This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 02003L0025-20230604
Directive 2003/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 April 2003 on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships (Text with EEA relevance)Text with EEA relevance
Consolidated text: Directive 2003/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 April 2003 on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships (Text with EEA relevance)Text with EEA relevance
Directive 2003/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 April 2003 on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships (Text with EEA relevance)Text with EEA relevance
02003L0025 — EN — 04.06.2023 — 004.001
This text is meant purely as a documentation tool and has no legal effect. The Union's institutions do not assume any liability for its contents. The authentic versions of the relevant acts, including their preambles, are those published in the Official Journal of the European Union and available in EUR-Lex. Those official texts are directly accessible through the links embedded in this document
|
DIRECTIVE 2003/25/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 14 April 2003 on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships (OJ L 123 17.5.2003, p. 22) |
Amended by:
|
|
|
Official Journal |
||
|
No |
page |
date |
||
|
L 48 |
19 |
19.2.2005 |
||
|
REGULATION (EC) No 1137/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 October 2008 |
L 311 |
1 |
21.11.2008 |
|
|
REGULATION (EU) 2019/1243 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 June 2019 |
L 198 |
241 |
25.7.2019 |
|
|
DIRECTIVE (EU) 2023/946 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 10 May 2023 |
L 128 |
1 |
15.5.2023 |
|
DIRECTIVE 2003/25/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 14 April 2003
on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships
(Text with EEA relevance)
Article 1
Purpose
The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a uniform level of specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships, which will improve the survivability of this type of vessel in case of collision damage and provide a high level of safety for the passengers and the crew.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purpose of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:
‘ro-ro passenger ship’ means a ship carrying more than 12 passengers, having ro-ro cargo spaces or special category spaces, as defined in Regulation II-2/3 of the SOLAS Convention, as amended;
‘existing ro-ro passenger ship’ means a ro-ro passenger ship the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construction before 5 December 2024; a similar stage of construction means the stage at which:
construction identifiable with a specific ship begins; and
assembly of that ship has commenced comprising at least 50 tonnes or 1 % of the estimated mass of structural material, whichever is less;
‘new ro-ro passenger ship’ means a ro-ro passenger ship which is not an existing ro-ro passenger ship;
‘a passenger’ is every person other than the master and the members of the crew or other persons employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship on the business of that ship and other than a child under one year of age;
‘SOLAS Convention’ means the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and amendments thereto in force;
‘SOLAS 90’ means the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, as last amended by Resolution MSC.117(74);
‘SOLAS 2009’ means the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, as last amended by Resolution MSC.216(82);
‘SOLAS 2020’ means the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, as last amended by Resolution MSC.421(98);
‘regular service’ means a series of ro-ro passenger ship crossings operated so as to serve traffic between the same two or more ports, or a series of voyages from and to the same port without intermediate calls, either:
according to a published timetable; or
with crossings so regular or frequent that they constitute a recognisable systematic series;
‘Stockholm Agreement’ means the Agreement concluded at Stockholm on 28 February 1996 in pursuance of SOLAS 95 Conference Resolution 14 ‘Regional agreements on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships’, adopted on 29 November 1995;
‘administration of flag State’ means the competent authorities of the State whose flag the ro-ro passenger ship is entitled to fly;
‘Port State’ means a Member State to or from whose ports a ro-ro passenger ship is engaged on a regular service;
‘international voyage’ means a sea voyage from a port of a Member State to a port outside that Member State, or vice versa;
‘specific stability requirements’ means, when used as a collective term, the stability requirements referred to in Article 6;
‘significant wave height’ (‘hs’) is the average height of the highest third of wave heights observed over a given period;
‘residual freeboard’ (‘fr’) is the minimum distance between the damaged ro-ro deck and the final waterline at the location of the damage, without taking into account the additional effect of the sea water accumulated on the damaged ro-ro deck;
‘company’ means the owner of a ro-ro passenger ship or any other organisation or person, such as the manager or the bareboat charterer, who has assumed responsibility for operating the passenger ship from the owner.
