search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
establish whether the arrangement was compliant with the approved Cargo Securing Manual.


This is where securing the containers is so important. In a boisterous seaway the vessel pitches and rolls, depending on the ship stability and the direction from where the seas are coming, these motions could translate adverse vessel motions resulting in excessive racking, compression and separation forces within the container stow.


It’s not just the overall weight of the containers that can lead to a movement of stowage, but the distribution of those weights within the stack, how the contents are distributed and secured inside the container and how the ship is handled in heavy weather are key factors too.


DOMINO EFFECT Each twistlock on a container vessel has been typically designed with a 25-tonne maximum securing load. In a bay filled with all rows of containers with similar weight distribution, the bay acts like a solid block with little relative movement. But container stacks with significant weight variations act independently, each reacting differently to the vessel’s motions.


Lashing bars between the container stacks and deck are tensioned but over the course of a voyage they may loosen and need to be re-tightened.


Twistlocks and lashing bars need to be re-tightened, particularly during heavy seas when the cargo moves more.


All very well in calm weather, but in bad weather – when they are needed even more – it simply may not be possible for the crew to do this.


If the tension is


not maintained, one stack may move more than the adjacent stack and a slapping motion may develop. Over time, in the ‘right’ conditions this can have a domino effect, one stack leans against the next, overloading its securing


components, until the whole bay becomes unstable, and overloading the securing arrangement such that the container stack(s) topple.


It might be that just one container at which a structural component has failed. The strength of a container is in the corner posts and structural rails and if one aspect fails, it can lead to the collapse of the entire stack. Any weak points in a container structure become critical when they have, at times up to 10 containers secured above.


UPDATING CLASS RULES The container industry has changed significantly over the last ten years, with the trend being for larger and larger vessels. Classification Societies set the rules for vessel loading configurations, but with partial loading and discharging of the bays at various ports, vessel stability on a voyage can vary dramatically. This can and does on occasion translate into a sub-10 second roll period that can generate dynamic lashing forces that are far greater than what the lashing system was designed to withstand.


Where isolated container stacks may be a requirement between ports, the effect of severe weather can be more profound. By example, in the North Sea, weather conditions can change quickly and the relatively shallow sea (30- 35m deep) can at times produce treacherously short and steep waves, alternately in the Far East during typhoon season this can produce a whole range of extreme weather conditions and difficulties when trying to reduce movement of the vessel in a seaway.


In 2009, a paper published by Marin, Lashings@sea examined the forces experienced on a container ship using fitted sensors.


It


revealed that many Class Rules are based on assumptions not reality. The modern, bigger ships are more flexible and container fixings need to be similarly responsive.


The Marin research found that with a ship in a head sea, the


82 | The Report • December 2020 • Issue 94


slamming motion can pass along the length of the vessel as a travelling wave through the hull. When this wave reaches the aft end, the lighter structure shows peak accelerations of similar amplitude to the original slamming forward. This can increase the loading on a container’s lashings by 40-50%, but it remains unclear if all the classification societies calculate or currently allow for such additional forces when approving the Cargo Securing Manual that the crew must use to assess the container stowage before each voyage.


Ship loading programmes are based on assumed vessel motions at a predetermined GM value by the approving classification society. Unfortunately, when adverse weather is encountered it is not unusual for the parameters that the stowage is being assessed against are exceeded.


At the end of the day, it’s about getting the basics right. The container weight (VGM) needs to be verified before loading plans are developed and thereafter the vessel’s crew must follow the loading plan and check the loading weights are in line with the Cargo Securing Manual.


In every incident I have investigated, the ship has had loading software, but it has not always been used to its fullest extent. Before entering port, the vessel would likely receive the proposed loading plan.


This should be put into the loading computer and checked for compliance and where anomalies are found with stack weights, poor weight distribution and potentially excessive lashing forces against the Cargo Securing Manual criteria and/or stability these need to be immediately raised with shore planners and amendments to the loading plan made.


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  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116