IMO DEVELOPMENT OF REVISED SOLAS CHAPTER II-1 PARTS A, B AND B-1. Report of the Intersessional Correspondence Group, Part 1

Transcription

1 INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E IMO SUB-COMMITTEE ON STABILITY AND LOAD LINES AND ON FISHING VESSELS SAFETY 44th session Agenda item 3 SLF 44/3/1 15 June 2001 Original: ENGLISH DEVELOPMENT OF REVISED SOLAS CHAPTER II-1 PARTS A, B AND B-1 Report of the Intersessional Correspondence Group, Part 1 Submitted by Sweden and the United States Executive summary: Action to be taken: Paragraph 14 SUMMARY This document contains part 1 of the report of the intersessional Correspondence Group on Subdivision and Damage Stability. Related documents: SLF 43/16, SLF 44/3 and SLF 44/3/2 INTRODUCTION 1 The Sub-Committee, during its forty-third session, re-established the intersessional Correspondence Group on Subdivision and Damage Stability (SLF 43/16, paragraph 3.24). Sweden and the United States have jointly coordinated the group. 2 Sweden and the United States thank the delegations of Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation, Spain, and the United Kingdom for their participation in the correspondence group s efforts. 3 The terms of reference for the correspondence group were as follows:.1 to liaise, through its co-ordinators, with the HARDER project co-ordinator in order to monitor developments relevant to the work of the group and provide advice as appropriate;.2 to review the list of sample ships currently contemplated by the HARDER project for deriving a level of safety equivalent to that of the current regulations (index "R") and provide recommendations on whether it needs expanding to make it truly representative of the world fleet, using where necessary the sample ships already calculated, and those to be calculated in the future, by the correspondence group; For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

2 to continue with the development of the draft revised SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A, B and B-1, using as the basic document, part 2 of the SDS Working Group's report (SLF 44/3), together with any related submissions by Members; and.4 to submit its report to SLF 44, including a revised draft SOLAS chapter II-1 parts A, B and B-1, except regulations II-1/6 (Required subdivision index "R"), II-1/7-1 (Calculation of the factor "p"), and II-1/7-2 (Calculation of factor "s"), and relevant comments on progress made with regard to items.1 and.2 above. HARDER PROJECT 4 The Sub-Committee agreed at SLF 43 that while there is a desire to utilise the results from the HARDER project, as appropriate, the intersessional correspondence group should not slow down the development of the revised chapter. The Sub-Committee tasked the correspondence group co-ordinators to follow-up on the developments of the HARDER project and provide liaison between the correspondence group and the co-ordinator of the HARDER project. 5 The HARDER project held a progress meeting on the March 2001 in the Netherlands and invited members of the SDS intersessional correspondence group to attend. The HARDER meeting provided information on new damage statistics, vertical extents of damage and the calculation of v, collision damage extents, model test results, collection of technical data and the development of sample ships, and application of p, v, and s factors. An extract from the project's 1 st year report is attached as annex 1, which includes an overview of available deliveries from the project. These deliveries (paragraph 4 of annex 1) have also been available to members of the intersessional correspondence group through the HARDER external web site. SAMPLE SHIPS 6 The working group at SLF 43 requested the HARDER project co-ordinator to initiate the activity necessary to create a database of sample ships as soon as possible, so that the results may be included in the report of the correspondence group. The activities performed to date on WP5 of HARDER are: the specification of sample data (ship types and characteristics), the set-up of database structure, the preparation of the data collection procedure and the distribution of survey forms to internal and external HARDER partners (sample survey form, attached in annex 2) and a first analysis of replies. This work continues, and a preliminary form of the database is expected to be available at the time of SLF 44. As a result, the correspondence group has not reviewed any of the sample ships from HARDER. DEVELOPMENT OF THE REVISED SOLAS CHAPTER II-1 PARTS A, B AND B-1 Draft Text 7 The correspondence group considered the draft text of the revised SOLAS chapter II-1, Parts A, B, and B-1 with the comments provided by members of the group. The revised text has been provided separately as an annex to SLF 44/3/2. Harmonization Process 8 Japan provided comments to the correspondence group and introduced them by referencing the agreement in SLF 42 and SLF 43 that the safety level (R/A) of the new

