks. In order to eliminate the misunderstanding, the UR amendment is corrected. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: A Survey Panel member pointed out the issue in September 2010, and the subsequent discussion at Survey Panel meeting in September 2010 led to the agreement that the UR should be corrected to avoid the any misunderstanding. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: September 2010 by a Survey Panel Member Panel Approval: September 2010 GPG Approval: 11 February 2011 (Ref: 10168_IGf)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.3 (Mar 2010)
.2 Main Reason for Change: Further to a finding raised during an IACS audit, a clarification was requested within the Survey Panel on paragraph [2.2.6] and paragraph [2.2.3.1] of UR Z16, for NonDestructive Examination of independent cargo tanks of type C. .3 History of Decisions Made: Various discussions were carried out by the panel by correspondence and it was also dealt with in 10th Survey Panel meeting (held during 13 to 14 September 2009). During discussion, interpretation on "as deemed necessary by the Surveyor" in [2.2.3.1] was mainly dealt with. And, through correspondence among members after the meeting, a final wording for amendments to UR Z16 was made under agreement of majority of the panel. .4 Other Resolutions Changes None .5 Any dissenting views None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 24 December 2008 made by Survey Panel Survey Panel Approval: November 2009 GPG Approval: 3 March 2010 (Ref. 9656_IGd)
Rev.2 (May 2007)
Survey Panel Task 40 (Secondary Barrier Testing) See TB in Part B.
Rev.1 (Mar 2006)
Machinery Panel Task PM5401 See TB in Part B.
NEW (June 1999)
WP/SRC Task 1 See TB in Part B.
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z16: Annex 1. TB for Original Resolution (Jun 1999)




Note: There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document for Rev.3, Corr.1 (Feb 2011).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 1 Z16

To review the existing UR G4, Periodical surveys of cargo installations on ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk and relocate it as a UR under UR Z.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC members through their experience in the survey of cargo installations on ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk. The existing UR G4 was reviewed and re-organized to follow formats consistent with other UR Z.
Date of submission: 26 May 1999 By WP/SRC Chairman
Part B, Annex 2
Technical Background UR Z16(Rev.1, March 2006), paragraph 4.3 Machinery Panel Task PM5401 The contents of paragraph 4.3, Electrical equipment, of Z16 Periodical surveys of cargo installations on ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk was to be reviewed and recommendations to be made for any changes deemed appropriate. The revised paragraph 4.3 of UR Z16 consolidates proposals made by both the Machinery Panel and the Survey Panel. The following changes were made: 1. 2nd bullet: delete flameproof as this should apply to all types of enclosures 2. 6th bullet: delete and are to be carried out within an acceptable time period as this expression is considered too vague. 3. Change last bullet to a Note. Rec. 35 is not mandatory but including it in the UR would make it so. Submitted by Machinery Panel Chairman 17 February 2006
Page 1 of 1
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background UR Z16 (Rev. 2, 2007)

PSU Task 40: Review issues raised in the Statutory Panel concerning survey requirements for paragraphs 4.10.4 and 4.10.16 and paragraph 1.5.4 for issuance of certificates of the IGC Code regarding the first loaded voyage of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk. 1. Objective Review the issues raised in the Statutory Panel NK (SP5034_NKc) regarding the IGC Code verification and inspection following the first loaded voyage to define survey requirements for paragraphs 4.10.4 and 4.10.16 , and amend UR Z16 accordingly. 2. Background LR Statutory Panel member requested that the Panel should determine if testing requirements should be created for the secondary barriers of LNG carriers. 3. Methodology of Work The Survey Panel has progressed its work through meetings as well as a Survey Panel Project Team consisting of ABS (Chair), BV, DNV, GL, LR and NK. The proposed scope of work as well as the draft recommendation by the Project Team was circulated to all Members for comment and agreement. 4. Discussion The first part of the task concerned survey requirements for paragraphs 4.10.4 and 4.10.16 of the IGC Code regarding the first loaded voyage of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk. The Project Team reviewed the requirements of the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk and discussed current practice among each Society. The team discussed the survey requirements for the first loading and unloading. The requirements were developed based upon items that the team felt should be surveyed due to the vessel being fully loaded rather than the limited loading at gas trials. The current practice of testing the secondary membrane was discussed and found only one shipyard was currently testing the secondary barrier after gas trials and most of the others refusing to test after gas trials. The team also considered the leakage of the secondary barrier by two vessels after delivery which resulted in the vessels being removed from service to be repaired. After investigation, it was felt that the vessel may have developed the leaks on gas trials, though no evidence exists to support this allegation. It was concluded by the team that the only way to ensure that the secondary barrier was satisfactory when delivered was to require tightness testing of the secondary barrier after gas trials for vessels with glued membranes. The team also considered the current acceptance criteria by the containment system designer and felt that the criteria had proven to be questionable. Due to the lack of acceptance criteria, the team decided that values obtained before and after initial
Page 1 of 2
cooldown shall be evaluated. If significant differences are observed in the before and after results for each tank or between tanks or other anomalies occur, an investigation is to be carried out. The team then reviewed the requirements of UR Z16 and proposed a revision to incorporate the comparison of previous results and values obtained at Special Survey using the same approach of investigating differences in the before and after results for each tank or between tanks. The Project Team and all Survey Panel members agreed to the proposed amendments to UR Z16.
(Permsec Note: IACS UI GC12 and GC13 were also developed as a result of this task)
Submitted by the Survey Panel 22 June 2007
Page 2 of 2
Part B, Annex 4
Technical Background for UR Z16 Rev.3, March 2010

1. Scope and objectives To amend UR Z16 (para. 2.2.3.1) to clarify the relevant parts of Non-Destructive Examination of independent cargo tanks of type C 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Application of paragraph [2.2.6] of UR Z16 at 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc. class renewal survey, and of paragraph [2.2.3.1] at 1st, 3rd, 5th class renewal survey. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution Meaning of "....including welded connections as deemed necessary by the Surveyor" in [2.2.3.1]. Addition of the following sentence for the sake of clarity: However, this does not mean that non-destructive testing can be dispensed with totally. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: To prevent as deemed necessary by the Surveyor in [2.2.3.1] from being interpreted as no Non-Destructive Examination of independent cargo tanks of type C can be done. 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions Clarifications on paragraph [2.2.6] and paragraph [2.2.3.1] UR Z16, for NonDestructive Examination of independent cargo tanks of type C. 6. Attachments if any None
Page 1 of 1
Part A
UR Z 17 Procedural Requirements for Service Suppliers

Version no. Corr.1 (Aug 2012) Rev.9 (June 2012) Rev.8 (Jul 2008) Rev.7 (Nov 2007) Rev.6 (Jun 2007) Rev.5 (Feb 2004) Rev.4 (Jul 2003) Rev.3 (Jul 2002) Rev.2 (Nov 1999) Rev.1 (Jun 1999) New (1997) Approval date 08 26 10 30 14 27 08 27 02 11 10 August 2012 June 2012 July 2008 November 2007 June 2007 February 2004 July 2003 July 2002 November 1999 June 1999 December 1999 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2013 1 January 2008 1 January 2008 -
Corr.1 (August 2012)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Suggestion by an IACS member .2 Main Reason for Change: Reference to PR34 was removed from UR Z17 in Rev.9, however the changes in Rev.9 do not become effective until 1 July 2013 whereas PR34 was deleted on 1 July 2012. Therefore it was considered appropriate to issue a correction to UR Z17 Rev.9 to clarify that the changes of the references to PR34 become effective immediately. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The proposal was made by an IACS GPG member. PermSec drafted the correction. .5 Other Resolutions Changes: None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 6 July 2012 Made by a Member GPG Approval: 08 August 2012 (Ref:11090_IGq)
Page 1 of 4
Rev 9 (June 2012)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Based on IMO Regulation .2 Main Reason for Change: Imminent need for paint industry to produce approved products prior to the statutory entry into force of the resolution (1 January 2012), while requirements will be mandatory on 1 January 2013. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: EG/Coating discussed this issue and, due to disbanding EG/coating, passed it onto the Statutory Panel through GPG. The proposed revision of UR Z17 was discussed and agreed by the Statutory Panel through correspondence and 13th Statutory Panel Meeting. Survey Panel also reviewed and agreed with the proposed revision of UR Z17. Moreover, agreed conclusion of Survey Panel discussed under PSU 11026 regarding the requirement for in-water survey firms was included to the present revision of UR Z17. .5 Other Resolutions Changes: None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 30 September 2010 Made by EG/Coating Panel Approval: October 2011 by Statutory Panel (Ref: SP11012) April 2012 by Survey Panel (Ref: PSU12011) GPG Approval: 26 June 2012 (Ref: 9638fIGf) (MSC.288(87))
Rev.8 (Jul 2008)
Text added to Annex 1 section 13 to refer to new Recs 101 & 102, and also text covering approval of labs with which Members are involved (Ref: 7693_). No TB document available.
Rev.7 (Nov 2007)
Page 2 of 4
New Section 13 added to Annex 1 covering requirements for firms engaged in testing of coating systems in accordance with IMO Res. MSC.215(82) and PR34 (Ref: 5093h). No TB document available.
Rev.6 (Jun 2007)
Rev.5 (Feb 2004)
Rev.4 (Jul 2003)
WP/SRC Task 99 VDRs included. WP/SRC Task 107 LL lighting and sound pressure level measurement included. Ref: 0126g No TB document available.
Rev.3 (Jul 2002)
Rev.2 (Nov 1999)
Rev.1 (Jun 1999)
New (1997)
Page 3 of 4
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z17: Annex 1. TB for Rev.1 (Jun 1999) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Annex 2. TB for Rev.2 (Nov 1999) See separate TB document in Annex 2. Annex 3. TB for Rev.3 (Jul 2002) See separate TB document in Annex 3. Annex 4. TB for Rev.5 (Feb 2004) See separate TB document in Annex 4. Annex 5. TB for Rev.6 (Jun 2007) See separate TB document in Annex 5. Annex 6. TB for Rev.9 (June 2012) See separate TB document in Annex 6. Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents available for New (1997), Rev.4 (July 2003), Rev.7 (Nov 2007), Rev.8 (July 2008) and Corr.1 (Aug 2012).
Page 4 of 4
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 1-A UR Z 17 Proposed Rev. 1 Objective and Scope:
To review existing UR Z 17 to which a reservation has been lodged with a view to eliminating the cause for the reservation and achieving full implementation.

