Safety & Efficiency

JIP 2006-2009Ir. Jos Koning

Marin

IMO DSC 15

London - September 14th 2010

2

lunch session / lashing@sea

3

Contents

– Lashing@Sea project

– Are incidents acceptable or not ?

– What is causing these incidents

– Conclusions / Recommendations

4

– Assemble group of stakeholders to evaluate lashing on ships.

– Improve understanding lashing physics

– Lashing for reduced environmental conditions (RoRo).

– Improve practical safety and efficiency of lashing on board

Container Vessels, Ro-Ro and Heavy lift vessels

Lashing@Sea Objectives

5

Participants

1. Maersk ShpMgmt

2. CMA CGM

3. Danaos

4. Wilhelmsen Wallenius

5. Norfolk

6. NYK

7. Royal Wagenborg

8. Spliethoff / BigLift

Shipping

9. United European Car

Carriers (UECC)

1. ABS

2. Bureau Veritas

3. DNV

4. GL

5. LR

6. Dutch Min Trnsprt

7. SMA (swe)

8. MCA (uk)

9. MIB/Senter Novem

10. MARIN

1. German Lashing

2. MacGregor

3. SEC

4. Amarcon

5. MariTerm as

6. SIRI Marine

6

Scope of work

– RoRo / Heavy Lift -> lashing wrt voyage climate

– Container shipping -> Increasing safety

– Review current practice

– Crew questionnairs

– Interviews

– In service measurements

– Tests in controlled environment

7

8

RoRo tests

– Conducted 8-14 sept 2008

High cog

Rigid suspension

Light vehiclesFlexible suspension

Chain vs web

9

Test setup 1:4

10

Contents

– Lashing@Sea project

– Are incidents acceptable or not ?

– What is causing these incidents

– Conclusions / Recommendations

11

Are incidents acceptable ?

– Insurance

0.02%0.02%

– Operator

– Consequential damage

– Public opinion

– Environment & public

– Overall numbers too high

– Fear of hazardous cargo

12

Hazards

– Indirect

– Environment

– Other traffic

– Direct:

– Crew

– Stevedores / port workers

13

Hazards

Other traffic / platforms

Port incidents

14

Conditional question: “Have you ever lost or

damaged a container. What was the cause ?”

Incident Probability

71%

18%

11%

None

Damage

Collapse

Listed reasons for damages / incidents

0

5

10

15

20

25

Speed

/ wea

ther

Wea

ther

hea

d / f

ollow

Twistlo

cks faile

d/op

en

Dec

k fittin

gs fa

iled

Intern

Shift

Cra

ne o

pera

tor

Poor S

towag

e / p

lann

ing

Ove

rweigh

t con

tainer

s

Roll M

otions

Follow sea

15

Acceptible or not ? …

Even though exact numbers are missing:

– Too many incidents in terms of public awareness

– 30% crews run into cargo damages/incidents

There is a need for improvement !.

16

Contents

– Lashing@Sea project

– Are incidents acceptable or not ?

– What is causing these incidents

– Conclusions / Recommendations

17

Generalized causes for incidents

Condition of gear

Different from design

As designed

SAFE

– Environment & Operation

– Proper Designs

– Design vs actual mismatches

– Accidents occur if one or more of

these factors are unfavorable.

– “combination of unfortunate factors”.

18

Operational aspects (human factors)

– General good seamanship and training

– Dealing uncommon seastates

– Sailing with extreme GM

– Effect of shore planning dept on safety

– Application of lashing

– Possibility to recognise high loads developing

– Awareness of underlying reasons

19

Crew questionairs (160 respondents):

“List three things that, according to you, will give the

greatest risk of losing or damaging containers”.

Crew listed causes for cargo loss

0

5

10

15

20

25

Lash

ing

Stw

age

Decl

Weigh

t

Rollin

g

Extr W

eather

Hi G

M

Sta

ck D

yn

Int S

hift

Slam

min

g

Spe

ed

Rout

ing

Hum

an fact

ors

Cont

aine

r qual

ity

Hatc

h motio

ns

Wind

% o

f re

sp

on

ses

20

Crew has good impression on loads ?

Yes

Not from bridge

but from deck

Not always

Not possible

24% yes it is possible.

76% Not – Not always

“Is it possible to get a good impression on the developing loads in the

cargo securings from the bridge and react in time ?. Or can

developing high loads go unnoticed ?.”

