AKER ARCTIC TECHNOLOGY EXPERTISE ON THE POLAR CODE

AKER ARCTIC TECHNOLOGY
16.9.2020 @Aker Arctic Technology
POLAR CODE –
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT?
Rob Hindley
Webinar 16.9.2020
ICE CLASS SELECTION & ICE
STRENGTHENING BEYOND THE RULES
Ville Valtonen

01
Our mission is to develop services and products
that enable sustainable and safe operations in
ice-covered waters
02
Design and construction of ships operating in ice
requires experience and a special understanding
of the harsh environmental conditions
03
Our expertise draws on decades of icebreaker
shipbuilding projects and continues today with the
design of modern vessels and highly educated
and motivated personnel
04
We support shipowners, shipyards, and ship
operators with our tailor-made designs and
services
05
Unique Capabilities: Ship design personnel
and own ice test basin in one location
06
Personnel: 50
Locations: Helsinki, St Petersburg, Shanghai
The Ice Technology
Partner
16.9.2020 Aker Arctic Technology

THE POLAR CODE
What have we learnt?
Rob Hindley
Webinar 16.9.2020

Objective
The Polar Code – what have we
learnt?
Our perspective on using the Polar
Code and some learnings from recent
applications

Topics we’ll cover
• Background to the Polar Code
• Key Code Requirements
• What do goal-based standards
really mean in practice?
• Steps involved in applying the
Polar Code, with some
learning points
• Operational Limitations – Ice

Background to the Code
• Set of additions to SOLAS and MARPOL
(IMO regulations) to reflect the hazards of
operating safely in a Polar environment and
the sensitivity of the environment itself
• Entered into force 01 January 2017
• Applies to existing ships from first
intermediate or renewal survey after 01
January 2018
• Applies to ships carrying SOLAS certificates
(excludes fishing vessels, small pleasure
craft, ships operating exclusively on domestic
service)

Layout of Key Code Requirements
• Intended to address hazards of operating in Polar waters:
• Ice
• Low temperature
• Remoteness / High latitudes
• Safety Part: (add-ons to SOLAS and STCW) covers communication, navigation,
life saving, fire safety, structures, watertight integrity, machinery, stability,
manning, training
• Environmental Protection Part: (add-ons to MARPOL) covers pollution
prevention from oil, NLS, garbage, sewage
• Safety Part is GOAL BASED
• Environmental Protection Part is PRESCRIPTIVE

Goal Based Standards
• Goal based means different things to
different people
• Goal based = not prescriptive = not a rule
book to follow that will lead to a prescribed
single design solution or limitation to design
(or operation)
• Doesn’t necessary mean goal-based design
• Unusual for the marine industry
• IMO have adopted Goal Based Standards –
this was a new approach to regulation in the
shipping industry
• For the Polar Code this means multiple
design & operational solutions to meet
Code’s functional requirements

Example of goal-based framework
Link to goal
Link to functional
requirements
Lowest tier of
requirements in
the Code

Content Highlights
• Polar Water Operational Manual (PWOM) is to
be developed by the operator and be onboard.
This links operational mitigation measures with
equipment installed.
• Icing & cold protection of machinery, comms
and navigation systems similar topics to most
classification society rules, but less prescriptive
• Strength (of hull and machinery) refer to the ice
classes (polar classes)
• Ice damage stability requirements for ships of
• Minimum training requirements for
watchkeeping officers
• Survival resources / LSA requirements for
extended periods on ice, in water, on land

Ship Categories
• Polar Code assigns ship category,
primarily based on the ice class
• PC7 & PC6 are Category B, IA and
IA Super are not by default
• Choose the ice class, then the
category
• Ship Category is only used in 4
places in Part IA of the Code to
differentiate between requirements
• What is more important is if a ship is
a “ship intended to operate in low
air temperature”. This has far wider
reaching effects on Polar Code
requirements
Operation in at least medium first
year ice which may include old ice
inclusions
PC1 to PC5 or equivalent
Operation in at least thin first year ice
which may include old ice inclusions
PC6 to PC7 or equivalent
Operation in open
water and in ice
conditions less severe
than those of Category
A and B