Article 3
Scope
Those Member States which intend to avail themselves of such derogation shall communicate to the Commission by 5 December 2024 if the conditions have been met, and shall inform the Commission of any subsequent change. Such Member States may not allow ro-ro passenger ships that fall within the scope of this Directive to fly their flag until they have transposed and implemented this Directive.
Article 4
Significant wave heights
The significant wave heights (hS) shall be used for determining the height of water on the car deck when applying the specific stability requirements contained in section A of Annex I. The figures of significant wave heights shall be those which are not exceeded by a probability of more than 10 % on a yearly basis.
Article 5
Sea areas
Article 6
Specific stability requirements
At the company’s choice, new ro-ro passenger ships certified to carry 1 350 or fewer persons on board shall comply with:
the specific stability requirements set out in Annex I, section A, to this Directive, or
the specific stability requirements set out in Annex I, section B, to this Directive.
For each such ship, the administration of the Flag State shall, within a period of two months from the date of issuance of the certificate referred to in Article 8, notify the Commission of the choice made of the option referred to in the first subparagraph and include with such notification the details referred to in Annex III.
At the company’s choice, existing ro-ro passenger ships certified to carry more than 1 350 persons on board which the company introduces to the regular service operation to or from a port of a Member State after 5 December 2024 and which have never been certified in accordance with this Directive, shall comply with:
the specific stability requirements set out in Chapter II-1, Part B of SOLAS 2020; or
the specific stability requirements set out in Annex I, section A to this Directive, in addition to those set out in Chapter II-1, Part B of SOLAS 2009.
The stability requirements that are applied shall be noted in the ship’s certificate required under Article 8.
At the company’s choice, existing ro-ro passenger ships certified to carry 1 350 or fewer persons on board which the company introduces to the regular service operation to or from a port of a Member State after 5 December 2024 and which have never been certified in accordance with this Directive, shall comply with:
the specific stability requirements set out in Annex I, section A to this Directive, or
the specific stability requirements set out in Annex I, section B to this Directive.
The stability requirements that are applied shall be noted in the ship’s certificate referred to in Article 8.
▼M4 —————
Article 8
Certificates
The certificates shall be issued by the administration of the flag State and may be combined with other related certificates. For ro-ro passenger ships complying with the specific stability requirements set out in Annex I, section A, the certificate shall indicate the significant wave height up to which the ship can satisfy the specific stability requirements.
The certificate shall remain valid as long as the ro-ro passenger ship operates in an area with the same or a lower value of significant wave height.
Article 9
Seasonal and other short-time period operations
Article 10
Amendment of Annexes
The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 10a amending the Annexes in order to take account of developments at international level, in particular in the IMO, and to improve the effectiveness of this Directive in the light of experience and technical progress.
Article 10a
Exercise of the delegation
▼M3 —————
Article 12
Penalties
Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Article 13
Implementation
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 17 November 2004. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.
Article 13a
Review
The Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Directive and submit the results of the evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council by 5 June 2033. Information based on the notifications referred to in Article 6(2) shall be made available in anonymised form.
Article 14
Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 15
Addressees
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
ANNEX I
SPECIFIC STABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR RO-RO PASSENGER SHIPS
as referred to in Article 6
Section A
For the purposes of Section A, references to the SOLAS Convention regulations shall be construed as references to those regulations as they applied under SOLAS 90.
|
1. |
In addition to the requirements of Regulation II-1/B/8 of the SOLAS Convention relating to watertight subdivision and stability in damaged condition, the requirements of this section shall be complied with.
|
|
2. |
For assessing the effect of the volume of the assumed accumulated sea water on the damaged ro-ro deck in paragraph 1, the following provisions shall prevail:
|
|
3. |
When determining significant wave height, the wave heights given on the maps or list of sea areas established by Member States in line with Article 5 of this Directive shall be used.