Can ship crews react to “situations” ?

21

Improving operational aspects

– Ship crews already perform at high standards

– Increase further by on board systems support

– CSM

– Loading computer

– on board advisory tools,

22

Quality of the design

– Dealing with the “known” effects ?

– Are there “unknown” effects ?

23

Agreement service - design condition

– Declared weights & vertical distribution

– GM

– Wear and tear

– Deck fittings

– Containers

– Lashing gear

– Corner fittings

Off design conditions occur regularly !!

24

Quality of the design…

Measurement findings review

– Measured loads inside IMO limits (2 yrs data)

– Heavy lift and RoRo vessels behave according to

design guidelines

– Large container ships hull dynamics may increase

rigid body loads up to 50% in case of impact. (It’s a lot

but not extreme)

– Row interaction loads can increase container stack

loads -> upto 200% ! -> the unknown effect ?

25

Accelerations - rigid vs flexible ships

26

Impact loadsAmplitude : 6 m/s^2

Approx 30-50% increase due to slam

Harmonic decay 2nd bending

Decay takes 25-30 seconds

27

Row interaction forces …

– On board measurements -> forces in line with

linear expectations.

– Highest tranverse loads in rolling motions long

periods, fully linear

– High vertical loads in head seas, short periods,

stack dynamics clear.

– Model tests MCS single row response in line

with physics expectations

– Multiple rows interaction possible.

28

Setups

1:1 2xteu 1:4 2xteu 1:4 8xteu 1:4 3x8xteu

Container Tests

Reliability

scale

approach

Stack

dynamics

Row interaction

dynamics

29

MCS tests

– Detailed investigation

stack dynamics

– Evaluate effect of

– Height

– Mass

– Lashing pretension

– TL gap clearance

– Row interaction

30

Summary internal loads

– Stack loads respond as expected to mass variation, stack height,

lashing configuration and excitation loads. -> designs OK

– Highest impact on loads found by row interaction under off design

conditions in neighbor rows.

– Dynamic interaction

most likely to explain

multiple row losses.

31

Contents

– Lashing@Sea project

– Are incidents acceptable or not ?

– What is causing these incidents

– Conclusions / Recommendations

32

Conclusions

Container transport

– Main design principles -> more or less OK

– Operational performance on board -> pretty much OK

– Agreement design – service condition -> NOT OK

– Weights, GM, vertical weight distribution, maintenance

RoRo/Heavy lift

– Lashing loads RoRo/Heavy lift in principal well understood

– Load extremes by excessive motions

– Lashing for reduced weather conditions is in principle allowed by

IMO/SOLAS frameworks but should be covered in CSM

– No clear guidance on how this should be done is in place

33

Recommendations

– Container transport safety seems to be most affected by off

design conditions: Stow, sailing conditions, lashing integrity.

– Reliability declared weight of containers and loaded stack wrt stow

plan needs to be improved. Weighing containers and improvement of

interface ship-shore -> mandatory ??

– Maintenance / survey of (fixed) lashing gear to be improved to reduce

probability of failure by corrosion / wear.

– Assist crews to recognise and handle developing exrteme conditions

by improving awareness./ feedback from the vessel. (CSM,

loading/lashing computer, OBAS, handling GM, roll period)

– Investigate the need to review design approach for off design

conditions and non linear events.

– Extreme rolling, slamming, dynamic row interaction

34

Technology

– Use measured container weights for stowage

planning

– Check weights vs stow planning (terminal)

– Promote on board systems dealing with

– extreme GM ( extension to CSM )

– Provide feedback on stability, roll period, loads, and

expected behaviour in (coming) weather

– Warning for non linear events

35

Procedures

– Standard for condition of deck fittings, lashings.

(Annual survey)

– Standard to deal with non conformities

– Checking ?

– Legislation ?

36

Training

– Relevance of loading configuration (planning sct)

– Ship officers for hazards of row interaction

– Box stuffers for secure packing inside

37

Follow up …

- IACS to review project draft “Unified interpretation on

reduced lashing” : in progress;

- Project findings to be presented at IMO DSC 15;

- Administrations to consider formal submissions to IMO

wrt container transport;

- Rule defining bodies were urged to further consider off

design conditions. (No specific actions)

- The project members keep contact in correspondence

group under MARIN’s vessel operator forum

38

Discussion …

- Should containers be weighted mandatory ?

- How could it be endorsed ?

- Is this an IMO topic ?