WP/SRC members discussed and reviewed the reservation lodged against the UR. A proposal based upon the members experience with service suppliers was agreed to and contained in the proposed draft. An additional item was changed to clarify the use of ultrasonic thickness measuring devices in Annex 1.
Part B, Annex 2 Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 68 UR Z17 Proposed Draft Revisions 9 (Rev.2 1999) Objective and Scope:
Revise UR Z17 to meet the requirements of IMO Res A.789(19) for Radio Specialists and other small companies such as diving and gauging.

The proposed requirements were developed by WP/SRC members through correspondence and their meeting by incorporating the requirements of IMO Res A.789(19) into UR Z17.
1. 4.2.2 was amended to allow external training where internal training was not possible. The members were all in agreement. 2. 4.2.3 was amended to clarify that for a one person company, that person must meet the requirements of a supervisor. The members were all in agreement. 3. Annex I / 6.4 was amended to include the specific requirements of Res A.789(19). The members were all in agreement. 4. A proposal to require an intermediate audit for a one person supplier did not receive the support of the members.
submitted by WP/SRC Chairman on 12/10/1999
Part B, Annex 3
Technical Background Document UR Z 17 Rev. 3 (approval of TM Firms and Life-raft servicing stations) Objective and Scope:
1. To require that new or renewed approval of TM Firms should be valid for the maximum 3 years. 2. To reflect the GPG 52 (March 2002) decision that IACS should seek agreement from the flag Administrations to: - approve the service stations in accordance with UR Z17; - accept the service stations approved by the flag Administration itself or other authorized ROs; or - accept the service stations approved by other SOLAS contracting governments.
1. TM Firms
- As a result of the first Quality Management Review at Council 44 (December 2001), Council decided that: - the validity of approval certificate of TM Firms should be 3 years maximum. Council instructed GPG to amend relevant URs accordingly - IACS should develop a database to record any change in the status of TM Firms and post it to the IACS web page. Table VII of Z10.1 (Table V of Z10.2, Table VII of Z10.3) reads that Renewal or endorsement of the Certificate is to be made at intervals not exceeding 3 years by verification that original conditions are maintained. - GPG introduced the same wording to Z17. See section 5.2 of Z17(Rev.3). 2. Liferaft servicing stations A member submitted a draft revision to UR Z17 on 19 April 2002 (0126cABb, GPG 52 FUA 61). It is to allow Members to accept statutory service suppliers which had been approved by organizations acceptable to the Flag of the ship with a view to facilitating Members removing their reservations against UR Z17 which were declared when they realized that they were accepting service suppliers approved by the government of the country where the service supplier is located without knowing whether this is acceptable to the Flag Administration. See section 1.2 of Z17(Rev.3). Meanwhile, noting that there were still many Administrations who had replied No to the question Accept other governments approval, GPG agreed that IACS submit a paper to IMO MSC 76 with the UKs sponsorship suggesting that they allow Members to accept such approvals when acting on their behalf. This paper proposed that the same consideration be given to servicing stations servicing inflatable lifejackets, MESs and inflatable rescue boats. (For actual action taken by GPG, refer to GPG correspondence under 9126c. This note was added on 31 July 2002) *****
Date of submission: 13 May 2002 Permanent Secretariat
Part B, Annex 4 Technical background UR Z17 Rev.5

Background A member requested a clarification of the uniform scope of application of requirements for approved TM firms in UR Z17. The member's position was that certification of thickness measurement firms are only required for ESP vessels as there is no mention in UR Z7 requiring this certification. Furthermore, current revision 3 of Z17 in Annex I state: quote "1.6 Reporting. The report shall be based on the guidelines given in UR Z10.1, Z10.2 or Z10.3, as relevant." unquote. This to the member indicates that when the wording originally was established, ESP vessels only were to comply with this requirement. WP Discussion The WP/SRC discussed this issue at two meetings and by correspondence. 1. It appeared that there was little support in the Working Party for the members position that UR Z17 only requires approval of TM firms doing thickness measurements of ESP vessels. Several members require a UR Z17 certified TM firm for all hull thickness measurements on all types of ships. The majority of the members agreed with the member that there were practical problems applying the full certification requirements of Z17 to all vessels, in particular for small vessels, in small yards and in remote areas. 2. Member then requested that the Working Party should consider to exclude the certification of TM firms for non-ESP vessels under 90 meters in length from the scope of Z17. 3. However, there was a clear majority in the Working Party for the view that UR Z17 need not apply to non-ESP ships below the SOLAS limit of 500 gross tonnage and also to except all fishing vessels. WP Conclusion The conclusion of the discussion in the Working Party is that the wording of UR Z17 is proposed to be changed as follows: 3.1.1 Class services Firms engaged in thickness measurements on ships except non-ESP ships less than 500 gross tonnage and all fishing vessels Firms engaged in tightness testing of hatches with ultrasonic equipment Firms carrying out in-water survey of ships and mobile offshore units Firms engaged in the examination of Ro-Ro ships bow, stern, side and inner doors. and Annex I of Z17 be changed as follows: 1.1 Extent of engagement - Thickness measurement of structural material of ships except non-ESP ships less than 500 gross tonnage and all fishing vessels. 1.6 Reporting. The report shall be based on the guidelines given in UR Z10.1, Z10.2, Z10.3, Z10.4, Z10.5 and UR Z7.1 as relevant.
Furthermore, UR Z7 has to be amended to include a requirement for certification of TM companies for ships of 500 gross tonnage and above except fishing vessels.
12 February 2004 3006hIAb

(similar to para 6.2 and Table IV of UR Z7.1) GPG discussion GPG concurred, except that a member reserves on the lower size limit, holding to a limit of 90m length vice 500gt. Council discussion Council approved it on 25 February 2004. a member recorded as follows:
Quote Subject: 3006hxxx: WP/SRC-Task 3-UR Z17-TM firms. (Date: 26 Feb 2004) In reply to ICa, 12 Feb: 1. the revision of UR Z17 circulated with IAb, 12 Feb, is not acceptable to the member. 2. As we have pointed out in the WP/SRC and in GPG, member classes a large fleet of small vessels and we know that: a. there are very extensive practical problems in getting approved TM firms for the taking of the relatively limited gaugings required on smaller vessels, in small yards, in remote areas and locations; and that b. small vessels (under 90m L) do not have longitudinal strength issues of large ships--for which very extensive and controlled gaugings are essential--they have local strength issues which can normally be easily identified. Controls of the TM process can, in these cases, be much simpler while still wholly effective. 3. member therefore maintains the reservation declared at GPG against this revision of this UR as stated in the TB attached to IAb. (i.e. member will not require approved TM firms for gauging of non-ESP ships less than 90 m in Length.) 4. Though Chairman has concluded that the revision of the UR has been adopted, we again encourage Members to reconsider their position on this revision of this UR and to agree with member' proposed limits for the use of approved TM firms for structural gaugings. Regards, IACS Council Member Unquote
**********
Part B, Annex 5
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR Z17 (Rev.6), June 2007