3 - 3 - SLF 44/3/1 harmonized rules must be the same as that of the existing rules. Japan also stated that it is possible to keep the same safety level between the new harmonized rule and the existing one for cargo ships if we use the same R formula, permeability and v factor in the present SOLAS. Furthermore, Japan stated that determining a different R formula for each kind of cargo ship is irrational and impractical as Japan insisted on as shown in SLF 43 (paragraph 3.4 of document SLF 43/16). 9 Norway stated, and Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and the United States agree, that the use of the ratio A/R in previous discussions at SLF does not imply that the numerical values of A and R need to be the same in the new regulations. Norway s interpretation of what is meant by approximately the same safety level is that on average the ratio A new /R new A old /R old for existing ships. This is clearly reflected in SLF 42/18 paragraph 3.9: 3.9 When instructing the group, the Sub-Committee discussed, at length, the issue of the factor "v". In this respect, the Sub-Committee decided that the group should maintain their proposal to keep the factor "v", as developed by the working group, for all types of ships. The Sub-Committee agreed that it was more logical in the context of harmonization to maintain the probabilistic calculation procedure as a consistent procedure for all ship types. It was recognized that in making this decision it would be necessary to adjust the R value for cargo ships in order to comply with the previous agreement that cargo ships designed according to the existing SOLAS chapter II-1 part B-1 should have approximately the same safety level (i.e. A/R) using the new harmonized regulations. 10 In addition, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United States will not support a proposal to limit the harmonisation process to passenger ships. Such a proposal would imply leaving the contents of part B-1 unchanged. We do not believe this would be the harmonisation the Committee intended. This issue has been debated numerous times during Sub-Committee sessions and is generally reflected by SLF 41/18, paragraph 5.6: 5.6 The Sub-Committee concurred with the view of the majority of the group that to achieve meaningful harmonization the basic probabilistic methodology should be the same for cargo and passenger ships, unless justified by the inherent differences between the ship types. At the same time, it was recognized that the new draft regulations should maintain the existing level of safety for cargo and passenger ships embodied in SOLAS. The key test will be that cargo ships designed according to the existing SOLAS chapter II-1 part B-1 should have approximately the same safety level (i.e. A/R) using the new harmonized regulations. 11 Japan has stated it does not insist to limit the harmonization process to passenger ships. Japan considers that the harmonisation process should be a process of harmonizing the existing two regulations for passenger ships and existing one regulation for cargo ships. Therefore, Japan of course agrees that some improvements in formats, formulae, coefficients etc., will be done in the harmonisation process to harmonize these three regulations. The Japanese proposal is that the same safety level could be easily kept for cargo ships if the same or equivalent v-factor and the same or equivalent permeability as the present SOLAS Part B-1 is accepted in the revised SOLAS. Definition of Risk of Persons 12 Japan stated that they could not support the introduction of the concept Risk of persons in the new rule, and support maintaining the definitions of a passenger ship and a cargo ship.

4 - 4 - This is because the introduction of the new concept has significant effect on not only the damage stability rules but also many other rules, such as fire protection, life saving appliances and arrangements, radio-communications, etc. Japan s view was that such a change of fundamental concept or definition should be carried out by the Committee from a more global point of view. DAMAGE CONSEQUENCE DIAGRAMS 13 At SLF 43, the Sub-Committee agreed that guidelines for damage consequence diagrams should continue to be evaluated. The group took note of one example submitted to the correspondence group. The correspondence group further noted a submittal by the Russian Federation, SLF 44/6, on draft guidelines for damage consequence diagrams. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE 14 The Sub-Committee is invited to note the information provided in this report and take action as appropriate. ***