|
|
4. |
Model tests shall be conducted in accordance with the Appendix. |
Section B
The requirements of Chapter II-1, Part B of SOLAS 2020 shall be complied with. However, by way of derogation from Regulation II-1/B/6.2.3 of SOLAS 2020, the required subdivision index R shall be determined as follows:
|
Persons on board (N) |
Subdivision Index (R) |
|
N < 1 000 |
R = 0,000088 * N 0,7488 |
|
1 000 ≤ N ≤ 1 350 |
R = 0,0369 * ln (N 89,048 ) 0,579 |
Where:
|
N |
= |
total number of persons on board. |
Appendix
Model test method
1. Objectives
This revised model test method is a revision of the method contained in the Appendix to the Annex to resolution 14 of the 1995 SOLAS Conference. Since the entry into force of the Stockholm Agreement a number of model tests has been carried out in accordance with the test method previously in force. During these tests a number of refinements in the procedures have been identified. This new model test method aims to include these refinements and, together with the appended Guidance Notes, provide a more robust procedure for the assessment of survivability of a damaged ro-ro passenger ship in a seaway. In the tests provided for in paragraph 1.4 of the stability requirements included in Annex I, the ship should be capable of withstanding a seaway as defined in paragraph 4 hereunder in the worst-damage-case scenario.
2. Definitions
|
LBP |
is the length between perpendiculars |
|
HS |
is the significant wave height |
|
B |
is the moulded breadth of the ship |
|
TP |
is the peak period |
|
TZ |
is the zero crossing period |
3. Ship model
|
3.1. |
The model should copy the actual ship for both outer configuration and internal arrangement, in particular all damaged spaces having an effect on the process of flooding and shipping of water. Intact draught, trim, heel and limiting operational KG corresponding to the worst damage case should be used. Furthermore, the test case(s) to be considered should represent the worst damage case(s) defined in accordance with SOLAS regulation II-1/8.2.3.2 (SOLAS 90) with regard to the total area under the positive GZ curve and the centreline of the damage opening should be located within the following range:
|
|
3.2. |
The model should comply with the following:
|
|
3.3. |
The model in the flooded equilibrium condition should be heeled by an additional angle corresponding to that induced by the heeling moment Mh = max (Mpass; Mlaunch)-Mwind, but in no case should the final heel be less than 1o towards damage. Mpass, Mlaunch and Mwind are as specified in SOLAS regulation II-1/8.2.3.4. For existing ships this angle may be taken as 1o. |
4. Procedure for experiments
|
4.1. |
The model should be tested in a long-crested irregular seaway defined by the JONSWAP spectrum with significant wave height HS, a peak enhancement factor γ = 3,3 and a peak period Furthermore,
|
. H|
4.2. |
The model should be free to drift and placed in beam seas (90o heading) with the damage hole facing the oncoming waves, with no mooring system permanently attached to the model used. To maintain a beam sea heading of approximately 90o during the model test the following requirements should be satisfied:
|
|
4.3. |
At least 10 experiments should be carried out. The test period for each experiment should be of a duration such that a stationary state is reached, but not less than 30 min in full-scale. A different wave realisation train should be used for each experiment. |
5. Survival criteria
The model should be considered as surviving if a stationary state is reached for the successive test runs as required in paragraph 4.3. The model should be considered as capsized if angles of roll of more than 30o to the vertical axis or steady (average) heel greater than 20o for a period longer than three minutes full-scale occur, even if a stationary state is reached.
6. Test documentation
|
6.1. |
The model test programme should be approved by the Administration in advance. |
|
6.2. |
Tests should be documented by means of a report and a video or other visual records containing all relevant information on the model and the test results, which are to be approved by the Administration. These should include, as a minimum, the theoretical and measured wave spectra and statistics (HS, TP, TZ) of the wave elevation at the three different locations in the basin for a representative realisation, and for the tests with the model, the time series of main statistics of the measured wave elevation close to the wave maker and records of model roll, heave and pitch motions, and of the drift speed. |
ANNEX II
INDICATIVE GUIDELINES TO NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIONS
as referred to in Article 6(3)
PART I
APPLICATION
In line with the provisions of Article 6(3) of this Directive, these guidelines shall be used by the national administrations of Member States in the application of the specific stability requirements set out in Annex I, section A, in so far as this is practicable and compatible with the design of the ship in question. The paragraph numbers appearing below correspond to those in Annex I, section A.
