TMC (Marine Consultants)

Ltd.
container lashings grounding analysis collision investigation machinery failure stability analyses
ship safety audits P& I condition surveys salvage attendance naval architecture heavy lifting unsafe
port investigation speed and performance analyses liquid cargo contamination structural failure
rudder damage container stow collapse investigation wreck removal attendance fuel oil
contamination new building disputes reefer cargo quality control container damage navigational
error pre-purchase surveys fire and explosion draft surveys computerised manoeuvring and
collision analysis steel cargo loading/discharge supervision flooding analyses repair cost
estimates SCOPIC surveyors oil cargo shortages on-hire surveys new building specifications loss
control speed and angle of blow pollution control project cargo supervision salvage claims and
disputes heavy weather damage inclining experiments suitability surveys stevedore damage
machinery damage personal injury claims forest products supervision computerised berthing
simulation off-hire surveys charter party disputes wreck removal concept selection mooring
analysis inspection of class records bunker disputes cargo shifting longitudinal strength analyses
lightering operation supervision P&I new entry surveys towage surveys cargo lashing steel
products container lashings grounding analysis collision investigation machinery failure stability
analyses ship safety audits P& I condition surveys salvage attendance naval architecture heavy
lifting unsafe port investigation speed and performance analyses liquid cargo contamination
structural failure rudder damage container stow collapse investigation wreck removal attendance
fuel oil contamination new building disputes reefer cargo quality control container damage
navigational error pre-purchase surveys fire and explosion draft surveys computerised
manoeuvring and collision analysis steel cargo loading/discharge supervision flooding analyses
repair cost estimates SCOPIC surveyors oil cargo shortages on-hire surveys new building
specifications loss control speed and angle of blow pollution control project cargo supervision
salvage claims and disputes heavy weather damage inclining experiments suitability surveys
stevedore damage machinery damage personal injury claims forest products supervision
computerised berthing simulation off-hire surveys charter party disputes wreck removal concept
selection mooring analysis inspection of class records bunker disputes cargo shifting longitudinal
strength analyses lightering operation supervision P&I new entry surveys towage surveys cargo
lashing steel products container lashings grounding analysis collision investigation machinery
IIMS London Conference 2010
Screens or Windows?
A Surveyors Guide to
Investigating Container Loss
and Damage
 Investigating container deck stow collapses

Marine consultants are faced with increasingly complex

problems
Clients demand in depth analyses and clear presentation
The use of software to perform accident investigations is
often a necessity but is always dependent upon good
traditional surveying
 Arriving on site – what will the surveyor be
presented with?

Knowing what to look for

What are the possible causes to be considered?
What evidence to collect to assist the investigation
How will the evidence be used in the analyses?
Is it possible to separate cause from effect?
 The view from the quay

Getting there promptly (when the ship arrives)

Where to start?
An overview
Which bays and rows?
 Evidence lost overboard

Evidence lost for ever – how much did the cargo really
weigh? How was it secured within the container?
 Damage to individual containers

Do not be distracted
by focussing on
damage to containers
and their cargo
content
Time consuming
Appoint a separate
surveyor to do this
Get onboard
Why do container stowages fail?
THE FORCES ARE TOO HIGH

or

THE STRUCTURE IS TOO WEAK

 The forces are too high

The actual container stowage does not comply with the CSM:-

The container stacks are too heavy

The weight distribution within the stack is incorrect (heavies
over lights)
Containers are stowed in the incorrect place
The containers are heavier than declared
 The forces are too high

Cargo is incorrectly stowed

in the container:-
Cargo is not properly
secured
The CoG is very eccentric
(too high, to one side or
to one end)
The cargo is not suitable
for the container
 The forces are too high
Vessel motions too
great:-
ME failure: inability
to manoeuvre to
minimize motions
Failure to avoid
forecast heavy
weather
Poor ship handling
in adverse weather
Extreme weather
that genuinely
exceeds the design
criteria for the
container securing
arrangements
 The structure is too weak

Containers are old and in poor condition

Containers have suffered physical damage
Wrong type of container – not intended for sea transport
(MAIB ANNABELLA Report)
Containers are designed to the old ISO standard
Securing equipment is not fitted in a configuration in
accordance with the CSM
Securing equipment is incorrectly fitted
The securing equipment is in poor condition
Ship’s fittings are in poor condition
Gathering the evidence - Getting an overview

Which Bays and

Rows are affected?
What are the actual
locations of the
individual containers?
How were the
containers secured?
How should the
containers have been
secured?
Gathering evidence – container failure modes
Determine the likely
type of forces that
damaged the
containers
Container corner
post buckling
Overturning forces
or compression
forces too high
Container corner
post or twistlock
failure
Gathering evidence – container failure modes
Determine the
likely type of
forces that
damaged the
containers
Container racking
failure
Racking forces
too high
Container end
frame or diagonal
lashing bar failure
Gathering evidence – container failure modes

Determine the
likely type of
forces that
damaged the
containers
Shear failure
Transverse
forces too high
Container corner
casting or
twistlock failure
Gathering evidence – container failure modes

Determine the
likely type of
forces that
damaged the
containers
Overturning
Uplift forces too
high
Container corner
casting, twistlock
or hatch top shoe
fitting failure
Securing equipment failures