Operational Envelope
Determine / Confirm
Operational Assessment
Owner / Designer Led
(Update) Procedures
Include in PWOM
AUDIT
Suitable equipment to meet
limitations?
Install / upgrade / specify
equipment
Class Review
Documents / onboard Survey
Operational Limitations
Anticipate / Expected
Steps in
Polar Code
Application

Operational Envelope
• Terminology isn’t explicitly in the Polar Code
• Identify the operations: what, where, when
• Gather environmental data early: now public domain
data sources for ice, temperature and SAR. For
unusual routes / areas may need specialist data
sources

Operational Limitations
Anticipate what limitations you need / will get
• Identify limiting ice conditions for operation
and select ice class on this basis
→ understand impact of season of operation
on design and costs (Ice Class)
• Identify SAR resources and select maximum
expected time to rescue (ETR)
• Identify limiting temperature for operations
→understand impact of season of operation
on design temperature and costs (PST)
• Identify limiting latitude
Short adjustment in operational season
has significant impact on design
temperature

Audit
Check you can achive the limitations you are
setting
• For existing ships, an initial check on equipment
suitability for the selected PST is recommended
• Also a check with flag / class about expectations and
issues prior to the operational assessment
• For new designs, validation of the operational limitations
with the owner and with the outline design requirements
/ specification
• If necessary, go back and revise the operational
limitations (and involve all stakeholders)

• Establish (confirm) operational limitations
• Identify survival resources, additional hazards
• Decide on the balance of mitigation measures
(equipment vs. procedures)
• A good operational envelope definition is key
• 2 rounds are to be expected
• Experienced operators find it difficult to identify
hazards and mitigation measures that are part
of their daily routine
• Input of shipboard crew invaluable for
practicalities of addressing Chapter 8
requirements

PWOM and Proceedures
• Keep it simple (less is more)
• Specifically address hazards identified in
• Use existing material, but avoid copy &
paste
• Linking to existing SMS content can be
problematic
• Avoid route specifics if you expect to trade in
alternative areas
• Should be operator ”led” – avoid purchasing
PWOM ”off the shelf”
• Non-SOLAS operations should be
considered but added as a supplement or
appendix (not for submission)

Specify
• For new builds, operational limitations should be
in specification (ice class, PST, ETR, latitude)
• Equipment that is identified in the Operational
Assessment must be specified, or provision
made for it’s storage if owner supply
• Useful to make a list of all areas where ”means to
be provided” is used in the Code and be sure you
have a means specified

Flag (Class) Review
• Flag administrations and Class are not aligned
– it is important to engage with both early
• Most common problem with submissions is the
content of the PWOM does not align with the
Operational Assessment Report
• Potential for Port State Control Officers to use
content of PWOM as a prescriptive
requirement – be careful with adding material
for the sake of it, it may compromise your
compliance in reality!

Operational Limitations – what are
they?
• Polar Code requires operational limitations to be
identified during the Operational Assessment
• Essentially these limits are set by the owner / operator
when the operational envelope is defined
• But these limitations go on to the Polar Ship Certificate
• Limitations relate to the key Polar hazards: temperature
– limited by the PST
• Latitude – limited by a stated value (oN / oS)
• Ice – limited by ???

Setting Operational Limiations - POLARIS
Slide 22
6
9 8 4
1 1 4
3
OR
SHIP’S ICE
CLASS
ICE FREE NEW ICE GREY ICE GREY WHITE
ICE
THIN FIRST
YEAR 1ST
STAGE
THIN FIRST
YEAR 2ND
STAGE
MEDIUM
FIRST YEAR
MEDIUM
FIRST YEAR
2ND STAGE
THICK FIRST
YEAR
SECOND
YEAR
MULTI YEAR HEAVY
MULTI YEAR
PC 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
PC 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0
PC 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1
PC 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2
PC 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -2 -2
PC 6 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -3
PC 7 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -3 -3
IAS 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -4
IA 3 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -5
IB 3 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -6
IC 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8
No Ice Class 3 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -8
RISK INDEX VALUES (RIVs) for each Ice Type
Ice types in ice regime
Ice conditions
CALCULATION OF
RISK INDEX
OUTCOME (RIO)
DECISION TO
OPERATE
POLARIS RISK INDEX
ICE REGIME
(strength of ship)