Paragraph 1
As a first step all ro-ro passenger ships referred to in Article 3(1) of this Directive must comply with the SOLAS 90 standard of residual stability as it applies to all passenger ships constructed on or after 29 April 1990. It is the application of this requirement that defines the residual freeboard fr, necessary for the calculations required in paragraph 1.1.
Paragraph 1.1
1. This paragraph addresses the application of a hypothetical amount of water accumulated on the bulkhead (ro-ro) deck. The water is assumed to have entered the deck via a damage opening. This paragraph requires that the ship in addition to complying with the full requirements of the SOLAS 90 standard further complies with that part of the SOLAS 90 criteria contained in points 2.3 to 2.3.4 of Regulation II-1/B/8 with the defined amount of water on deck. For this calculation no other requirements of Regulation II-1/B/8 need be taken into account. For example the ship does not, for this calculation, need to comply with the requirements for the angles of equilibrium or non-submergence of the margin line.
2. The accumulated water is added as a liquid load with one common surface inside all compartments which are assumed flooded on the car deck. The height (hw) of water on deck is dependent on the residual freeboard (fr) after damage, and is measured in way of the damage (see figure 1). The residual freeboard, is the minimum distance between the damaged ro-ro deck and the final waterline (after equalisation measures if any have been taken) in way of the assumed damage after examining all possible damage scenarios in determining the compliance with the SOLAS 90 standard as required in paragraph 1 of Annex I. No account should be taken of the effect of the hypothetical volume of water assumed to have accumulated on the damaged ro-ro deck when calculating fr.
3. If fr is 2,0 m or more, no water is assumed to accumulate on the ro-ro deck. If fr is 0,3 m or less, then height hw is assumed to be 0,5 m. Intermediate heights of water are obtained by linear interpolation (see figure 2).
Paragraph 1.2
Means for drainage of water can only be considered as effective if these means are of a capacity to prevent large amounts of water from accumulating on the deck i.e. many thousands of tonnes per hour which is far beyond the capacities fitted at the time of the adoption of these regulations. Such high efficiency drainage systems may be developed and approved in the future (based on guidelines to be developed by the International Maritime Organisation)
Paragraph 1.3
1. The amount of assumed accumulated water on deck may, in addition to any reduction in accordance with paragraph 1.1, be reduced for operations in geographically defined restricted areas. These areas are designated in accordance with the significant wave height (hs) defining the area in line with the provisions of Article 5 of this Directive.
2. If the significant wave height (hs), in the area concerned, is 1,5 m or less then no additional water is assumed to accumulate on the damaged ro-ro deck. If the significant wave height in the area concerned is 4,0 m or more then the height of the assumed accumulated water shall be the value calculated in accordance with paragraph 1.1. Intermediate values to be determined by linear interpolation (see figure 3).
3. The height hw is kept constant, therefore the amount of added water is variable as it is dependent upon the heeling angle and whether at any particular heeling angle the deck edge is immersed or not (see figure 4). It should be noted that the assumed permeability of the car deck spaces is to be taken as 90 % (MSC/Circ.649 refers), whereas other assumed flooded spaces permeabilities are to be those prescribed in the SOLAS Convention.
4. If the calculations to demonstrate compliance with this Directive relate to a significant wave height less than 4,0 m that restricting significant wave height must be recorded on the vessel's passenger ship safety certificate.
Paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5
As an alternative to complying with the new stability requirements in paragraph 1.1 or 1.3 an administration may accept proof of compliance via model tests. The model test requirements are detailed in the Appendix to Annex I. Guidance notes on the model tests are contained in part II of this Annex.