5 Extract from HARDER 1 st year report (May 2001) 1 Members of HARDER Consortium PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR : Det Norske Veritas (DNV) N PARTNERS: Germanischer Lloyd AG (GL) Technical University of Denmark (DTU) University of Strathclyde (SU-SSRC) Danish Maritime Institute (DMI) National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) Howaldswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW) Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) University of Newcastle upon Tyne (UNEW) Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN) WS Atkins Consultants Ltd. (WS ATKINS) FINCANTIERI Cantieri Navali Italiani S.p.A (FC) Carl Bro a/s, Dwinger Marineconsult (CARL BRO) Kvaerner Masa-Yards Inc. (KVMY) Deltamarin Ltd. (DELTAMARIN) Pelmatic Knud E. Hansen A/S (KEH) CONS.A.R. Italian Ship Owners Research Consortium (CONSAR) Hellenic Register of Shipping (HRS) Ship Design and Research Centre (CTO) D DK UK DK EL D UK UK NL UK I DK FIN FIN DK I EL PL 2 Executive publishable summary The objectives of the project HARDER are to systematically investigate the validity, robustness, consistency and impact of harmonised probabilistic damage stability regulations on the safety of existing ships and on the design evolution of new ship concepts for various types of cargo and passenger ships. Furthermore, to propose and demonstrate appropriate measures for improvements through the development of typical demonstrator designs. The work performed in the first year has been mainly concentrated on damage distributions and damage survival. Work on validation and verification, as well as equivalent level of safety has recently started. New and updated damage distributions have been established, by searching old IMO data as well as more recent data from US, Greek, German Sources and Norwegian data. At the moment, the database contains 2946 casualties collected from 7 different sources, in all 1851 collisions, 930 groundings and 165 other incidents. Studies of bow heights of the world fleet have been done in order to arrive at an updated formulation of the probability distribution of vertical extent of damage. Based on the ship characteristics for the world fleet, distributions of ship types and lengths, as well as empirical relations for length versus breadth, draught, displacement, service speed, etc. are developed. This information is used to calculate the external dynamics in order to derive

6 Page 2 distributions for the energy to be absorbed during a collision between a given struck ship and a ship of the world fleet. Further, traffic route data for e.g. the Strait of Dover has been acquired and analysed to make a comparison between the world fleet distribution and the distribution in specific waters. Based on the distribution on collision energy, the expected size of damage is to be calculated by simulation with computer models. Model tests of all 6 different ship types are to be performed in order to study their behaviour after damage case in a real seaway. These results are used to develop numerical simulation models with the view of developing generic models for assessing the capsizing resistance and survival capability for any type and configuration of vessel. The outcome of these studies will then be used to develop static equivalent methods, which can be used for development of rational survival criteria to be used in a probabilistic damage stability framework. Validation and verification of the probabilistic concept has been started. A draft version of updated Guidance notes has been developed, and databases for test ships covering a wide range of ship types have been prepared. Specification of sample data for calculation of an equivalent level of safety has started. This sample will consist of all ship types covered by SOLAS, with representative size and arrangement lay-out, making it possible to calculate a required subdivision index representative of the existing SOLAS standard. 3 Scientific and Technical performance 3.1 Summary of specific objectives The objective for the 1 st year of the project has been to start the activities in WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4 and WP5 in accordance with the Description of Work. 3.2 Overview of technical progress General The work has started and proceeds according to schedule, with the exception of WP3, where some of the model tests are delayed. The delay is supposed to be caught up during the 2 nd year of the project, and it is not expected to affect the overall performance of the project significantly WP1 Damage statistics Task 1.1 Review of existing damage data and related studies showed that the database will include the old IMO data as well as more recent data from US, Greek and German Sources. With help of DTU some of the Norwegian data (from DNV) have been entered into the database. As of 1 st May 2001, the database contains 2946 casualties collected from 7 different sources: 1851 collisions 930 groundings 165 others