(Survey Panel Task 1 Annual Review of Implementation of IACS Resolutions) 1. Objective To keep IACS Resolutions up to date through annual reviews. 2. Background To keep IACS Resolutions up to date through annual reviews. 3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel members through correspondence. 4. Discussion Survey Panel members were of the opinion that UR Z17 was not in line with current practice of members methods of acceptance of technicians as external specialists, through the audit of only the headquarters of a company that had in place an accepted quality system that the company and its field offices followed. Members agreed that relevant sections of UR Z17 needed to be amended to account for quality systems in place for companies that are accepted as external specialists. Members also agreed that references to applicable quality standards (ISO 9000 series) needed to be updated to reference current standards, throughout the UR. 5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 6 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their Procedures. Assuming that GPG and Council approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose January 2008 as an implementation date. Submitted by Survey Panel Chairman 22 May 2007 Permanent Secretariat note (June 2007): Amendments to UR Z17, with implementation date of 1 January 2008, adopted 14 June 2007 (7576_IGe).
Part B, Annex 6
Technical Background for UR Z17 Rev.9, June 2012

1. Scope and objectives To provide the same guidelines provided for MSC.215 (82) given in section 13 of annex 1 to UR Z17 for MSC.288 (87). 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale Owing to the difference of testing environment between MSC.215 (82) (coating systems for ballast water tanks) and MSC.288 (87) (coating systems for cargo oil tanks of crude oil tanker), another set of test laboratory approval procedure is required. 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution None 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution Revised to meet the requirements of MSC.288 (87) 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions 1. In general, the EG/Coating agreed that there is a need to develop a new procedure for the approval of testing laboratories against MSC.288 (87). 2. The EG/Coating agreed, rather than revising existing section 13 of UR Z17, create a new section on PSPC-COT testing laboratories so that the laboratory can choose whether they will conduct testing only for MSC.215 (82), or MSC 288 (87) or both. 3. The EG/Coating developed the draft text of the new section 14 of UR Z17. However, noting that the requirements has not been coming into force yet, and noting the precedence of the IACS Recommendation on Expert Parties Engaged in Visual and/or Sampling Checks for Preparation of Inventory of Hazardous Materials, the Group developed a draft text of new recommendation with a view to incorporating this recommendation into UR Z17 at a future occasion. 4. After this matter was passed onto Statutory Panel, GPG instructed the Statutory Panel to develop a draft revision of UR Z17 using the draft Recommendation developed by EG/Coating as a basis. 6. Attachments if any None


Survey Panel Task 5 Amend Survey Intervals for Boilers Survey Panel Task 6 Develop Requirements for Survey of Boiler Pressure Relief Arrangements Survey Panel Task 7 Amend Z18 to consider surveys of Exhaust Gas Heated Economizers * Note The three Tasks above are all to amend UR Z18
Technical Background UR Z18 (Rev.1, Jan 2006)

1. Objective To amend the requirements of UR Z18 to address the survey panel tasks as described above. 2. Background Task 5 & 6 as listed above were tasked by GPG to better align survey Intervals as requested by GPG Member from RINA and by the WP/MCH to expand the requirements for pressure relief arrangements to all boilers respectively. Task 7 as listed above, was tasked due to a report from the MCA MAIB report on the Island Princess casualty. 3. Methodology of Work Survey Panel member from LR proposed amendments to deal with Task 5 and Task 6 at the February 2005 Survey Panel meeting and with that, correspondence has continued until the Fall meeting, as to acceptable amendments (including the inclusion of Task 7 amendments to UR Z18) to come to a final submittal.
4. Discussion With the submission of proposed amendments from LR as noted above the Survey Panel members through correspondence has the following comments which led to the Panels final submittal: ABS Panel member made the following comments: In paragraph 2.1, ABS is of the opinion that IACS should include a provision to allow extensions of boiler surveys in order to align with drydocking surveys or in case of exceptional circumstances. This can be done by including the wording from one of the two methods noted below: 1. Consideration may be given for extensions Boiler Surveys beyond the due date. or 2. An extension of examination of the boiler up to 3 months beyond the due date can be granted in exceptional circumstances. (Note if use this option then we need to define exceptional circumstances as per Z3).
Page 1 of 2
NK Panel member comments: 2.1 Last sentence of existing UR Z18.2.1 requires the examination and test only for boiler safety valve relieving gear at each boiler internal survey. NK considers that boiler safety valve body should be included in this requirement. 2.2 Inspection item for safety/protective devices and safety valves at annual survey is not specified in the existing UR Z 18.2.2. NK considers that test requirements for safety/protective devices and safety valves at annual survey should be included in UR Z18.2.2. Some members disagreed with the provisions for allowing extensions to the boiler surveys and with that RINA responded with the following: As regards DNV's disagreement on the introduction of a provision allowing an extension of boiler surveys, we point out that it does not seem consistent to provide more flexibility to intermediate and special surveys (and to drydocking survey as well) than to boiler survey. And it is just this less flexibility that UR Z18 allows to boiler survey with respect to those above mentioned that we are often faced by cases where boiler survey interval exceeds the "fatal" 36 months. In fact, if a boiler survey is carried out concurrently with the special survey and credited with same date, the next boiler survey will be due after 36 months (without possibility of extension!!!), while the intermediate survey may reach the 39th month. We are therefore in favor to introducing a provision for an extension to boiler survey up to three months, but without stating "in exceptional circumstances". We prefer to introduce a requirement for a specific "extension survey" which is to be of the same scope of the examination at annual survey. All members agreed at the Fall Survey Panel meeting that having the provision for an extension of the boiler survey was acceptable. Regarding Survey Panel Task 7 members discussed through correspondence the extent of weld examinations to be carried out during exhaust gas heated economizer surveys, and the proposal for the extent of NDT to be carried out. At the Fall Survey Panel meeting it was agreed by all Panel members that all accessible welded joints be visually examined and NDT be carried out as necessary.
5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules. Assuming that GPG and Council approve to the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose January 2007 as an implementation date.
6. GPG consideration In its consideration for adoption of the amended UR, GPG posed questions to the Survey Panel in 4069jIGx, 30 Nov 05, to which the Survey Panel replied in 4069jPYb, 06 Jan 06, advising that Survey Panel concluded that no further amendments to item 2.4 of UR Z18 are necessary.
***
Page 2 of 2

To develop a Unified Requirement with regard to calibration of inspection, measuring and testing equipment used to verify products to be certified or classified by a Member Society or to be used in the re-classification process.