Paragraph 1.6
Conventionally derived SOLAS 90 standard limiting operational curve(s) (KG or GM) may not remain applicable in cases where ‘water on deck’ is assumed under the terms of this Directive and it may be necessary to determine revised limiting curve(s) which take into account the effects of this added water. To this effect sufficient calculations corresponding to an adequate number of operational draughts and trims must be carried out.
: Revised limiting operational KG/GM Curves may be derived by iteration, whereby the minimum excess GM resulting from damage stability calculations with water on deck is added to the input KG (or deducted from the GM) used to determine the damaged freeboards (fr), upon which the quantities of water on deck are based, this process being repeated until the excess GM becomes negligible.
It is anticipated that operators would begin such an iteration with the maximum KG/minimum GM which could reasonably be sustained in service and would seek to manipulate the resulting deck bulkhead arrangement to minimisethe excess GM derived from damage stability calculations with water on deck.
Paragraph 2.1
As for conventional SOLAS damage requirements bulkheads inboard of the B/5 line are considered intact in the event of side collision damage.
Paragraph 2.2
If side structural sponsons are fitted to enable compliance with Regulation II-1/B/8, and as a consequence there is an increase in the breadth (B) of the ship and hence the vessel's B/5 distance from the ship's side, such modification shall not cause the relocation of any existing structural parts or any existing penetrations of the main transverse watertight bulkheads below the bulkhead deck (see figure 5).
Paragraph 2.3
1. Transverse or longitudinal bulkheads/barriers which are fitted and taken into account to confine the movement of assumed accumulated water on the damaged ro-ro deck need not be strictly ‘watertight’. Small amounts of leakage may be permitted subject to the drainage provisions being capable of preventing an accumulation of water on the ‘other side’ of the bulkhead/barrier. In such cases where scuppers become inoperative as a result of a loss of positive difference of water levels other means of passive drainage must be provided.
2. The height (Bh) of transverse and longitudinal bulkheads/barriers shall be not less than (8 × hw) metres, where hw is the height of the accumulated water as calculated by application of the residual freeboard and significant wave height ( as referred to in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.3). However in no case is the height of the bulkhead/barrier to be less than the greater of:
2,2 metres; or
the height between the bulkhead deck and the lower point of the underside structure of the intermediate or hanging car decks, when these are in their lowered position. It should be noted that any gaps between the top edge of the bulkhead and the underside of the plating must be ‘plated-in’ in the transverse or longitudinal direction as appropriate (see figure 6).
Bulkheads/barriers with a height less than that specified above, may be accepted if model tests are carried out in accordance with part II of this Annex to confirm that the alternative design ensures appropriate standard of survivability. Care needs to be taken when fixing the height of the bulkhead/barrier such that the height shall also be sufficient to prevent progressive flooding within the required stability range. This range is not to be prejudiced by model tests.
: The range may be reduced to 10 degrees provided the corresponding area under the curve is increased (as referred to in MSC 64/22).
Paragraph 2.5.1
The area ‘A’ relates to permanent openings. It should be noted that the ‘freeing ports’ option is not suitable for ships which require the buoyancy of the whole or part of the superstructure in order to meet the criteria. The requirement is that the freeing ports shall be fitted with closing flaps to prevent water entering, but allowing water to drain.
These flaps must not rely on active means. They must be self-operating and it must be shown that they do not restrict outflow to a significant degree. Any significant efficiency reduction must be compensated by the fitting of additional openings so that the required area is maintained.
Paragraph 2.5.2
For the freeing ports to be considered effective the minimum distance from the lower edge of the freeing port to the damaged waterline shall be at least 1,0 m. The calculation of the minimum distance shall not take into account the effect of any additional water on deck (see figure 7).
Paragraph 2.5.3
Freeing ports must be sited as low as possible in the side bulwark or shell plating. The lower edge of the freeing port opening must be no higher than 2 cm above the bulkhead deck and the upper edge of the opening no higher than 0,6 m (see figure 8).
: Spaces to which paragraph 2.5 applies, i.e. those spaces fitted with freeing ports or similar openings, shall not be included as intact spaces in the derivation of the intact and damage stability curves.
