Post on 25-May-2015
description
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 ?