Three principal items of

loose securing
equipment components
– lashing bars,
turnbuckles and
twistlocks
Other fittings exist –
bridges, buttresses,
stacking cones etc. but
are less common
Check: location where
fitted, how secured,
condition and how
broken
Securing equipment – lashing bars
Lashing bars are fitted
diagonally and principally
provide additional racking
resistance to the container
end frame
Bars are sometimes fitted in
parallel so that the load is
shared between two bars
Vertical bars are often fitted
on the outboard sides (‘wind’
lashings) to provide
additional overturning
restraint
Lashing bars fail in tension
but often disconnect when
the stack topples
 Securing equipment - turnbuckles

Securing pin on turnbuckle saddle not properly fitted

Lashings should be checked on the voyage and
turnbuckles tightened as necessary
Disconnection or slackening of the lashing throws
greater load onto other components and may permit
progressive failure of other securing components or
racking failure of container end frame
 Securing equipment – twistlocks

There are various types and function of twistlock

depending on where they are fitted in the stack – manual
base twistocks, dove-tail twistlocks, semi-automatic
twistlocks, fully automatic twistlocks (FAT)
Twistlocks resist uplift (overturning) and shear forces
and will fail in tension and/or shear
Securing equipment – fully automatic twistlocks

Spring loaded lug allows the stevedores to fit the FAT to

the bottom corner castings underneath a container when
it is lifted from the quayside
The gantry lifts the container to the stack on the ship and
the FATs automatically lock into the container below
Functions purely as a result of the geometry of the FAT
Securing equipment – fully automatic twistlocks

At discharge, a FAT
disconnects from the
corner casting below
by a combination of
vertical and
sideways movement.
The ability of a FAT
to function as a
securing device is
dependent on this
combination of
forces not occurring
at all four corners
simultaneously in a
seaway
 Securing equipment – fully automatic twistlocks

A few years ago a number of container losses were

associated with FATs.
A combination of heave, sway and whipping forces was
believed to have caused some types of FAT to disconnect.
 Ship’s fitting failures

Check ship’s fittings for wastage

Failure of the fitting maybe because of wastage,
previous damage or loads in excess of the certified
break load
Dovetail deck sockets on older ships are prone to
wastage and wear
 Weigh the containers
Under declaration of the
container weight is not
uncommon
It occurs because of an error
transcribing the weight
between the bill of lading and
the Bay Plan or because the
shipper incorrectly declares
the weight in the bill of lading
Containers are not routinely
weighed before they cross the
ship’s rail and there is no
industry wide protocol to do so
If the surviving containers from
a collapsed Bay can be lifted
they can be weighed
Ensure a protocol is agreed
and the weighing is witnessed
by owners, charterers and slot
charterers representatives
Mechanical testing
• Samples of securing
equipment and ship’s
fittings should be
collected for later testing
and metallurgical
examination
• Items should be
selected to represent
both the worst and best
examples
• All items should be
identified and tagged
• A test and examination
protocol (using an ISO
standard where
applicable) should be
agreed between all
parties
Vessel motions

Nothing that can be

‘seen’ by surveyor
Log Books
Weather
reports/forecasts
Witness evidence
Vessel motion
monitoring/VDR
Inclinometers may
provide erroneous
roll angles
 Analyses of the survey findings

TMC use an in house program, COMLASH, to determine the

container securing loads
The program uses standard criteria from class rules (typically LR,
GL, BV, DnV or ABS) to determine the vessel motions and calculate
the forces
The vessel’s draft, GM and roll angle can be input
All boxes can be loaded cell by cell with the correct box size, door
end direction and weight in a table format and displayed in Bay
cross-sections
 COMLASH Analysis

Typically, an analyses might consider the loading as

advised by the ship’s Bay Plan and, separately, the
actual loading as observed by the surveyor (with any
differences in box weight or location).
Similarly, lashings can be applied per the CSM and per
the findings of the surveyor
 COMLASH Analysis
The program determines
compression, tension and
shear forces in the container
corner posts and castings
and the twist locks, the
racking forces in the
container end frames and the
tension in the lashings
Forces can be determined for
all bays and all stacks or a
single stack
The calculated forces and
stack weights are compared
against the permitted SWL
(MSL) and are flagged in red
if they are exceeded.
COMLASH Results
Analysis results – cause or effect?
A surveyor examining the
aftermath of a container loss is
presented with a confusing mess
of debris and failed equipment
A detailed survey focussing on
the pertinent issues is necessary
to make sense of the chaos
The subsequent analyses and
investigation is dependent on the
data collected
The purpose of the post survey
analyses is to determine the
cause of the failure – is this
possible? Can cause be
differentiated from effect?
 Conclusions
(with some very large generalisations!)

What failed first? Rarely determinable with absolute

certainty
Analyses forces significantly in excess of the permitted
MSL – check the container weights and procedures for
load planning and bay plan checking
Analyses forces within, or only marginally over, the MSL
– check the securing arrangements (lashings per the
MSL and correctly fitted, container, ship fitting and
securing equipment condition
No apparent cause – consider ship motions related
issues (weather, ship handling) or unknown causes
(unknown true weights of lost boxes?)
TMC (Marine Consultants)
Ltd.

The traditional survey and the subsequent computer

analyses are inextricably bound together – The modern
marine surveyor/consultant must use his Screens
(computers) and Windows (rigorous survey observations)