Paragraph 2.6
1. The statutory extent of damage is to be applied along the length of the ship. Depending on the subdivision standard the damage may not affect any bulkhead or may only affect a bulkhead below the bulkhead deck or only bulkhead above the bulkhead deck or various combinations.
2. All transverse and longitudinal bulkheads/barriers which constrain the assumed accumulated amount of water must be in place and secured at all times when the ship is at sea.
3. In those cases where the transverse bulkhead/barrier is damaged the accumulated water on deck shall have a common surface level on both sides of the damaged bulkhead/barrier at the height hw (see figure 9).
PART II
MODEL TESTING
The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure uniformity in the methods employed in the construction and verification of the model as well as in the undertaking and analyses of the model tests.
The contents of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Appendix to Annex I are considered self-explanatory.
Paragraph 3 — Ship model
|
3.1. |
The material of which the model is made is not important in itself, provided that the model both in the intact and damaged condition is sufficiently rigid to ensure that its hydrostatic properties are the same as those of the actual ship and also that the flexural response of the hull in waves is negligible. It is also important to ensure that the damaged compartments are modelled as accurately as practicably possible to ensure that the correct volume of flood water is represented. Since ingress of water (even small amounts) into the intact parts of the model will affect its behaviour, measures must be taken to ensure that this ingress does not occur. In model tests involving worst SOLAS damages near the ship ends, it has been observed that progressive flooding was not possible because of the tendency of the water on deck to accumulate near the damage opening and hence flow out. As such models were able to survive very high sea states, while they capsized in lesser sea states with less onerous SOLAS damages, away from the ends, the limit ± 35 % was introduced to prevent this. Extensive research carried out for the purpose of developing appropriate criteria for new vessels has clearly shown that in addition to the GM and freeboard being important parameters in the survivability of passenger ships, the area under the residual stability curve is also another major factor. Consequently in choosing the worst SOLAS damage for compliance with the requirement of paragraph 3.1 the worst damage is to be taken as that which gives the least area under the residual stability curve. |
|
3.2. |
Model particulars
|
|
3.3. |
In the original model test method of resolution 14 of the 1995 SOLAS Conference the effect of heeling induced by the maximum moment deriving from any of passenger crowding, launching of survival craft, wind and turning was not considered even though this effect was part of SOLAS. Results from an investigation have shown, however, that it would be prudent to take these effects into account and to retain the minimum of 1° heel towards the damage for practical purposes. It is to be noted that heeling due to turning was considered not to be relevant. |
|
3.4. |
In cases where there is a margin in GM in the actual loading conditions compared to the GM limiting curve (derived from SOLAS 90), the Administration may accept that this margin is taken advantage of in the model test. In such cases the GM limiting curve should be adjusted. This adjustment can be done as follows:
d = dS-0,6 (dS-dLS) where: dS is the subdivision draught; and dLS is the lightship draught. The adjusted curve is a straight line between the GM used in the model test at the subdivision draught and the intersection of the original SOLAS 90 curve and draught d. |
Paragraph 4 — Procedure for experiments
4.1. Wave spectra
The JONSWAP spectrum should be used as this describes fetch- and duration- limited seas which correspond to the majority of conditions world wide. In this respect it is important that not only the peak period of the wave train is verified but also that the zero crossing period is correct.
It is required that for every test run the wave spectrum is recorded and documented. Measurements for this recording should be taken at the probe closest to the wave making machine.
It is also required that the model is instrumented so that its motions (roll, heave and pitch) as well as its attitude (heel, sinkage and trim) are monitored and recorded through-out the test.