WP/SRC members discussed this issue through correspondence and their meeting. The requirements were developed through the Members experience with the calibration of equipment used by the Surveyor.
TB
Z 20 (May 2000)
a)
Planned Maintenance Scheme (PMS) for Machinery
Objective/Scope
The WP/SRC was tasked by GPG to review and revise, as necessary, UR M55 (Planned maintenance scheme (PMS) for machinery) to current practices and relocate under URZ. Form A was dated 27/01/00 and the task was completed by the WP in February 2001.
b)
Source of Proposed Requirements
UR Z 20 is to replace UR M 55.
c)
Comments received by several members were discussed and concluded by the WP at our extraordinary meeting in Hamburg. The final text of UR Z 20 was agreed by the WP without reservations. Enclosed herewith find the UR Z20 as well as the previous UR M55 with amendments indicated.
***
Submitted by WP/SRC Chairman On 26 April 2001
IACS UR Z 20
UR Z20 (May. 2001) Planned maintenance scheme (PMS) for machinery
M55 (1988) Planned maintenance scheme (PMS) for Machinery
1 General 1.1 Application 1.1.1 These requirements apply to an approved Planned Maintenance Scheme for Machinery (PMS) as an alternative to the Continuous Machinery Survey (CMS). 1.1.2 It considers surveys to be carried out on the basis of intervals between overhauls recommended by manufacturers, documented operator's experience and a condition monitoring system, where fitted. 1.1.3 This scheme is limited to components and systems covered by CMS 1.1.4 Any items not covered by PMS shall be surveyed and credited in the usual way
M55.1 Scope The scope of this document is to give shipowners procedures and conditions under which a Planned Maintenance Scheme for Machinery (PMS) may be approved by the Society.
M55.2 General 2.1 An approved PMS may be considered as an alternative to the Continuous Survey Machinery System (CSM) and is limited to components and systems covered by CSM. It considers surveys to be carried out on the basis of intervals between overhauls recommended by manufacturers, documented operator's experience and condition monitoring where fitted. However, the intervals for PMS should not exceed those specified for CSM. The machinery survey intervals based on CSM cycle period may be extended only if an approved condition monitoring system is in effect. 1.2 Maintenance Intervals 2.2 1.2.1 The chief engineer is the responsible person on board in In general, the intervals for PMS shall not exceed those charge with the PMS. specified for CMS. However, for components where the 2.3 maintenance is based on running hours longer intervals The approval conditions and procedures are contained in may be accepted as long as the intervals are based on the Sections 3 and 4 and, if found satisfactory, a "Certificate of manufacturers recommendations. Approval for Planned Maintenance Scheme" will be issued 1.2.2 (see 3.4). However, if an approved condition monitoring system is 2.4 in effect, the machinery survey intervals based on CMS When the PMS has been approved and the system has cycle period may be extended. been implemented and used on board, the Owner shall make a request to the Society's Head Office for an 1.3 Onboard responsibility Implementation Survey (see Section 5). 1.3.1 2.5 The chief engineer shall be the responsible person on board An Annual Survey is required to extend the validity of the in charge of the PMS. approval as specified under Section 5. 1.3.2 2.6 Documentation on overhauls of items covered by the PMS Any items not covered by PMS will be surveyed and shall be reported and signed by the chief engineer. credited in the usual way. 1.3.3 2.7 Access to computerized systems for updating of the Documentation on overhauls of items covered by the PMS maintenance documentation and maintenance program is to be reported and signed by the chief engineer. shall only be permitted by the chief engineer or other 2.8 authorized person. When using computerised systems, the access to updating the maintenance documentation and the maintenance program shall only be permitted by the chief engineer or other authorised person. Computerised systems are to include back-up disks/tapes or cassettes which are to be updated at regular intervals. Computerised systems are to be approved by the Society.
IACS UR Z 20 2 Procedures and conditions for approval of a PMS 2.1 System Requirements 2.1.1 The PMS shall be programmed and maintained by a computerized system. However, this may not be applied to the current already approved schemes. 2.1.2 The system shall be approved in accordance with a procedure of each individual Member Society. M55.3 Procedures and conditions for approval of a PMS
3.1 To be considered for approval of a PMS, the owner is to make a formal request to the Society accompanied by the following information and documents. 3.1.1 Documentation to be submitted initially: (i) organisation chart identifying areas of responsibility (ii) documentation filling procedures (iii) listing of equipment to be considered by 2.1.3 classification in PMS Computerized systems shall include back-up devices, such (iv) machinery identification procedure as disks/tapes, CDs, which are to be updated at regular (v) preventive maintenance sheet(s) for each machine intervals. to be considered (vi) listing and specifications of condition 2.2 Documentation and information monitoring equipment 2.2.1 (vii) baseline data for equipment with condition The following documentation shall be submitted for the monitoring approval of the scheme: (viii) listing and schedule of preventive maintenance (i) organization chart identifying areas of responsibility procedures. (ii) documentation filling procedures 3.1.2 (iii) listing of equipment to be considered by classification Information to be available on board: in PMS (i) all clauses in 3.1.1 in an up-to-date fashion (iv) machinery identification procedure (ii) maintenance instructions (manufacturer's and (v) preventive maintenance sheet(s) for each machine to be shipyard's) considered (iii) condition monitoring data including all data (vi) listing and specifications of condition monitoring since last opening of the machine and the original equipment base line data (vii) baseline data for equipment with condition (iv) reference documentation (trend investigation monitoring procedures etc.) (viii) listing and schedule of preventive maintenance (v) records of maintenance including repairs and procedures. renewals carried out. 2.2.2 3.1.3 In addition to the above documentation the following Information to be included in annual report to the Society: information shall be available on board: (i) clauses iii, iv, v and vii as well as changes to (i) all clauses in 2.2.1 in an up-to-date fashion other clauses in 3.1.1 (ii) maintenance instructions (manufacturer's and (ii) clause iii of 3.1.2 shipyard's) (iii) full trend analysis (including spectrum analysis (iii) condition monitoring data including all data since last for vibrations) of machinery displaying operating opening of the machine and the original base line data parameters exceeding acceptable tolerances. (iv) reference documentation (trend investigation 3.2 procedures etc.) Individual Classification Societies reserve the right to (v) records of maintenance including repairs and renewals reject PMS survey scheme based on the submitted carried out. maintenance program. 3.3 In the case of overdue outstanding recommendations or a record of unrepaired damage which would affect the PMS the relevant items are to be kept out of the PMS until the recommendation is fulfilled or the repair is carried out. 3.4 When the PMS is approved a "Certificate of Approval for Planned Maintenance Scheme" is issued. The certificate is to be kept on board.
2.3 Approval validity 2.3.1 When the PMS is approved a "Certificate of Approval for Planned Maintenance Scheme" is issued. However, other
M55.4 Approval validity 4.1 An implementation Survey is required to confirm the
IACS UR Z 20 equivalent certification or class notation may be issued according to the procedure in use in each individual Member Society. In any case, the certification is to be kept on board. 2.3.2 An implementation Survey shall be carried out to confirm the validity of the certificate/class notation (see 3.1 ). 2.3.3 An annual report covering the year's service, including the following information, shall be reviewed by the Society: (i) clauses iii, iv, v and vii as well as changes to other clauses in 2.2.1 (ii) clause iii of 2.2.2 (iii) full trend analysis (including spectrum analysis for vibrations) of machinery displaying operating parameters exceeding acceptable tolerances. 2.3.4 An Annual Audit shall be carried out to maintain the validity of the PMS (see 3.2 ). 2.3.5 The survey arrangement for machinery under PMS can be cancelled by the Society if PMS is not being satisfactorily carried out either from the maintenance records or the general condition of the machinery, or when the agreed intervals between overhauls are exceeded. 2.3.6 The case of sale or change of management of the ship or transfer of class shall cause the approval to be reconsidered. 2.3.7 The shipowner may, at any time, cancel the survey arrangement for machinery under PMS by informing the Society in writing and for this case the items which have been inspected under the PMS since the last annual survey can be credited for class at the discretion of the attending surveyor. 3 Surveys 3.1- Implementation Survey 3.1.1 The Implementation Survey shall be carried out by the Society's surveyor within one year from the date of approval. 3.1.2 During the implementation survey the following shall be verified by a surveyor to ensure: (i) the PMS is implemented according to the approval documentation and is adapted to the type and complexity of the components/system on board; (ii) the PMS is producing the documentation required for the Annual Audit and the requirements of surveys and testing for retention of class are complied with; (iii) the onboard personnel is familiar with the PMS. 3.1.3 When this survey is carried out and the implementation is found in order, a report describing the system shall be submitted to the Society and the system may be put into service. validity of the certificate (see 5.1). 4.2 An annual report covering the year's service is to be supplied to the Society (see 3.1.3). 4.3 An Annual Survey is required to extend the validity of the PMS over the coming 12 months (see 5.2). 4.4 The survey arrangement for machinery under PMS can be cancelled by the Society if PMS is not being satisfactorily carried out either from the maintenance records or the general condition of the machinery, or when the agreed intervals between overhauls are exceeded. 4.5 The case of sale or change of management of the ship shall cause the approval to be reconsidered. 4.6 The shipowner may, at any time, cancel the survey arrangement for machinery under PMS by informing the Society in writing and for this case the items which have been inspected under the PMS since the last annual survey can be credited for class at the discretion of the attending surveyor.
M55.5 Surveys 5.1 Implementation Survey The Implementation Survey shall be carried out by the Society's surveyor within one year from the date of approval. The purpose of this survey is to verify that: the PMS is implemented according to the approval documentation and is adapted to the type and complexity of the components/system of board; the PMS is producing the documentation required for the Annual Survey and that the requirements of surveys and testing for retention of class are complied with.
During the Implementation Survey, the surveyor will verify that the onboard personnel are familiar with the PMS. When this survey is carried out and the implementation is found in order, a report describing the system will be submitted to the Society and the system may be put into service.
IACS UR Z 20 3.2 - Annual Audit 3.2.1 An annual audit of the PMS shall be carried out by a Society's surveyor and preferably concurrently with the annual survey of machinery. 3.2.2 The surveyor shall review the annual report or verify that it has been reviewed by the Society. 3.2.3 The purpose of this survey shall verify that the scheme is being correctly operated and that the machinery has been functioning satisfactorily since the previous survey. A general examination of the items concerned shall be carried out. 3.2.4 The performance and maintenance records shall be examined to verify that the machinery has functioned satisfactorily since the previous survey or action has been taken in response to machinery operating parameters exceeding acceptable tolerances and the overhaul intervals have been maintained. 3.2.5 Written details of break-down or malfunction shall be made available. 3.2.6 Description of repairs carried out shall be examined. Any machinery part, which has been replaced by a spare one, due to damage, is to be retained on board where possible until examined by a Society's Surveyor 3.2.7 At the discretion of the surveyor, function tests, confirmatory surveys and random check readings, where condition monitoring equipment is in use, shall be carried out as far as practicable and reasonable. 3.2.8 Upon satisfactory completion of the above requirements, the Society shall retain the PMS. 3.3 Damage and repairs 3.3.1 The damage of components/machinery shall be reported to the Society. The repairs of such damaged components / machinery shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Societys surveyor. 3.3.2 Any repair and corrective action regarding machinery under PMS system shall be recorded in the PMS logbook and repair verified by the Societys surveyor at the Annual Audit. 3.3.3 In the case of overdue outstanding recommendations or a record of unrepaired damage which would affect the PMS the relevant items shall be kept out of the PMS until the recommendation is fulfilled or the repair is carried out. 5.2 Annual Survey 5.2.1 An annual audit of the PMS will be carried out by a Society's surveyor. (i) The purpose of this survey is to verify that the scheme is being correctly operated and that the machinery has been functioning satisfactorily since the previous survey. A general examination of the items concerned will be carried out. The performance and maintenance records will be examined to verify that the machinery has functioned satisfactorily since the previous survey or action has been taken in response to machinery operating parameters exceeding acceptable tolerances and the overhaul intervals have been maintained. Written details of break-down or malfunction are to be made available. Description of repairs carried out will be examined. Any machinery part, which has been replaced by a spare one, due to damage, is to be retained on board where possible - until examined by a Society's Surveyor At the discretion of the surveyor, function tests, confirmatory surveys and random check readings, where condition monitoring equipment is in use, will be carried out as far as practicable and reasonable.
(ii)
(iii) (iv)
(v)
5.2.2 On the basis of the outcome of this survey the Society will reconfirm the approval of the PMS and will decide which items can be credited for class.
5.3 Damage and repairs The damage of important components/machinery is to be reported to the Society. The survey of such damaged components/machinery is to be carried out by the Society's surveyor who will decide whether recommendations to class are entered. All parts of machinery undergoing substantial repair are to be surveyed before, during and after repair at the discretion of the Society's surveyor.


