ship may lose control over the roll angels as the action of the wave rolls the vessel increasingly over.
Size matters as bigger vessels move differently in the sea compared with smaller vessels. For example, investigations following the APL China incident in 1998 revealed that large box ships with large bow flares are particularly exposed to parametric rolling. Furthermore, the containers on board the largest container vessels are stowed up to 40 meters above the waterline and 60 meters wide across the deck. When ships and container stacks of these dimensions start rolling, you do not have to be a physicist to understand that container stacks will be subject to great forces when the vessel starts to move with the motions of the sea.
Ship stowage plays an important factor because weight distribution on-board also influences the vessel’s motions at sea. The GM is a measurement of the initial static stability of the vessel. It is of the utmost importance to get the GM within the right range before the voyage. This represents challenges in terms of correct cargo planning both ashore and on-board. In practice, advanced software will do most of the job, but computer programs depend on correct software development, correct data entered as well as human interaction and, ultimately, human decisions.
The metacentric height (GM) is calculated as the distance between the centre of gravity of a ship and its metacenter. The metacentric
height influences the natural period of rolling of a hull and a low GM will cause the vessel to roll excessively with too large movements. A high GM implies greater initial stability against overturning, but high GM is also associated with shorter periods of roll which will cause rapid movements and greater forces on the cargo stowage. Hence, the GM will have to be correct - not too high, not to low.
Cargo stowage inside containers causes problems as a container stack is only as strong as its weakest container. If cargo inside one container starts to shift, it may have a domino effect on the stack. There have been severe cases where one piece of cargo has damaged its container structure resulting in the collapse of a complete row of containers. Therefore, the Container Securing Manual (CSM) must be followed accurately, and further stowage guidelines should be sought for problematic cargoes. One of the challenges is that container carriers largely depend on shippers, freight forwarders or their sub-contractors to pack and secure cargoes adequately. Errors are inevitable.
The container is designed to fit the purpose of containing cargo, but if exposed to excessive weight pressure from excessive loads, containers may suffer structural failure. Container shells are exposed to wear and tear, rough handling and operations which may weaken their structure. If one container fails, the rest of the stow above and around will follow.
The weight of cargo will be declared by the shippers. Mis- declaration of weight is an industry problem and may cause considerable difficulty for cargo stowage planners as they rely on cargo details as declared by the shippers. If numbers are inaccurate, or even deliberately mis-declared, the integrity of container stacks may be jeopardized.
Lashing and securing of thousands of containers in large stacks onboard is a major challenge. Failure to do it correctly may have serious consequences. In simple terms containers on deck are attached to each other with twist locks in the four corners of the container. Further lashing rods are attached between the container stack and lashing bridges or hatch covers. Each twist lock and lashing rod needs to be in its right place to work and be able to withhold required forces. Inadequate securing, missing or failing twist locks and lashings that become loose are probably among the more common causes of containers lost at sea. Failures in securing have caused severe incidents.
Multiple causes often make cases complex, not least when working with liability. In most cases there are elements of several of the abovementioned causes which lead lawyers deep into legal considerations about issues such as proximate causes, intervening causes, independent sufficient causes and foreseeability.
74 | The Report • September 2020 • Issue 93
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
