Anchoring of Large Container Ships v0
Anchoring of Large Container Ships v0
Anchoring of Large Container Ships v0
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Some modern container ships are larger than most of the existing fleet, whose experience has been used
as the basis of classification rules and requirements. It is therefore reasonable to question whether
existing requirements are appropriate for them. One such area that has been questioned is the
requirements for anchoring. It has been suggested that the high stacks of above-deck containers may be
inadequately represented in the existing requirements.
1.2 Objective
This note considers the adequacy of IACS requirements for anchoring of large container ships.
2 ANCHORING REQUIREMENTS
EN = ∆2/3 + 2 B H + 0.1 A
Where:
∆= displacement
B= beam
H= height of uppermost deckhouse above waterline
A= profile area above waterline of hull, superstructure and deckhouses
For each value of EN, the required anchor mass and the length and diameter of anchor chain are
tabulated. The required anchor mass is directly proportional to the EN.
These requirements apply to all ship types, so they are applied to large container ships without
modification.
• The environmental loading is assumed to be 25 m/s wind, 2.5 m/s current and no waves.
• The current drag is based on displacement (the first term in the EN formula).
• The wind drag is based on the front projected area and the side profile area (the other two
terms).
• The front area is in effect treated as 20 times more important than the side area.
• Average drag coefficients are used, i.e. the same for all ship types and sizes.
1
• The variation of wind speed with height is not explicitly represented.
• The assumed environmental loading can be exceeded, and in particular wave loading is likely to
exist as well, but this could occur for any ship.
• Wind and current could come from different directions, but this could occur for any ship.
• The relative importance of current drag has not been independently checked, but is unlikely to
be an issue for large container ships.
• The wind drag may be more significant on large container ships. Deck-stowed containers are not
considered in the profile area, and the reason for this are not documented. For mooring and
towing equipment requirements (IACS UR A2) they are included. However, because the
deckhouse is higher than container stacks, they are implicitly included in the front area, and this
is much more important for the EN.
• The high weighting on front area reflects an assumption that the ship will lie mainly head to wind
while anchored, which seems reasonable.
• The variation of wind speed with height may be more significant on ships with high deckhouses,
such as large container ships. Some simple calculations might show whether this was significant.
• The anchor holding power is in reality more closely related to fluke area, but this is
approximately proportional to anchor mass.
The main concern regarding large container ships therefore appears to be the height of the deckhouse,
which might result in higher wind pressures. In principle a more accurate formulation could be developed,
but justification of this would require evidence that the inaccuracies led to inadequate requirements.
2
Only 17 anchor dragging events were identified from this period, of which 8 led to grounding, 5 led to
collisions and 4 followed engine failure. Anchor dragging in other circumstances is not normally reported
in this database. All but 2 of the events resulted in serious casualties, and there were 3 total losses.
By combining with fleet data, the average frequency of container ship casualties involving anchor
dragging during 2000-14 is estimated to be 2.9 x 10-4 per ship year.
There have been more events recently, but this is largely due to the growth in the fleet of container
ships. The frequency per ship year for the period 2013-14 was 5.0 x 10-4, which is 72% higher than the
long-term average, but this difference is not statistically significant due to the relatively small number of
events. It could also result from improvements in reporting to the database, or from more stormy
weather.
The database has little causal information, but it does indicate that 12 occurred during severe weather
and only 1 in good weather. All 17 vessels appear to have been in service at the time.
There is no indication that large container ships are disproportionately involved. The average size of
container ships suffering anchor dragging was 19,000GT, whereas the average size of container ships
suffering grounding, collision or machinery failure in general was 29,000GT.
The results show little variation between ship types. The average frequency is 6.0 x 10-4 per ship year.
The only ship type with a frequency that is significantly different to average is general cargo ships,
whose frequency was 64% above average. The frequency on container ships is 17% below average, but
this difference is not statistically significant due to the relatively small number of events.
Overall, this suggests that container ships have slightly lower frequencies of casualties due to anchor
dragging, but more data would be needed to confirm this.
3
4 OPERATIONAL ASPECTS
The operational aspect is most important for the matter of anchor dragging. A prerequisite for safe
anchoring is to know the limitations of the anchoring system. It is most important that crews plan the
anchoring operation appropriately with respect to the weather forecast. The anchor should be weighed as
soon as environmental conditions come close to these limits. Also it is important to constantly monitor
the position of the ship to identify dragging as early as possible. The holding ground is also important in
this respect as dragging may occur earlier if the anchor holding power is impaired by bad holding ground.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In summary, while there are a few reasons to suspect that the assumptions underlying the anchoring
requirements may be less accurate for large container ships, there is no evidence from theoretical
investigations or the casualty record to suggest that anchoring requirements are insufficient for them.
Hence there is no incentive to develop a more accurate formulation.
The casualty record suggests that the largest risk of anchor dragging is on general cargo ships. Smaller
container ships appear to be more affected than large ones. This might be because anchor dragging
tends to result from poor anchoring practices rather than insufficient anchoring requirements.
J Spouge
DNV GL
3 March 2016
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: