IACS

POLAR CLASSES AND DRAFT POLAR CODE

Linking ship ice class and ice condi<ons

v.m.santos.pedro@gmail.com
March 2014 London, UK
Bridging the Arc<c Marine Risk Gap Workshop

Explana<on of the Ice Classica<on for

Vessels vs. DraR Polar Code
What does this mean for industry in prac<ce?

What does industry determine what ice class is required
where and when?

What current ice regimes are there to enable this?

What can be done to improve certainty?

Quote from Will Durant:


Inquiry is fatal to certainty

Captain J-E Bernier looking for ice.

Outline
Presenta<on meant as material to en<ce further discussion
on matching ship to condi<ons
Opera<onal regimes, such as zone/date system, ice regime
system, ice passport, or safe speed concept is discussed
separately
This describes the rela<onship of IMO Polar Code vs. IACS
Polar Rules with emphasis on the Rules, challenges, gaps, and
benets
Also men<on of related design/opera<onal issues including
crew cer<ca<on and training

Polar Class Deni<ons

It has been agreed at IMO but not yet implemented that

PC 6 and 7 need to have seasonal applicability removed,
will lead to some other wordsmithing
Current IACS version

SPLIT

IMO
POLAR CODE



IACS
POLAR RULES

Importance of holis<c approach

Design considera<ons can be tailor-made or negated by how
you operate: all aspects must be considered
Design - Fram

Opera<on - MS Explorer

Nature of Polar Classes

PC 1 7 establish a spectrum of capabili<es
Deni<ons for all ice classes are, deliberately, very loose
The owner needs to decide what ice class/capability is
needed, based on:
Intended area and season of opera<on (discussed
elsewhere in separate presenta<on)
Intended opera<ng prole
Risk tolerance (for delay, minor economic
structural damage, etc.)
Ice class is just a star<ng point, and extra features may be
needed/advisable
Required icebreaking capability/power needs to be owner-
selected in a similar way

Polar Classes and Safe Opera<on

Class Socie<es do not normally determine or dene safe
opera<ng limits for ships, though there are excep<ons (high
speed craR, other ships with service restric<ons).
In Polar Code, ships capabili<es/limita<ons which together
address safe opera<on are to be included in the Polar Ship
Cer<cate and the Polar Waters Opera<ons Manual (PWOM)
The format for both is s<ll under discussion, but in general:
The Cer<cate will be approved by the
Administra<on, or by an RO ac<ng on its behalf
The PWOM may be covered by a document of
compliance, similar to ISM process
Where an RO acts for an Administra<on, the approval/
cer<ca<on process needs to be clear to all par<es (ag/port/
coastal state, class, owner)

IMO Guidelines for Ships Opera<ng in

Polar Waters (2009)

Accidents prompted IMO Resolu<on A.1024(26)

Guidelines applicable for Arc<c and Antarc<c
Waters

Applicable Regions

Polar Code Applica<on Area

Arc<c waters

Antarc<c waters

Principles for Mandatory Polar Code

Take holis<c and integrated approach addressing plamorm,
personnel and opera<ons taking reali<es of remote, hos<le
environment and limited infrastructure/SAR into account
Use of Goal-Based Standards where appropriate and risk
based
Apply Polar Code to Conven<on vessels with expansion to
shing vessels, barges, and pleasure craR at later date
Implement through amendment to SOLAS, MARPOL and, as
appropriate, other IMO instruments
Enforce compliance via port State control / ag State or
other

IACS Unied Requirements for Polar Class

Ships
Common set of construc<on requirements
Joint eort from class, academia, industry and
researchers
Hull design requirements are state-of-the-art
scenario and mechanics based
Design based on plas<c structural behaviour
Steel distributed dierently
Machinery requirements have similar approach to
new Bal<c Rules
No power requirements

IACS Unied Requirements

UR I.1 Polar Class Descrip<ons and

Applica<on
UR I.2 Structural Requirements
UR I.3 Machinery Requirements

Adopted by IACS Council in 2006; part of all

member society Rules since 2008
Under con<nuing development to extend scope and
address issues of interpreta<on and applica<on