7 Page 3 Multiple data files from different data sources have been eliminated. For ships, which could be identified, clearly missing main particulars have been added searching the Fairplay Ship's database. However, not all of the damage cards have entries regarding all details of respective incidents. GL finished the chart evaluation of the collected data that gives a general overview as well as some specific damage distributions. An ACCESS (Microsoft) database including these charts will be made available for all consortium members through the HARDER co-ordinator. Information that would identify a single vessel has been eliminated from this database. A short explanation of the database including the field descriptions will be supplied. All data files can be exported to an EXCEL table (Microsoft) for further use Task 1.2 In this Task the objective is to determine the probability factor "v" of vertical extent of damage with reference to side collision accidents. The approach is based on a statistical analysis of data concerning bow heights of existing ships, with their particulars obtained from a well-known database (Fairplay Ships Database). The performed analysis included the following main steps: Derivation of percentage distribution of ships per type and also according to length; Statistical distribution of bow heights and derivation of the cumulative percentage of bow heights which leads to differences in size between the colliding ships. Formulae for the "v" factor. Sensitivity analyses have been performed in order to assess the effect corresponding to extreme bow height values, with and without forecastle, and they have been presented. The obtained probability factors "v" have been compared with previous formulations resulting from a similar bow height study performed earlier in the US and other formulations currently discussed in the SDS Working Group of IMO-SLF in the framework of the harmonisation of IMO damage stability regulations. In parallel with the work of HARDER, a similar study of "v" factor analysis made in US has been conducted, the results of which will be considered within HARDER. Deliverable D1.2 (due February 2001): The task has been completed, and a draft report has been issued WP2 Probability of damage Task 2.1 A database containing ship characteristics for the world fleet has been purchased from Lloyds Maritime Information Services, London. It has been analysed by DTU to derive distributions of ship types and lengths and to find empirical relations for length versus breadth, draught, displacement, service speed, etc. This information is used in conjunction with a computer program which calculates the external dynamics to derive distributions for the energy to be absorbed during a collision between a given struck ship and a ship of the world fleet. Further, traffic route data for the Strait of Dover, the Strait of Gibraltar and local Danish waterways has been acquired and analysed to make a comparison between the world fleet distribution and the distribution in specific waters.

8 Page 4 Deliverable D2.1 (due August 2001): The task has been completed, and a draft report has been issued Task 2.2 Work is being carried out by NTUA to identify the governing parameters for the relation between the bow shape and the damage extend, based on existing damage databases. Further data on damage to Greek ships and accidents in Greek waters are under investigation. DTU has developed procedures for subdivision of the construction arrangements into larger (super) elements with known collapse properties, thus allowing the resistance of the side of a ship to be calculated by simple means. A computer program to perform this simplified analysis is being developed. The results from this program are to be verified by comparison to results obtained by WS Atkins using the finite element program ABAQUS Explicit. A validation test of the use of this software has been carried out and the obtained result compares well to those available from other sources. Structural drawings for most test vessels have been obtained. The structural layout for four vessels has been input into the collision assessment software developed at the department and calculations for the derivations of damage distributions are carried out. For the comparison calculations, the finite element models of the struck and striking ships have been completed, and an input file for ABAQUS Explicit has been prepared and checked for errors by the preprocessing utility WP3 Probability of survival Task 3.1: Model tests The model tests for PRR1, a passenger Ro-Ro ferry are complete, and preliminary results were issued as an internal technical work document, with the final report expected by June The Model test for two of three damage conditions for DCRR, a Dry cargo Ro-Ro vessel are complete. Model test for PRR2, a passenger Ro-Ro ferry, are also complete. The draft report is ready but has not been issued to the consortium since a few additions are yet to be made. Delivery of the report is anticipated in April The building of the DCBC model, a Capesize bulk carrier, is completed. The model test program is being prepared for testing in April The model test program has been discussed with several partners, and is near finalisation. Model building of the Dry Cargo Container Ship DCCS is currently underway. The internal arrangement is being built, and the model is expected to be finished soon. Due to the very large size and complicated internal structure of the cruise liner ship PCLS01, the model design has been much more time consuming than anticipated. However, the model of the ship is currently under construction. The three damage locations and the corresponding flooding extents have been selected. All model tests are expected to be finalized by end of June 2001.