Outcome: Delete M 20; Create new Z18 excluding tail shaft survey requirements; Create new Z21 for the tail shaft survey requirements. Revision 8 of Z7 to have the same descriptions of special survey as those in Z10s and Z18. (GPG considered it prudent to keep Revision 8 of Z7 in abeyance until WP/SRC complete its task to revise Z7.)
Survey Panel Task 24 Review UR Z21 and determine whether any revision is necessary to clauses 1(a)(i) and 1(b) based on service history and experience in the application of Z21, by member Societies. Technical Background
UR Z21(Rev.1, April 2006)

1. Objective To determine revision necessary, if any, to UR Z21 based on reservations submitted by GL. 2. Background GL reservation for the applicable section of Z21 regarding omitting the fillet radius of the aft propeller shaft flange for a controllable pitch propeller by an approved crack detection method. 3. Methodology of Work Panel member discussion through email correspondence. 4. Discussion GL GPG member in June 2005 filed a reservation against UR Z21 as follows: Clauses 1(a)(i) and 1(b). We reserve our position to omit the fillet radius of the aft. propeller shaft flange for a controllable pitch propeller from the examination by an approved crack-detection method, provided that the design is proven and has been approved to be in full accordance to the rules. The rationale behind this is that 1. Not a single damage has been detected in all such crack-tests performed so far under GL's supervision. 2. The fillet radius area of flanges for CPPs can in most cases only be crack-tested after a big and risky dismantling job. Additionally, at the time of this request, a request was made to have the Survey Panel review UR Z21 to make amendments as necessary to address the GL reservation. All members were requested to review their Societies vessels with CPP systems and determine if any problems have been found at the aft propeller shaft flange. All members found that their vessels had not encountered any problems in the subject area and agreed to amend UR Z21 as necessary. After correspondence by members, all agreed that in section 1(a)(i) 3, amendments could be made to NDT requirements, where NDT of the fillet radius of aft propeller shaft flanges may be required if visual exam is not satisfactory, and in (ii)(b) amendments were made where the crack detection test of the aft flange could be dispensed with for solid flange couplings at the end of shafts. In addition, the Panel member from DNV proposed to amend the first paragraph of Z21 to allow shafts to not be removed for examination if alternative means are provided to assure the condition of the shaft, where alternative means are further describes in the latter paragraphs of Z21.
Page 1 of 2
5. Implementation The Survey Panel is of the view that the Members need 12 months from the adoption date to implement these amendments into their class rules/procedures. Assuming that GPG and Council approve the amendments, the Survey Panel would propose July 2007 as an implementation date.
Ref: 5074_IGj, 29 Mar 2006
Page 2 of 2
Technical Background Z 22 (New. Dec 2002)

1.1 Following a casualty which had been partly attributed to water ingress through broken automatic air pipe heads, the AHG/FDF was charged with the following: Objectives - To establish design and inspection requirements for automatic floating ball type air vents, situated on deck, especially on oil and chemical tankers. Work Specification - To identify current industry standards and practices. - To consider problems identified on such a type of air vents, including design requirements, installation precautions, frequency of inspections, maintenance and replacement of elements, subject to deterioration. - To consider improved means of protection against corrosion (treatment, coating) of the inner casing. - To improve the design to facilitate the inspection and maintenance of the parts mostly exposed to corrosion (the connecting pipe inside the casing and air vent pipe). - To take into account a better protection of air vents against green seas. 1.2 Members agreed that although the Form A specified only oil and chemical tankers, the UR should be applicable to a wider range of ship types. It was thus agreed to recommend extension to all cargo ship types, with consideration to passenger or other ship types and locations other than the exposed deck, to be given according to the requirements of each Society. This recommendation was included with the submitted UR to IACS for their consideration. 2. Points of discussions and possible discussions
2.1 The type and working principle of automatic air pipe heads have been discussed by the group. Also information about the mentioned casualty have been collected and discussed. Taking into account the existing requirements in UR P3, and additional design recommendations made by the AHG to WP/MCH, it was considered that the main item to be improved was the survey requirements of automatic air pipe heads. 2.2 The AHG considered a proposal that the survey regime for stainless steel heads may be reduced. On advice from LRs Chief Metallurgist, the group were informed that most normal grades of stainless steel react rather badly to the chlorine in sea water, causing a susceptibility to pitting corrosion. This pitting can occur even faster than the normal corrosion of mild steel, and in some cases has been found to cause penetration through the plate in a short time. Certain grades of stainless steel with a high pitting resistance super duplex or super austenitic - would be acceptable, but these would increase the cost substantially. In view of this, and the difficulty for a surveyor of ascertaining the grade of stainless steel used in an existing head, it was decided not to reduce the survey regime for this type of head. 2.3 However, with possible future development of air pipe heads constructed from corrosion resistant materials, and proven good survey experience, a review of the regime specified in this UR may be
considered appropriate. 3. Source / derivation of proposed requirements The group collected information regarding current automatic air pipe heads service and noted that, in some cases it is not possible to fully inspect an automatic air pipe head from outside and that dismantling from its air pipe, would be necessary for accessing the internal parts. It was therefore decided to clarify the matter, in respect of extension and procedures for inspections for such a kind of automatic air pipe heads. 4. Decision by voting if any The proposed UR was considered by all Members of the AHG and was agreed unanimously.
5.
Note by the Permanent Secretariat
WP/SRC had reviewed Z22 and the AHG/FDF recommended Council as follows: WP/SRC Z22.1.1: It should apply to all ships except passenger ships. 1 Suggests that the AHG develop requirements for air pipe heads of passenger ships. Z22.2. Suggests that the requirement for removal of the head from the air pipes should be deleted. Z22.2. Suggests that recoating according to the paint manufacturers procedures should be required if the zinc coating has broken down. A reference to Z22 should be included in Z7. Internal conditions of the pipes in the area of weld connection with the deck has not been considered. It should be addressed in a UR. AHG/FDF AHG agreed. Council tasked GPG to consider. In view of the aforementioned casualty, the AHG recommends that it should be left as is. This should be for individual Societies to determine effective repairs as is their current practice. Agreed. WP/SRC Chairman is to bear this in mind. Survey requirements for air/vent pipes is a separate issue to be addressed in Z7 or in a separate UR. GPG is to further consider.
Adopted on 23 December 2002 Council tasked GPG to examine the remaining issues as summarized in the Table above. There are two remaining issues: Question 1. Whether to develop separate survey requirements to air-pipes on passenger ships, (Yes: DNV, CCS;
No: ABS, KR, RINA, BV, NK, LR, GL, RS) Question 2. Whether to develop uniform survey requirements for air-vent pipes including the welded connection to deck ( as a separate UR with reference to this UR in Z7). (Yes: ABS, RS, DNV, GL, KR, CCS, BV, RINA) (NK, LR and GL: to de decided by GPG)
For further developments, refer to correspondence under s/n 2172a.
**************