POLARIS in one Slide
RIV’s assigned for ice class PC7:
RIO = (4x3) + (4 x-2) +(1x-3)+(1x-3)
40% ice free + 40% thick first Yr+10% Second Yr+10%
Multi Yr
RIO= -2
Outcome for PC7 ship in this ice regime =
Elevated operational risk

POLARIS Plots
ABS PolarView
Plots of operational risk can now be plotted for a specific ice class for
current and historical ice conditions, useful for understanding overall risk

Challenges with POLARIS
• Setting regulatory limitations for operation in ice is a challenge due to the variability of
conditions
• POLARIS was conceived as a decision support system, not a regulatory yes/no – it should
not be used blindly
• It is a tool, one risk mitigation measure: a starting point, not the definitive answer in all
conditions
• Risks from lower concentrations of heavier ice in the ice regime are not well represented
• Glacial ice risks are not explicit
• Adjustment for icebreaker escort is coarse
• Slow speeds at elevated operational risk level are relatively coarse
• Elevated operational risk is only applicable to ships which have demonstrated equivalent
level of safety to Polar Class ships, and in any case should not be used for voyage planning

Refining Operational Limits
Ice Load Monitoring Systems & Ice Trials
• POLARIS allows ships equipped with
ice load monitoring systems to
calibrate recommended speed limits
for elevated risk operations
• Aker Arctic are involved in using both
sets of data to refine operational limits
for clients
• Aker Arctic’s Ice Load Monitoring
System, ArcILMS, can be used to
supplement operational guidance
16.9.2020 @Aker Arctic Technology

• Aker Arctic has developed
“wheelhouse” posters for
recent ship projects to
provide quick guidance to
operators, using our
knowhow
• Information such as this can
also be supplementary to
POLARIS in the PWOM
Refining Operational Limits

Polar Code Resources
Arctic Council / PAME: www.arcticshippingforum.is

1.
2.
3.
4.
Operational Envelope is key to effective Polar Code implementation
Successful Polar Code application needs engagement of stakeholders early
and throughout the process
Operational limitations in ice start with POLARIS, but there are more
resources available to ensure appropriate operational risk mitigation for
safe operations in ice
Goal based framework of the Code allows for a range of risk mitigation
measures to be adopted, but these need specifying, and require an
understanding of best practices

ICE CLASS SELECTION &
ICE STRENGTHENING
BEYOND THE RULES
Ville Valtonen
Webinar 16.9.2020

Today, we are going to focus on hull

However, don’t forget propulsion
Similar principles apply
Make sure propulsion is not your weakest link

How to select appropriate ice
strengthening for your vessel?

Where you operate?
Sea areas with seasonal ice cover
• Only first-year ice
Polar regions
• Multi-year ice features

Ice conditions – maximum thickness?

Ice conditions – Ice strength?

Ice conditions – Ridges, MY / glacial ice?

How you operate?
Independent navigation
Icebreaker escort

What is your vessel capable of?

• Is power decided by
icebreaking requirement or
other reasons → How fast the
vessel can actually go in ice?
• Vessels should be designed
so that speed in ice is limited
by performance, not hull
strength
What is your vessel capable of –
Performance?

What is your vessel capable of –
Maneuverability?
Traditional shaftlines Podded vessels

Define design scenario(s)
For example
• 5 kn into 1.5 m first year ice
• Ramming at 8 kn into 15 m ridge
• Compressive ice up to 1.2 m
Nominal icebreaking capability
is not same as design ice
thickness for hull strength

What is the goal of ice strengthening?
• Balance between safety and steel
weight
• Shipbuilding steel is ductile and has
large plastic reserve → small dents
are acceptable
A B C
A
B
C

What is the goal of ice strengthening?
• Structural failure, such as deep dents, rupture and collapse should
be avoided with suitable margin of safety

How to select ice class for your vessel?