9 Page Task 3.2 Validation of the time domain simulation software based on the PRR1 tests is underway at SSRC. The results of the SEM calculations are being compared to the model tests and simulations. Expected finalization is end of August Task 3.3 Due to delay in the model tests, this task is expected to start May 2001, and be finalized October Task 3.4 Due to delay in the model tests, this task is expected to start July 2001, and be finalized December Task 3.5 Expected to start September 2001, according to schedule WP4 Validation and Verification The Work Package started on schedule 1 st February A pre-start meeting was hosted by DMI 26 th January Actions and status today is: Preliminary report of vessels used as the working sample for WP4 (delivery D4.1): CONSAR is gathering information of the vessels used in WP2 and WP3 to be included in the working sample for WP4. CONSAR and DNV are picking out suitable vessels to achieve the total of 20 Vessels. The objective is to attain a distribution of 35 % passenger ships and 65 % cargo ships. Select relevant box ship from SLF sample: DNV has identified a SLF box ship suitable as a simplified calculation object in the WP4. The vessel is included in the working sample as the 21 st vessel. Explanatory Notes, which is a guide to the calculation of the survivability of a ship after damage, according to a probabilistic concept: DMI has delivered a preliminary report, that is available on the HARDER Web. The object is to produce a tool to obtain a uniform understanding of how to attain the probability index for survival of the ship in damaged condition WP5: Equivalent level of safety This WP has started somewhat earlier with the view to presenting an interim status of the working sample at the next IMO SLF meeting. Activities performed to date are: Specification of sample data Set-up of Database in MS ACCESS format Preparation of data collection procedure Set-up of questionnaires Distribution of questionnaires to partners Actions 1-3 First analysis of replies Assessment of presently available data

10 Page Comparison of planned activities and actual work Table A gives an overview of the planned activities and actual work performed 1 st year. The overall conclusion is that most of the work is going on according to schedule. Despite some delay in WP3, it is expected that the work will be delivered on time. 3.4 Planned activities for the next period WP1: Damage Statistics The work on the database and the bow height study will be continued. A proposal for a revised IMO damage card will be circulated and proposed for submission to IMO WP2: Probability of damage Proposals/comments to the submitted draft of the deliverable D2.1 must be implemented. Drawings for the last test vessels must be obtained and the structural arrangement input into the analysis software. Once the bow height statistics are available from WP 1, the simulations of the collisions to find the damage distributions can be performed. The damage distribution is to be compared to the output of WP 1 for validation. The output simulated damage distributions must be processed in order to derive relations for p, r and v in the recommendations for a new IMO code. Finite element analysis of the agreed ship collision scenario will be carried out and compared to the results of the super element modeling program WP3: Probability of survival The third phase of testing for DCRR at SSRC to be completed. Model testing of DCBC at MARIN to be completed. Reports for PRR2 and DCBC by MARIN to be completed. Model construction to be completed and beginning testing for DCCS at DMI. Model construction to be completed and beginning testing for PCLS at DMI. Continued numerical simulation runs for all completed model tests. Comparison of numerical and experimental results for all model tests WP4: Validation and verification The selection of working sample of at least 20 ships is to be documented by delivery D4.1, and the test ships being made accessible on the HARDER web. Modeling of test ships for the calculation software will start. Evaluation of the Explanatory Notes continues. Application of p and v factors will start for a limited number of sample ships WP5: Equivalent level of safety Preparation and distribution of detailed instructions for released questionnaires will continue. Interaction with external HARDER partners, especially the delegations from Japan and Korea, regarding their possible input to the HARDER database.

11 Page 7 Refinement of ship categories, especially for the General Cargo ship category (containers and PCC carriers). 4 List of deliverables and related documents The status of the deliveries issued during the first 12 months are: Delivery number Reference number Due date Nature of delivery and brief description D D Updated bow height formula and revised formulation of the vertical extent to be considered D U Vertical extent of damage analysis by US D D Collision Energy Distributions: Report presenting the analysis and the results for the probability distributions for the collision energy to be absorbed in the struck ship D W Explanatory Notes to the Survivability of a Ship After Damage Based on a Probabilistic Concept. Status Draft report Final report Draft report Draft report