Version no. Corr.1 (Aug 2012) Rev.2 (Apr 2009) Corr.1 (Oct 2007) Rev.1 (Mar 2007) New ( July 2006) Approval date 08 14 05 22 31 August 2012 April 2009 October 2007 March 2007 July 2006 Implementation date when applicable 1 July 2010 1 January 2008
Part A
UR Z 23 Hull Survey for New Construction
Corr.1 (August 2012)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Suggestion by an IACS member .2 Main Reason for Change: To remove the reference to PR34 in UR Z23 as PR34 was deleted on 1 July 2012. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The proposal was made by an IACS GPG member. PermSec drafted the correction. .5 Other Resolutions Changes: None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: 6 July 2012 Made by a Member GPG Approval: 08 August 2012 (Ref:11090_IGq)
Rev 2 (April 2009)
EG/NCSR task (Ref: 9529_) See TB document in Part B.
Corr.1 (Oct 2007)
Contracted for Construction - standard footnote added (Ref: 7546a)
Page 1 of 3
Rev.1 (March 2007)
GPG62 FUA 36-1 (Feedback on IACS UR Z23 Delete the last sentence in para.7.5 from the reply letters to INTERTANKO / INTERCARGO and dispatch them. Circulate UR Z23 (Rev.1) to Members/Industry for records/implementation) (Ref: 4009a). No TB document available.
New (2006)
Ref: 4009 See TB document in Part B.
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents for UR Z23: Annex 1. TB for New (July 2006) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Annex 2. TB for Rev.2 (April 2009) See separate TB document in Annex 2. Note: There are no separate Technical Background (TB) documents available for Rev.1 (March 2007), Corr.1 (Oct 2007) and Corr.1 (Aug 2012).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
(UR Z23, New. July 2006)
(TB: Post - External Review of the draft UR Z23, issued July 2006)
&
(TB: Pre - External Review of the draft UR Z23, issued December 2005)
Technical Background Document (UR Z23, New. 2006) (Post - External Review of the draft UR Z23) Notes from Meeting EG/NCSR 24th and 25th May 2006 Prepared by the expert group for New Construction Survey Requirements A meeting of the expert group was held on the 24th and 25th May 2006. The purpose has been to review the comments to the draft UR which have been made by industry and to discuss the next stages of the EGs work. The EGs response to industry comments is shown below. The EG would like to thank industry for the comments, some of the comments have been incorporated into the draft, our response to other comments are shown in this technical document. Wherever possible we have referred to paragraph numbers from the individual industry response letters. There is an overriding comment from the shipowner groups and EMSA that the UR does not provide consistency. To counter this, it is proposed to modify table 1. The final column Classification society proposals for the project needs to have the ability to be expanded to allow classification comment to be added and to remove the criticism that the column is merely a check box. This can be achieved by issuing the table electronically. No other changes to the table are proposed. The appendix has been extensively amended and re-titled to reflect the purpose of the examination of the shipyard, i.e. to review facilities. The amended appendix is also enclosed. SAJ comments 1. 2. Agree Paragraph 10.2 purpose is to provide documents to facilitate inspection, repair and maintenance and should remain in the UR as shown. One advantage of the table will be as an aide memoire for surveyors, rather than for them to check back to the UR. Also, it provides clarity as to the documents which IACS do not require, this will eventually assist both shipbuilder and shipowner. We understand SAJs concern about shipowners requiring information without giving too much thought as to the implications of their request, stating not required can help them. As an example, we would not expect a list of welding consumables to be listed in the SCF because this could be construed in the future as the only consumables which could be used in a future repair, when in fact any compatible consumable would be allowable. Propose to modify 10.2. It is recognised that the purpose of documents held in the Ship Construction File on board the ship, is to facilitate inspection (survey) and repair and maintenance, and, therefore, is to include in addition to documents listed in table 1, but not be limited to:
Page 1 of 7
Delete 10.2.10
3.
Table 1 is intended to be an aide memoire for surveyors. The table includes both recommendations as well as requirements and the comment is added to remind surveyors of the difference. Answered separately.
4.
Chinese Shipbuilders comments 1. It is confirmed that the builder may not provide formal certification for items such as hatch covers which have been manufactured in shipyards and only provide documents such as endorsed inspection records. This is acceptable documentary evidence provided that it has been endorsed by the classification society as required by 3.3 No requirement for re-assessment on a periodic basis if active in the shipyard and where no major changes have occurred. Return to definition of impact The purpose of the assessment is to assist the classification society to plan for survey of the newbuilding and the individual society must carry out its own assessment It is proposed to modify paragraph 10.1 as follows: The shipbuilder is to deliver documents for the Ship Construction File. In the event that items have been provided by another party such as the shipowner and where separate arrangements have been made for document delivery which excludes the shipbuilder, that party has the responsibility to deliver the documents. INTERTANKO comments 1. Concerning coatings, it is proposed that no further changes are made until instructions are made by IACS. UR paragraph number 1.1 2.1.f 2.1.g 2.3 Amended refers to ILLC only, piping supports covered by 2.1.g amended Propose that the term Patrol is maintained. Verification can take place at all three stages of patrol, review and witness. Comment on documentation covered by paragraph 9.1 amended to shall. Comments noted but no change to text proposed.
2.
3.
3.3 4.1
Page 2 of 7
5.1.5.2.i
7.1
7.4
7.5
7.6
8.1
9.2 10.2.1 10.2.4 10.2.11 10.2.12
Assume that this should read straightening and not strengthening, this already covered in table 1 row 2.2 also amended to add fairing. No other changes proposed. This paragraph is to provide information for the classification society to understand capability of the shipyard, it is not meant to be a quality assessment of the shipbuilder. It is agreed, as stated in the UR, that it is also applicable to sub-contractors. Patrol to be maintained previous comments refer. No need to state that class will make the meeting record. Comment noted but no further amendment proposed. Plan approval is not covered by this UR. Plan approval will make reference to any specific tolerances over and above normal shipyard building standards. The builder and shipowner must have the option to mutually agree to use a national or their own standards providing they are acceptable to the classification society the text of the UR reflects this. No changes to the text are proposed. Fully accept that it is beneficial to the project if the other interested parties attend the kick off meeting and the classification society will have no objections in them doing so. No change to text proposed. Propose to add the following sentence. Notwithstanding this, the benefits of a new shipowner attending a kick-off meeting for an existing series of ships for a project cannot be underestimated and would receive the full support of the classification society. This plan is very often approved by the surveyors attending in the shipyard and not by the plan approval office, no change to text therefore proposed. Comments noted but propose that no changes to the UR are made. Current text is adequate. Propose addition to row 4 details required for ship construction file, no addition to paragraph 10.2.1 Outwith this UR, covered by other IACS working group statutory issue to be covered by the green passport, propose that this paragraph is deleted outside of the scope of this UR, propose that this paragraph is deleted
Intercargo comments 1.1 1.2 2.3.1,2,3 Paragraph amended, no further amendment proposed. Comment noted, no amendment to UR proposed. Comments noted, patrol is primarily visual. It verifies that the shipbuilding processes are being performed in a satisfactory manner. It aims to detect systematic errors, early detection of possible deviations. It is part of the process to ensure that traceability is in place. The proportion between scheduled and unscheduled will vary between shipyard to shipyard and between different ship types. It will depend upon the repetitive nature of the production process as well as the amount of mechanisation in place in the shipyard. It can even vary within workstations within a shipyard depending upon the complexity
Page 3 of 7
of the operations. Concerning the comment What is the verification/correction requirement for the unscheduled and scheduled site survey results? the classification society will draw the attention of the shipbuilder to any problems found, through direct contact with the shipbuilder through agreed channels of communication. 2.3.3 Examination as defined in paragraph 1.1 covers the whole process of classification no further definition proposed. Amended Paragraph 1.1 amended to refer to statutory Comment noted Comment noted but is covered by existing paragraph 9.1 Remedial work will be carried out using agreed procedures which can be based upon Recommendation 47, classification rules, or agreed shipyard fabrication standards. The columns of Survey Requirements, Survey Method and Specific activities are adequate the classification societys response will be more detailed and will be defined at the kick off meeting. It is acknowledged that column Classification society proposals for the project in table 1 may give the impression of a tick box. This is not the intention. It is proposed to modify table 1 so that the classification society can enter a fuller description as to how the survey will be carried out for all activities. 6.1.3 7.2 Coatings are outwith this UR other than the extent mentioned in table 1 Comments noted but no changes to text proposed. All IMO and flag requirements applicable at contract agreed dates will be adhered to provided that the classification society is made aware of the contract requirements. Fully accept that it is beneficial to the project if the other interested parties attend the kick off meeting and the classification society will have no objections in them doing so. No change to text proposed Comment already covered by paragraph 8.2 Comment noted about as built drawings, however, this UR makes reference to IACS only and not IMO documents. Comment concerning materials already covered in the paragraph. Concerning welding procedures, these are the copyright of the shipbuilder who will be under no obligation to provide them to the ship. Also, a welding procedure is governed by local conditions and
3.1.b 3.2 3.5 4.1 5.1
7.5
8.1 10.2.1
Page 4 of 7
procedures would likely need to be re-approved in the event that remedial work is carried out a different location using a different contractor, material and consumables. No changes to the text proposed. 10.2.11 statutory issue to be covered by the green passport, propose that this paragraph is deleted outside of the scope of this UR, propose that this paragraph is deleted
10.2.12
EMSA comments 1. The draft UR concentrates on the hull survey of new construction and only deals with statutory aspects where they co-incide. It is the intention to deal with statutory aspects in the next phase of development of the UR. As an example, fire aspects of Safety Construction certification are not included in the present phase of the UR. IMO Res.A.948 (23) has not been explicitly referred to in the UR, neither has any other IMO resolution or circular. Our group has continually referred to such IMO documents throughout the period that we have developed the UR, however, we understood that we only needed to make reference to IACS and not IMO documents. Problems with checklists noted. 2. Comments noted. Paragraphs 1.1 to 1.4 define a scope, the text defines how the scope is dealt with. For example, and by whom in paragraph 1.3 is dealt with in paragraph 4. IACS has clear requirements for the qualification and monitoring of surveyors. Comments noted and paragraph 2.3 has been amended Comments noted. There is a whole process involved in surveying new construction in accordance with approved plans. It is the responsibility of the shipbuilder to ensure that the information shown in the most up to date version of approved plans has been passed into the production cycle and for the classification surveyor to ensure that this is the case. The assessment of the production facilities is not an assessment of the quality of the shipbuilder (or Sub-contractor). It is to assist the classification society to assess how best to deal with the survey of the shipbuilding project in question. The whole purpose of the classification process is product verification for a specific project. Appendix 1 as shown - is still under development. The situation of a shipyard which is in a state of development is taken into account this is done through the kick-off meeting referred to in paragraph 7.
3. 4.
5.
Page 5 of 7
The remaining comments in paragraph 5 acknowledged and appreciated 6. Concerning shipbuilding standards. IACS recommendation 47 is a guide. Established national standards may exist which have different tolerances than IACS recommendation 47 such standards have been developed and based upon satisfactory service history and are acceptable. This is reflected in Table number 1. Comments noted about developing shipyards. EMSAs concerns appreciated. The members of this group stated that there is no uniform retention period and further discussion on the subject is required. It is proposed that this comment is referred to IACS Council for discussion on the relevant legal/quality group. The extent of surveyor involvement has to be agreed project by project at the kick off meeting, which is described in section 7. It is acknowledged that column Classification society proposals for the project in table 1 may give the impression of a tick box. This is not the intention. IACS Council is requested to provide this table in electronic format to enable column Classification society proposals for the project to be expanded to allow sufficient comment to be made for each activity by the classification society. The classification society may wish to use this table in paper or electronic format. The examples quoted at the end of paragraph 8, i.e. paragraphs 1.4, 2.5 and 3 will also be covered in table number 1.
7.
8.
General comment Many industry comments refer to coatings, this subject has not been discussed in depth by the EG. At the time of our meeting we were not aware of consensus from IACS. It is also understood that IMO are involved in this subject and it is proposed that this subject is further discussed by this EG during the next phase when we have been asked to review statutory issues. The EG members agreed that the present incumbent chairman retains the position to assist in any discussions required with industry. Under cover of document dated 25th January 2006, the EG have been tasked to develop a UI for initial statutory surveys at new construction. The EG members have requested confirmation if Form A will be issued for this task. The next meeting of the EG is planned for September/October 2006 and the intervening period will be spent reviewing this task and entering a period of data gathering. The EG requests confirmation that the task does not involve interpretation of statutory requirements it is considered that this is the task of other statutory groups within IACS.
Page 6 of 7
Conclusion The EG chairman will be pleased to provide further clarification if required. Once more, on behalf of the EG, thank you for the opportunity to be involved in the development of this UR and we wish IACS success in its dealings with industry.
J.J. Finch IACS EG Chairman - New construction survey requirements 19th June 2006
***
Permanent Secretariat Note: 1. Council concluded that the EG/NCSR is to tasked to develop a UI for initial statutory surveys at new construction. This task does not involve interpretation of statutory requirements. Task Form A to be submitted. 4009_ICn, 14 Aug 2006. 2. EG/NCSR is to further discuss the issue of coating in its review of statutory issues, consulting with the EG/Coating, the development in IMO should also be taken into account. 3. Concerning Table 1: The 2nd paragraph of the preamble of this TB (page 1) reads as follows: There is an overriding comment from the shipowner groups and EMSA that the UR does not provide consistency. To counter this, it is proposed to modify table 1. The final column Classification society proposals for the project needs to have the ability to be expanded to allow classification comment to be added and to remove the criticism that the column is merely a check box. This can be achieved by issuing the table electronically. No other changes to the table are proposed.
It was confirmed that Table 1 should be made available to users in an Excel format, so that comments can be added to the column Classification scoeity proposals for the project. END
Page 7 of 7
Technical Background Document (Pre - External Review) New UR on New Construction Survey Requirements Prepared by the expert group for New Construction Survey requirements 1. Objectives The EG was guided by the objectives in the Form A which had been decided at C50/GPG 58: 1. Develop comprehensive Unified Requirements for surveys, focusing on hull structures, as part of the classification and statutory certification process of a new building to verify that ships comply with the relevant Rules and Regulations (i.e. before being put into service for the first time). 2. Establish a link between the classification and statutory surveys (where delegation applies), the developed URs and draft goal based standards being developed at the IMO, aiming at ensuring the clear, comprehensive and consistent application of classification rules and relevant statutory requirements, including UIs, at the shipyards and their sub-contractors. 3. With reference to the draft UR developed by AHG/NCSR, ensure that a more comprehensive and more robust UR, meeting the expectations of industry (i.e. shipbuilders and shipowners) and flag Administrations, is developed. In order to meet these expectations the new UR shall ensure that all survey items contained in individual Members Rules and the relevant statutory requirements are covered. 2. Background The form A also provided a background which is repeated below. To further develop and complete the draft UR prepared by the AHG/NCSR on requirements for survey of hull structures during ship construction in order to ..ensure a more comprehensive and more robust UR meeting the expectations of Industry." as requested by IACS Council at C 50, December 2004. Prior to the first meeting, the group changed from a working to an expert group and received a directive to report direct to Council and not the GPG.
3. Discussion The EG held two meetings on 20th to 22nd July and 15th and 16th September 2005. The EG was aware of the tight scheduled and the members have endeavoured to stay within it. The group has once more, progressed the work by consensus.
Page 1 of 5
C51 was held just prior to the first meeting of the EG. The relevant draft minutes of C51 concerning surveyor manning changed prior to final release. The EG therefore agreed that the subject should not be included in to the UR until Council gave a clearer directive. The EG had the advantage that the majority of the members had worked together on the previous ad hoc group KR, DNV and BV provided new members for the EG. The EG has progressed by developing the draft UR submitted in November 2004. The major differences between the first and second URs which have been submitted are as follows: Definitions and applications are now in separate sections. The EG agreed there were four factors to demonstrate consistency of surveys, Comments on qualification and monitoring of personnel were expanded, inspectors are used by classification societies for repetitive survey work. The EG propose to Council that consideration should be given to acknowledge the training/education requirements for inspectors. A comment has also been raised concerning the use of seconded surveyors, and it is proposed that this can be dealt with in the future. In addition to the section on survey of hull structure, three new sections have been added: Assessment of the shipyards construction facility Newbuilding survey planning Examination and test plan for newbuilding activities The table of surveyable items referred to in survey of hull structure has been developed with the aim to satisfy the work instruction of the Form A: specific lists and definition of appropriate evidence to be prepared and given to the surveyor The document for the assessment of the shipyards construction facilities is based upon NKs procedure and remains to be completed, the draft, shown as an appendix, however, indicates the thinking of the EG. Concerning newbuilding survey planning, comments have been raised to be more specific about defining the use of sub-contractors, e.g. for NDE. The use of NDE sub-contractors has been an issue raised by the original ad hoc group
Page 2 of 5
as well as the Eg and consideration needs to be reviewing them further in the future. Concerning the proof of consistency of construction surveys. Members have expressed concern about survey documents being provided to third parties during the course of an audit. It is the intention of this UR that any audits are carried out by responsible bodies empowered by law, convention or IACS. Concerning the Ship Construction File, the EG would propose that documents concerning wastage, diminution and renewal thicknesses should be included in the UR as soon as IACS are able to provide clear guidelines on requirements, Council comment would be appreciated on this subject. Further consideration is needed by the EG to propose who should check and verify the contents of the ship construction file, if it becomes a classification item then it could become an issue to withhold the classification certification at delivery. This needs to be discussed further. The original Ad Hoc group raised some queries in the first submission in 2004, these are repeated below and Council comment would be appreciated. The treatment of sub-contract NDE operators in the shipyards. The non-uniform application of UR S14 References to UR S6 in Recommendation 20 are not consistent A comment concerning health, safety and the environment has been included in the UR, it was agreed by the EG that any further reference to the subject should be made in other IACS documents. 4. Conclusion
The EG Chairman would be please to provide any clarification, answer any questions or provide any further comment if required. Finally, on behalf of the members of the EG, thank you for the invitation to work together on this subject, it has been a great pleasure to do so and we all hope that we have been able to make a contribution to the success of IACS and our industry. J.J. Finch 29/09/2005
5.
Council Considerations
In adopting the UR, Council considered that the proposed Forward was inappropriate for the UR but should be retained and recorded in the TB as follows:
Page 3 of 5
The UR on Hull Survey for New Construction: 1.1 is to verify that ships are in accordance with the relevant Rule and Statutory requirements as part of the classification and statutory certification as part of the new building process (i.e. before being put into service for the first time), is focused on the hull structure, establishes a link between the classification and statutory surveys. It establishes a link with the draft goal based standards being developed at the IMO (78th session MSC 78/6/2 5 February 2004), aims to ensure clear, comprehensive and consistent application of classification rules and statutory requirements at the shipyards and their sub-contractors, gives guidance on the specific requirements involved in the construction of the ship to support the surveyors, assumes delegation of authority for the flag state is a prerequisite to verification of Statutory Regulations by the classification society as indicated herein, assumes that compliance with this UR does not remove the responsibility from the shipbuilder which is to ensure and demonstrate that a satisfactory level of quality has been achieved, assumes that the shipbuilder should bring to the attention of the classification society any deviations from the rules and statutory requirements found during construction. assumes that shipbuilder has the primary contractual responsibility to ensure that ships are built to meet the functional requirements and safety objectives of the draft goal based standards and that it is the role of the classification society to verify this through survey. assumes that hhealth, safety and environment protection measures during new building survey should be provided by the shipbuilder in accordance with the classification societies' requirements.
1.2 1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
Page 4 of 5
6.
Council 52 Consideration (13-15 Dec.2005)
Concerning the 2nd sentence of paragraph 9.2, Council discussed its impact and decided to delete it because it was a negative proposal which should not be broadcast.
9.2 For audit purposes, the actions and information specified in 9.1 is to be made available. Evidence of other surveyors activities such as patrolling or review of documents other than those specified in 9.1 need not be provided.
***
Page 5 of 5
Part B, Annex 2
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR Z23 (Rev.2, April 2009)