Ice Class Implica<ons

Structural weight increases
rapidly with ice class
Strength buys the poten<al for
extending safe opera<ons
Operators, designers need a full
understanding of opera<onal
requirements before selec<ng
base ice class, and any
supplementary features
Builders, Class and regulators
have a set of common rules

Nominal

PC 1
PC 2
PC 3
PC 4
PC 5
PC 6

1A Super

PC 7

1A

Bal<c Rules / Polar Code/ Polar Rules

Bal<c Rules
Ice-classes reect rst-year ice condi<ons
Power and ice-class are inter-related (systems approach)
Elas<c principles for structure
Infrastructure, including SAR, is sucient and close by
Polar Code / Polar Rules
Ice-classes selected for expected opera<on, from possibly
no ice, to year-round management of mul<-year ice
No prescribed power requirement - assumes owner will
establish power requirement sucient for safe opera<on
Plas<c principles for structure
Limited infrastructure in place
Remote opera<ons

Ice Class Challenges

Low ambient air
temperature
eects on engine
performance

Protec<on of EER
and safety systems

Ice accre<on on deck

and equipment

Human element
for
cold weather
opera<on

Winteriza<on challenges
Strengthening challenges

Ice free naviga<on

equipment
Enclosed bridge
ahead and astern

Ice eects and impacts

on propellers, thrusters,
rudders, etc.
Stern quarter strengthening
due to improved
maneuverability
Ice free sea chest and
by azimuthing thrusters
ballast tank
Tidewater PSV Concept Ice Class PC7 (Courtesy of MMC Ship Design)

Ice interac<ons
with hull structure
and various hull
forms

Adequate powering to
overcome ice
resistance

Vessel
maneuverability in ice

IACS Unied Requirements for Polar

Class Ships
STRUCTURAL

MACHINERY

Structural Tasks
Terminology
Ship-Ice Interac<ve Scenarios
Polar Classes
Hull Areas
Materials and Grades of Steel
Abrasion/Corrosion Allowances
Longitudinal Strength
Pla<ng and Framing
Powering
Appendages
Direct Calcula<ons

Machinery Tasks
Propeller-Ice Interac<on Forces
Propeller Strength Procedures
ShaRing
Gears
Steering Systems
Sea Water Cooling
Powering
Machinery Accelera<ons

Ice Class Challenges

l

Ice strengthening
n

Local hull structure

Shell pla<ng, framing, stringers, grillages, etc.

Propulsion line
Propellers, thrusters, shaRing, gears, etc.

Minimum strengthening requirements

contained in ice class rules

Low temperature challenges

n

Winteriza<on
Materials - hull and equipment
Vessel systems, oumitng and machinery
Safety Systems

Human factors

Major Parts of IACS Polar Class: UR I2

Hull Areas (I2.2)
Design Ice Loads (I2.3)
Shell Plate Requirements (I2.4)
Frame Requirements (I2.5 - I2.9)
Transversely-framed
Longitudinally-framed
Structural stability
Corrosion and Abrasion (I2.11)
Materials (I2.12)
Longitudinal Strength (I2.13)

Major Parts of IACS Polar Class: UR I3

Materials (I3.3)
Ice Interac<on load (I3.4)
Design (I3.5)
Machinery fastening loading

accelera<ons (I3.6)
Auxiliary systems (I3.7)
Sea inlets and cooling water systems
(I3.8)
Ballast tanks (I3.9)
Ven<la<on system (I3.10)

The Polar Class Rules are the best available basis for the design
of the next genera<on of ice-capable ships.

Polar Classes
l

Lowest Polar Class (PC7): should have general levels of

strengthening roughly comparable to Bal<c 1A

Highest Polar Class (PC1): capable of independent opera<on

without limita<ons

The Polar Rules provide a minimum level of ice strengthening. All

Polar Classes can encounter ice condi<ons



that could damage the structure

Class selec<on is a balance among ice

condi<ons, opera<onal

requirements, and cost

22

Polar Class Issues

l

Several issues are not addressed in the Polar Rules (URs) and
Class can provide guidance
n Ice Breaker nota<on, non-icebreaking hull forms,
appendages, large framing members, stem/ stern frames, etc.