12 Page 8 Updated work plan of HARDER Deliverable No. Due date YEAR 1 D D D YEAR 2 D D D D D D D D5.1 preliminary D5.1 final Project Month Output from WP No. Nature of Deliverable and brief description st annual report: appropriate documentation on the work in progress, technical achievements and recommendations for further work Updated bow height formula and revised formulation of the vertical extent to be considered Model tests: Report detailing model experiments and the ensuing trends pertaining to water ingress/egress and boundary survival curves for Passenger/Ro-Ro vessels and for dry cargo type of vessels Selection of working sample: Report documenting the vessels used as the working sample, containing vessel data such as lines plan, general arrangement, tank plan, KG limit, etc Generalised "s w " Factor: Generalised expression of the probability of survival of damaged Passenger/Ro-Ro vessels with water on deck, "s w ". Results of parametric studies demonstrating the sensitivity of the probability of survival on ship design and environmental parameters Updated damage statistics for the collision and grounding in the struck ship Mid-term report: assessing the advancements achieved by the relevant WPs and recommendations for further work Collision Energy Distributions: Report presenting the analysis and the results for the probability distributions for the collision energy to be absorbed in the struck ship Damage Distributions: Report presenting the analysis and the results for probability distributions for the damage location and size (p, r and v factors) for typical ship types Generalised "s a " Factor: Generalised expression of the probability of survival of damaged dry cargo vessels, "s a. Results of parametric studies demonstrating the sensitivity of the probability of survival on ship design and environmental parameters Completion of ship database to be considered at SLF Completion of ship database: Database with complete technical data of the sample of ships in MS ACCESS format Report on database Responsible/ involved partners DNV NTUA-SDL DMI, SU-SSRC, MARIN CONSAR, CARL BRO SU-SSRC, MARIN, SDL GL, DTU, HRS DNV DTU DMI, NTUA- WS ATKINS, DTU, GL, NTUA- SDL DNV, SU-SSRC UNEW, DNV,DTU, SU- SSRC, NTUA-SDL

13 Page 9 D D D D D D YEAR 3 D D D D D D Generalised expression of the probability of survival for any vessel type and configuration following side collision damage, capable of allowing for the right degree of dependence between "s w " and "s a " Application of pvs factors: Reports documenting the calculated and verified "p", "v" and "s" factors and the maximum attained index "A" for each vessel. Also the results of the Robustness check will be documented nd annual report: appropriate documentation on the work in progress, technical achievements and recommendations for further work Generic simplified models for routine calculations of the probability of survival for any vessel type and configuration Verification of pvs factors and attained index: Report documenting the results of the verification process Selection and investigation of sample designs: Documentation of selected sample designs (main data, General Arrangement sketches, results of damage stability calculation, cost and performance approximations) for each ship type considered 27 5 Statistical analysis of data: Report on statistical analysis results and on the damage stability reassessment of selected test cases by various partners in the course of validation of the applied procedures 30 4 Validation of methodology: Report containing an overall recommendation as regards the validity, robustness and consistency of the suggested methodology. CTO, DTU SU-SSRC, DMI, DTU, CARL BRO, WS ATKINS, UNEW, SU-SSRC, FC, CTO DNV NTUA-SDL, SU- SSRC, CTO, DTU UNEW, DMI,DTU, CARL BRO, WS ATKINS, SU- SSRC, FC, CTO HDW, SU-SSRC, NTUA-SDL, FC, CARL BRO, KVMY, DELTAMARIN, KEH,CONSAR, HRS DTU, DNV, SU- SSRC, NTUA- SDL, UNEW, HRS SU-SSRC, DMI,DTU, DNV 30 5 Formulation of Required Subdivision Index: Report NTUA-SDL, on regression analysis results and on alternative DNV,DTU, SUformulations of Required Subdivision Index. SSRC, UNEW 30 7 Report on main framework of new probabilistic MCA, DNV,GL, damage stability regulations. DTU,SU-SSRC, DMI, NTUA-SDL, HDW 30 0 Interim report: brief reports of the work in progress DNV 33 6 Design of new ships: Documentation of new designs (main data, General Arrangement sketches, results of damage stability calculation, cost and performance approximations) for each ship type considered HDW, SU-SSRC, NTUA-SDL, FC,CARL BRO, KVMY, DELTAMARIN, KEH, CONSAR, HRS