January 2009 Update to (Post - External Review of the draft UR Z23) TB, July 2006: 1 The comments raised by the QC after their Auditability Review in Feb. 2008 were generally accepted by the EG and Z23 was updated to reflect the comments. Paragraph 6 Review of the Construction Facility was amended to further clarify and confirm the purpose of the review. The requirements for the timing and requirements for New Building Survey Planning for series vessels were clarified. There was discussion around the requirements for the supply of information for the Ship Construction File given in Table 1 of the UR when the SCF was not yet a mandatory requirement of Goal Based Standards. a. It was agreed that the information on the Hull Construction required by this UR for inclusion in the Ship Construction File should be reviewed for content and confirmed that it has been placed on board. Table 1 was updated to include a reference to the requirements for PSPC in accordance with the instructions from GPG. It was agreed by the EG that Appendix 1 was included as an example of the form but that each Society would make their own Review Record. There were various minor editorial corrections to clarify the text throughout.
Submitted by EG/NCSR Chairman 27 February 2009
Permanent Secretariat note (April 2009): Rev.2 of UR Z23 was approved by GPG, with an implementation date of 1st July 2010, on 14 April 2009 (ref. 9529_IGd) together with new UIs SC234, LL76 and MPC96 covering Initial Statutory Surveys at New Construction.
Part A
UR Z24 Survey Requirements for Shell and Inner Doors of Ro-Ro ships
Version no. Corr.1 (July 2011) New (Nov 2010) Approval date 15 July 2011 16 Nov 2010 Implementation date when applicable 1 January 2012 1 January 2012
Corr.1 (July 2011)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Suggestion by IACS member
.2 Main Reason for Change: To revise the definition of the Ro-Ro ship as defined in 2.1 of UR Z24 because some Ro-Ro ships are not fitted with a loading ramp, but rather utilize a shore-based ramp since these vessels are on a common trade route. .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: The matter was discussed by Survey Panel under PSU 11015 and all members agreed with the revised wordings of Ro-Ro ships. Panel also agreed to consider this revision as a correction with the same implementation date of 1 January 2012. .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: June 2011 Panel Approval: 28 June 2011 by: Survey Panel GPG Approval: 15 July 2011 (Ref: 11112_IGc)
New (Nov 2010)
.1 Origin of Change: ; Other (The new unified requirement UR Z24 was developed based on the Internal Guideline No. 8 which therefore became obsolete)
Page 1 of 3
.2 Main Reason for Change: N/A .3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group: None .4 History of Decisions Made: N/A .5 Other Resolutions Changes None .6 Dates: Original Proposal: Sept 2007 Panel Approval: 15 October 2010 GPG Approval: 16 November 2010 (Ref: 8558bIGf)
Page 2 of 3
Part B

