CRUISESHIP TECHNOLOGY
Capt Ted Thompson of Cruise Lines International Association broadly welcomes the new guidelines on alternative designs for cruise vessels believing they will enhance safety levels significantly.
where the mathematical models for the great number of elements that go into evaluation of ‘evacuation’ and ‘abandonment’ are still being developed and refined for the more complex computer simulations of this complex safety element. ‘In general, we are satisfied with the amendments that were adopted at MSC 82,’
‘We believe that these requirements,
arrived at after much discussion and refinement, are technically achievable and will significantly improve survivability and safety. There is a continuing need however to develop explanatory notes and unified interpretations for some of these complex requirements.’ IMO’s rewrite of Chapter II-2 some
years ago included a new Regulation 17 that first introduced the principle of safety level equivalence for alternative designs in the context of fire protection, using risk assessment techniques as its underpinning approach. Now, SOLAS Chapter I Regulation 5 makes it clear that legislators envisage an equivalent level of protection as permissible for just about every regulation. Requirements are performance based
and allow designers to meet safety levels through any number of design alternatives, where performance criteria are measurable quantities to be used to evaluate the adequacy of trial designs. Casualty or operational scenarios are
to provide the basis for analysis and trial alternative design evaluation and, therefore, are seen as the backbone of the alternative design process. ‘The trial alternative design should also
take into consideration the importance of human factors, operations and management,’ says IMO’s agreed text. ‘It should be recognised that well defined operations and management procedures may play a big part in increasing the overall level of safety.’ Over and above the new flexibility, there
are specific amendments which will have some direct impact on ship design. Capt Thompson said that a number of amendments had been aimed at refining the construction of the boundaries of atriums. However, he added: ‘We believe these can be incorporated into atrium designs without any large impact on the overall design layout of an atrium and that the changes will be transparent to our guests.’ Still developing is the mathematical
modelling to analyse passenger distribution in the case of evacuation, a matter which is also likely to have an impact on ship lay- outs in the future (see pp43-44). Current guidelines for evacuation and abandonment have been required to comply with very rudimentary or simplified time limits,
THE NAVAL ARCHITECT FEBRUARY 2007 SPJ SCD STT
Our product range comprises azimuth propulsion systems, manoeuvring and take-home devices, and also complete conventional propulsion packages rated at up to 30 MW. Through our worldwide sales and service network we offer economical and reliable solutions for vessels of all kinds and sizes. So we can provide the right thrust for your vessel.
Innovators in propulsion technology
SCHOTTEL GmbH & Co. KG Mainzer Str. 99 · D-56322 Spay/Germany Tel.: + 49 (0) 26 28 / 6 10 · Fax: + 49 (0) 26 28 / 6 13 00 eMail:
info@schottel.de ·
www.schottel.com
33
Elmer A. Sperry Award 2004
Naval Architect_115_175_0107 18.01.2007 11:51 Uhr Seite 1 SCHOTTEL for the Shipping World The Drive You Deserve SRP
Outstanding manoeuvring characteristics Compact construction
Low-noise and low-vibration operation Superb smoothness and comfort High efficiency and reliability Simple maintenance
Worldwide sales and service network STP SCP
concluded Capt Thompson. ‘We participated in their development over the years and while not perfect and while maybe not totally justified in all instances, we are satisfied that they are technically achievable and achieve the stated safety goals. There are however, a number of areas that need interpretation and explanatory notes so that designers and shipyards can get on with designs that will be acceptable to the various administrations. This is not necessarily further debate but rather an agreement as to the exact meaning of certain wording. ‘Despite the implication by some that
passenger ship safety has not been significantly improved, my opinion is that it has been dramatically enhanced and I believe that a close look at the new amendments will hold that to be true.’
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105