14 Page 10 D D D D Evaluation and documentation of the consequences of harmonised probabilistic approach: Report describing the consequences of harmonised probabilistic approach for the different ship types 36 6 General assessment of the impact of harmonised probabilistic damage stability regulations on future ship design 36 7 Report on recommended new harmonised probabilistic damage stability regulations 36 0 Final report: Illustrating in detail how a complete and fully validated procedure for probabilistic damage stability is developed. HDW, SU-SSRC, NTUA-SDL, FC, CARL BRO, KVMY, DELTAMARIN, KEH, CONSAR, HRS HDW MCA, DNV, GL, DTU, SU-SSRC, DMI, NTUA-SDL, HDW DNV ***

15 HARDER Distribution of ship types ANNEX 2 HARDER - Sample vessel data and Survey form World wide fleet Total(Lloyds) SOLAS *) HARDER proposal Ship type number % number % number % PRR Passenger/Ro-Ro Cargo PCLS Passenger (cruise) PASS Passenger Ship PGC Passenger/General Cargo Sum passenger ships DCBC Bulk Dry DCBO Bulk Dry/Oil DCBS Self-discharging Bulk Dry OBC Other Bulk Dry **) GC General Cargo DCCS Container REEF Refrigerated Cargo DCRR/ Ro-Ro Cargo CC DRED Dredging Sum cargo ships *) SOLAS = all ships covered by damage stability regulations of SOLAS, i.e. ships engaged on international voyages, except: passenger ships with 12 or less passengers cargo ships of less than 80 m Passenger ships not engaged on international voyages are estimated based on best guess

16 ANNEX 2 Page 2 HARDER DATABASE QUESTIONAIRE 1. Personal Information 1.1 Name 1.2 Organisation 1.3 Position in Organisation Telephone Number 2. Vessel Identification This information is treated as confidential and is not going to be released in the database. In its place a unique database number for each vessel is going to be assigned for use within the database. 2.1 Vessel Name 2.2 Former Names 2.3 IMO Number 2.4 If the vessel is being used in other work packages within HARDER, specify work package & task number. 3. Vessel Category 3.1 Vessel Type Menu [See ship type above] 4. Vessel Descriptors 4.1 LOA 4.2 LBP 4.3 Breadth 4.4 Depth 4.5 Freeboard Depth

17 ANNEX 2 Page Max Load Draught [MLD] 4.7 Displacement [@ MLD] 4.8 DWT [@ MLD] 4.9 Service speed 4.10 GRT 4.11 Loading Condition Cases Loading Conditions Draught (m) Displacement (t) GM (m) Deepest Subdivision Loadline (ds) Partial Loadline (dp) Lightship loadline Lightest Service (do) Intermediate Service (d1) Intermediate Service (d2) Intermediate Service (d3) Full Load Departure Full Load Arrival Ballast Departure Ballast Arrival 4.12 Type of Cargo Menu [Liquid, Dry, Passengers] 4.13 Date of Built 4.14 Present Damage stability regulation Applying Menu [SOLAS 74, SOLAS90, SOLAS90+WOD, SOLAS PART B-1, A265, OTHER] If other, please specify:

18 ANNEX 2 Page Condition of vessel for which stability standard applies Menu [As built, By modification] Specify Modification: Menu [Sponsons, Ducktails, Lowering of KG, Reduction of draft, Other] 5. Calculation of R If other, please specify: Date of this modification 5.1 Subdivision Length (Ls): 5.2 Number of persons for whom lifeboats are provided (N1): 5.3 Number of persons (including officers & crew) that the ship is permitted to carry in excess of N1: 5.4 Value of existing calculated R Results of Calculated R 5.5 Calculation according to: Menu [SOLAS PART B-1, A265, Other] If other, please specify: 6. Calculation of A 6.1 Does a computer model exist? YES NO 6.2 What software is used to create the model? Menu [NAPA, TRIBON, AUTOSHIP, MAXSURF, ISHIP, Other] If other, please specify: 6.3 Who has access to the model? Menu [Partner name] If other, please specify: 6.4 Value of A (if it exists): Results of Calculated A

19 6.5 Calculation according to Menu [SOLAS PART B-1, A265, Other] If other, please specify: 6.6 Value of A/Amax (if it exists): SLF 44/3/1 ANNEX 2 Page 5