Class provides op<onal Enhanced nota<ons for most gaps

M/V Nanuq Ice Class A1 (Source: Shell)

Source: Transport Canada

Source: Samsung Heavy Industries

Equivalency
One-to-one equivalency cannot be established among Ice
Class nota<ons
Issues to be considered for comparison
Number of ice classes, hull areas, corrosion and abrasion
treatments, elas<c versus plas<c approaches
Limited vessels designed to Polar Class
Lack of minimum powering requirement in the Polar UR
Only approximate correspondence is appropriate

Common Features - Opera<on

Crewing
Training
Info: ice charts, nav. charts,
communica<ons
Manuals & Procedures
Independent naviga<on /
Escort

Crewing and Training

Opera<ng in ice requires specialized
exper<se, built on experience and
training
Ice naviga<on training simulators are
a work in progress
Signicant onboard and local or
regional experience required
Availability of trained ice naviga<on
personnel is an increasing issue
Standardized cer<ca<on scheme
must be a priority for IMO, owners,
and Administra<ons

THE VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE.

Establishing Crewing Requirements

for Polar waters
Inter-rela<onship between
STW Code and Polar Code
STW establishes
competences and training
requirements
Polar Code sets out
requirements
how many, when, where,
previous experience

Polar Opera<ng Limita<ons

Ice Passports and Ice Regimes
Russian prac<ce is a model, though assump<ons and theory
are mostly unknown
Canadian Ice Regime system is popular with its users
Polar class design methods lend themselves to es<ma<on of
safe speeds for prevailing condi<ons
Some suppliers (e.g. podded propulsion manufacturers) specify
limits for the opera<on of their equipment
Safety and other equipment specied by temperature limits
Enforcement by knowledgeable operators supplemented by
ag State / port State control

Other Common Opera<onal Features

Examples can include:
Opera<on of cooling water systems to prevent ice inges<on
Opera<on of ballas<ng systems/tanks to reduce risk of
freeze-up
Opera<on of machinery space HVAC to maintain reasonable
temperatures and prevent damage to engine systems
Procedures for berthing, mooring, and anchoring
Winteriza<on guidelines need to be incorporated in operator
guidance as well as design development

Advantages of the Polar Code/ Polar Rules

approach
Joint on-going development eort and in future
based on common framework for research and
analysis of in-service results
Construc<on standards closely linked to Classica<on
Rules
Transparent, shared standards
Benets will increase as designers, builders,
operators become more familiar with the concepts
Preparedness for remote opera<on and winteriza<on

Rescue Services for Polar waters

If ship abandonment is needed:
LSA nominal capaci<es do not account for bulky cold
weather clothing or survival suits
LiferaRs have very low survivability in pack ice condi<ons,
and other severe limita<ons
Standard lifeboats have limited ice capability and liwle
inherent winteriza<on
Oshore industry has been proac<ve in seeking bewer
solu<ons; shipping (largely) has not

Rescue is likely to take a long Hme.

Impact of mandatory requirements for

Bal<c owners
No direct impact if opera<ons are only in Bal<c or
similar condi<ons
If opera<ng outside Bal<c, more consistent applica<on
of equivalencies between IACS and Bal<c ice classes
Choice of ice class for specic opera<ons
Direct impact from construc<on requirements
Plas<c-based structural design balances steel
requirements
Designers and builders will become more procient
due to common rules

Mandatory Polar Code/Rules

Implica<ons for Operators
New vessels
Will need to meet all requirements
Determine what you want do and select appropriate Polar
Ice Class
Changes in design approach should mean more eec<ve use
of steel

Exis<ng vessels
Will depend on what requirements are applied
retroac<vely, if any

Conclusion
Introduc<on of comprehensive
mandatory Polar Code/ Rules

will enhance safety and
environmental protec<on for
remote opera<ons in rou<ne
and extreme condi<ons
Polar Code/ Rules provides
exibility in selec<on of ice-
class and power
Common construc<on
requirements can be
improved, but with one set of
rules, all benet
Essen<al gaps need to
addressed, others later

ON THE HUNT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.