It has been found that it is not practical to set absolute limits for significant wave heights, peak periods and zero crossing periods of the model wave spectra. An acceptable margin has therefore been introduced.
|
4.2. |
To avoid interference of the mooring system with the ship dynamics, the towing carriage (to which the mooring system is attached) should follow the model at its actual drifting speed. In a sea state with irregular waves the drift speed will not be constant; a constant carriage speed would result in low frequency, large amplitude drift oscillations, which may affect the model behaviour. |
|
4.3. |
A sufficient number of tests in different wave trains is necessary to ensure statistical reliability, i.e. the objective is to determine with a high degree of confidence that an unsafe ship will capsize in the selected conditions. A minimum number of 10 runs is considered to provide a reasonable level of reliability. |
Paragraph 5 — Survival criteria
The contents of this paragraph are considered self-explanatory.
Paragraph 6 — Test approval
The following documents are to be part of the report to the administration:
damage stability calculations for worst SOLAS and mid-ship damage (if different);
general arrangement drawing of the model together with details of construction and instrumentation;
inclining experiment and measurements of radii of gyration;
nominal and measured wave spectra (at the three different locations for a representative realisation and for the tests with the model from the probe closest to the wave maker);
representative record of model motions, attitude and drift;
relevant video recordings.
Note:
All tests must be witnessed by the administration.
ANNEX III
NOTIFICATION DETAILS
Data to be notified in accordance with Article 6(2):
General data
Applicable stability requirements: section A or section B of Annex I
Ship’s identification number (IMO number, Call sign)
Main particulars
General arrangement plan
Number of persons on board
GT
Is the ship double ended: Yes/No
Does the ship have long lower holds: Yes/No
Specific data – for ro-ro passenger ships subject to the probabilistic requirements set out in the SOLAS Convention
dl, dp, ds;
R – required index;
layout plan (watertight integrity plan) for the sub-compartments with all internal and external opening points including their connected sub-compartments, and particulars used in measuring the spaces, such as general arrangement plan and tank plan; the subdivision limits, longitudinal, transverse and vertical, must be included ( 6 );
attained subdivision index A with a summary table for all contributions for all damaged zones ( 7 ) with a separate column with the attainable subdivision index (w*p*v);
for 1 and 2 Zone damage cases, the percentage of damage cases that were not investigated (i.e. cases not included in the factor (w*p*v)), that s = 0, s = 1 and 0<s< 1;
for 1 and 2 Zone damage cases, the percentage of damage cases involving ro-ro spaces that were not investigated (i.e. cases not included in the factor (w*p*v)), that s = 0, s = 1 and 0<s< 1;
for each damage which contributes to the attained subdivision index A, identification of flooded spaces, contribution value and factor «s» ( 8 );
particulars of non-contributing damages (s = 0 and p > 0) for ro-ro passenger ships fitted with long lower hold, including full details of the calculated factors ( 9 ).
Specific data – for ro-ro passenger ships applying Annex I, section A
Method of compliance:
Please indicate whether the water on deck calculations have been avoided due to, for example, the residual freeboard being higher than 2.0 m in all damage cases: Yes/No
Significant wave height pursuant to Directive 2003/25/EC.
( 1 ) Directive (EU) 2017/2110 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2017 on a system of inspections for the safe operation of ro-ro passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft in regular service and amending Directive 2009/16/EC and repealing Council Directive 1999/35/EC (OJ L 315, 30.11.2017, p. 61).
( 2 ) Directive 2009/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (OJ L 163, 25.6.2009, p. 1).
( 3 ) Directive (EU) 2023/946 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 amending Directive 2003/25/EC as regards the inclusion of improved stability requirements and the alignment of that Directive with the stability requirements defined by the International Maritime Organization (OJ L 128, 15.5.2023, p. 1).
( 4 ) Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on port State control (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 57).
( 5 ) OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
( 6 ) This documentation is to be submitted to Administrations in accordance with point 2.2 of the Appendix to IMO Resolution MSC.429(98).
( 7 ) This documentation is to be submitted to Administrations in accordance with point 2.3.1 of the Appendix to IMO Resolution MSC.429(98).
( 8 ) This documentation is to be submitted to Administrations in accordance with point 2.3.1 of the Appendix to IMO Resolution MSC.429(98).
( 9 ) This documentation is to be submitted to Administrations in accordance with point 2.3.1 of the Appendix to IMO Resolution MSC.429(98).