Regulatory minimums for ice classes
For some sea areas, the required ice
class comes from regulatory regime
• Baltic Sea → Finnish-Swedish ice class
• Russian Arctic → RS ice class
• Polar regions in general → PC ice class or
equivalent

Where the ice class rules come from?
• Experience
• Damage measurements &
statistics
• Science & research

Rule overview – Finnish-Swedish Ice
Class Rules (FSICR)
• Mandatory on Finnish and Swedish
waters in winter
• “De facto” rules for commercial
shipping on non-Polar Seas
• Mainly based on extensive damage
statistics
• Ice strengthening only on ice belt
→ not suitable for Arctic use

Rule overview – IACS Polar Class (PC)
• Harmonized IACS rule
• Several class society have applied
their own additions
• Based on glancing impact with
large ice feature
• Popov collision model
• For vessels navigating
independently and conservatively

Rule overview – Russian Register (RS)
Rules
• Based on hydrodynamic model
of ship/ice impact (Popov) &
experience from Russian Arctic
• Separate requirements for
cargo vessels and icebreakers

When you can just apply the rules?
When and why you need to go beyond the
rules?

When is it enough to design to rulebook ?
Rules are developed for typical vessels, based on experience from
existing fleet
• Shaftline propulsion with
normal rudder
• Typical bow shape (moderate
icebreaking bow)
• Operated in typical way

When and why you need to go beyond the rules –
special bow shapes

azimuthing propulsion

high lift rudders

special operations
Shallow water
Grounded ridges Ship wider than icebreaker

special operations
Aggressive operations Escort icebreaking

Example
How to strengthen stern of DAS vessel?

How should the stern be designed?
Example – DAS vessel

Scenarios
Vessel with traditional propulsion
Double acting vessel™

Traditional propulsion

Rule minimums for normal vessel

Stern as bow

Tailor made

Define final ice strengthening considering points above
Operate the vessel safely within defined limits
Define ice conditions & operating scenarios
Select appropriate base ice class
Consider any features & scenarios that need special attention
Define where and how you operate
ICE FREE NEW ICE GREY ICE GREY WHITE
ICE
THIN FIRST
YEAR 1ST
STAGE
THIN FIRST
YEAR 2ND
STAGE
MEDIUM
FIRST YEAR
MEDIUM
FIRST YEAR
2ND STAGE
THICK FIRST
YEAR
SECOND
YEAR
MULTI YEAR HEAVY
MULTI YEAR
PC 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
PC 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0
PC 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1
PC 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2
PC 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -2 -2
PC 6 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -3
PC 7 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -3 -3
IAS 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -4
IA 3 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -5
IB 3 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -6
IC 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8
No Ice Class 3 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -8
RISK INDEX VALUES (RIVs) for each Ice Type

Merenkulkijankatu 6
FI - 00980 Helsinki, Finland
tel.+358 10 323 6300
info@akerarctic.fi
www.akerarctic.fi
Aker Arctic
The Ice Technology Partner
Thank you
for attending our webinar
We will send the recording of this session by
e-mail tomorrow
Please contact the speakers if you have any
questions afterwards.
Rob Hindley
rob.hindley@akerarctic.fi
Ville Valtonen
ville.valtonen@akerarctic.fi
NEXT WEBINAR:
October’s Webinar
Winterization of ice class vessels.
Training and operational issues.
The invitation will be sent by e-mail
to all of today’s participants

AKER ARCTIC TECHNOLOGY EXPERTISE ON THE POLAR CODE

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to AKER ARCTIC TECHNOLOGY EXPERTISE ON THE POLAR CODE

Similar to AKER ARCTIC TECHNOLOGY EXPERTISE ON THE POLAR CODE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

AKER ARCTIC TECHNOLOGY EXPERTISE ON THE POLAR CODE