List of Technical Background (TB) documents: Annex 1 TB for New (Nov 2010) See separate TB document in Annex 1. Note: There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document for Corr.1 (July 2011).
Page 3 of 3
Part B, Annex 1
Technical Background for UR Z24 New, Nov 2010

1. Scope and objectives The Project Team was instructed to review IACS IG8 to determine whether the IG8 should be changed to a new UR or is to be implemented into UR Z7. The Project Team decided to develop a new UR Z24 Survey Requirements for Shell and Inner Doors of Ro-Ro ships. 2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale N/A 3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution The new UR Z24 is based on the previous IG8. 4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution: N/A new unified requirement 5. Points of discussions or possible discussions During a meeting in Hamburg in September 2007, the Project Team drafted a new UR Z24 Survey Requirements for Shell and Inner Doors of Ro-Ro ships. Further comments were discussed through correspondence and sketches added to the UR. This version was forwarded to the Panel for final decisions at the Spring meeting in March 2008 in Daejeon, Korea. Point 3.3.3 of the new UR concerning the minimum thickness of hinging arms, securing, supporting and locking devices was forwarded to the Hull Panel and finally agreed upon in May 2010. 6. Attachments if any None

Background Info On Unified Requirements URTB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Background Info On Unified Requirements URTB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IACS

Technical Background Document UR A1 (Rev.5, June 2005) Requirements for Equipment

Technical Background UR A2 (Rev.2, September 2006)

TECHNICAL BACKGROUND UR A2 (Rev.3, July 2007)

Prepared by Permanent Secretariat July 2007

APPENDIX 2 Revised TB for UR A2(Rev.2) (attachment to 6111_PHc)

Technical Background UR A2 (Rev.2, September 2006)

Deleted (Mar 2000)

Deleted (Mar 2000)

Deleted (Mar 2000)

Deleted (Mar 2000)

Technical Background for Recategorization of URs on Containers as Recommendations

Prepared by the IACS Permanent Secretariat

IACS History File + TB

Rev.5 (Jan 2012)

Corr. 2 (Oct 2007)

Corr. 1 (July 2001)

Part B. Technical Background

TB for Rev.5 (Jan 2012)

See separate TB document in Annex 1.

Technical Background for UR D3 Rev.5, Jan 2012

IACS History File + TB

Rev.3 (Jan 2012)

Part B. Technical Background

TB for Rev.3 (Jan 2012)

See separate TB document in Annex 1.

Technical Background for UR D4 Rev.3, Jan 2012

IACS History File + TB

Rev.1 (Jan 2012)

Part B. Technical Background

See separate TB document in Annex 1.

Technical Background for UR D6 Rev.1, Jan 2012

IACS History File + TB

Rev.3 (Jan 2012)

Part B. Technical Background

TB for Rev.3 (Jan 2012)

See separate TB document in Annex 1.

Technical Background for UR D7 Rev.3, Jan 2012

IACS History File + TB

Rev.3 (Jan 2012)

Part B. Technical Background

TB for Rev.3 (Jan 2012)

See separate TB document in Annex 1.

Technical Background for UR D11 Rev.3, Jan 2012

Technical Background Document WP/SRC Task 1 UR Z 15 Proposed

Objective and Scope:

Source of Proposed Requirements:

Date of submission: 6 May 1999 By WP/SRC Chairmans e-mail

Objective and Scope:

Source of Proposed Requirements:

***** Date of submission: 14 August 2002 By the Permanent Secretariat

Res. No. UR E15 UR E16 UR E17

Current Rev. Rev.2 Feb 2006 June 2002 June 2002

UR E18 UR E19 UR E20

July 2003 Rev.1 Sept 2005 Rev.1 Jun 2009

UR E21 UR E22 UR E23

Sept 2005 Rev.1 Sept 2010 Deleted Mar 2011

IACS UR E4 (1978) Earthing of non-current-carrying parts

Technical Background Document

Technical Background Document E5 (Rev.1, Sept. 2005)

IACS WP/EL Task No.67

Submitted by WP/EL Chairman 31 Jan 2005

IACS UR E7 (1975, Rev. 1 1990) Cables and insulated wires

Date:_17.05.2006 Signature:_______________ (GPG Member)