See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352055788

Comparative Study of Container Stowage and Securing Arrangements Using

Various Classification Societies Rules/ Guidelines

Conference Paper · December 2013

DOI: 10.3940/rina.icsotin.2013.05

CITATIONS READS

0 1,067

2 authors, including:

Sachin Awasare
Indian Register of Shipping
13 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sachin Awasare on 30 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ICSOT: Technical Innovation in Shipbuilding, 12-13 December, Kharagpur, India

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CONTAINER STOWAGE AND SECURING

ARRANGEMENTS USING VARIOUS CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES RULES/
GUIDELINES
S Awasare and K Doshi, Indian Register of Shipping, India

SUMMARY

One of the important aspects of container ship safety is the stowage and securing of containers onboard. It is imperative
to ensure that the containers are properly secured using appropriate lashing components and equipment. For this purpose
the inertial forces arising due to the ship motions as well as forces due to the wind are mainly considered for evaluation.
In the current work, a comparison of various parameters for a given stack configuration viz. the imposed acceleration,
inertial and wind forces on containers, racking forces on the end and side walls of the containers, the vertical
tensile/compressive forces on the corner post castings, forces in the lashing rods etc as obtained from various
classification societies rules/guidelines is done. The evaluations are performed on a sample stack configuration
considering the utilization of lashing equipment. Motion analysis on a sample vessel also has been performed using
hydrodynamic software in order to assess the validity of the acceleration values as per class rule formulations to
calculate forces in three directions. The study provides a useful insight into the various parameters which are needed to
correctly determine the forces subjected on containers as well as on the lashing components.

NOMENCLATURE V Vessel Speed (knot)

W1 Weight of first tier container (kN)
ABS American Bureau of Shipping W4 Weight of fourth tier container (kN)
Arod Cross section area of lashing rod (m2) W2 Weight of second tier container (kN)
al Longitudinal Acceleration (m/s2) W3 Weight of third tier container (kN)
at Transverse Acceleration (m/s2) Wc Width of container (m)
av Vertical Acceleration (m/s2) Yc Transverse distance of center of gravity
B Moulded width of the ship (m) of container from ship centre (m)
BV Bureau Veritas Zc Vertical distance of center of gravity.
Cb Block Coefficient of container from base. (m)
D Moulded Depth (m) θrod Lashing angle (deg)
DNV Det Norske Veritas
Erod Elastic modulus of lashing rod 1. INTRODUCTION
(kN/mm2)
GL Germanischer Lloyd Containerization of cargo (packaging into large box
GM Metacentric height (m) shaped containers) has enabled rapid transportation of
Hc Height of container (m) goods over the globe since the 1970s [1]. In the past
IMO International Maritime Organization decade, container shipping has revolutionized the
IRS Indian Register of Shipping movement of cargo through the commissioning of huge
ISO International Organization for container ships which are ever since growing in size
Standardization owing to the huge demand of container transport. Indeed
Kcclosed Stiffness constant for container (closed over the period from 2008 – 2011, the volume of
end) (kN/mm) container transportation in India increased from an
Kcdoor Stiffness constant for container (Door annual 7.6 million TEUs to approximate 10 million
end) (kN/mm) TEUs [2]. China recorded annual container traffic of 139
L Length between perpendiculars of the million TEUs in 2011 followed by other advanced
ship (m) nations such as the United States of America and
Lc Length of container (m) Germany recording annual container volumes of 42
LOA Length overall of the ship (m) million TEUs and 16 million TEUs respectively [2].
LR Lloyds Register
Lc Longitudinal distance of center of It is estimated that approximately 10000 containers are
gravity of container from aft lost at sea annually [3]. Some of the reasons attributed to
perpendicular (m) these losses are the presence of rough sea conditions,
lrod Overall length of lashing rod (m) improper stacking of the containers onboard decks or
NKK Nippon Kaiji Kyokai poor condition of the containers. Though the number of
U Wind speed (m/s) containers lost represents a small fraction of the annual
T Draught at the loading condition (m) volume of containers transported throughout the year,
such losses especially for containers carrying toxic cargo

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 ICSOT: Technical Innovation in Shipbuilding, 12-13 December, Kharagpur, India

represent damage to the environment and a hazard for Containers are secured within holds or on decks by
other ships sailing on the same route. Likewise these also means of securing devices. These are either fixed or
cause monetary losses to the various parties involved. portable fittings. Fixed fittings are in form of dovetail
pads, lashing pads, D rings or pad eyes, mid hold guides
Thus, one of the aspects of safe container shipping is to etc.
ensure proper stowage and stacking of containers in tiers Portable fittings are twistlocks, stacking cones, lashing
within the hold or on the weather deck. The present paper rods, turnbuckles, bridge fittings etc.
reviews and compares the existing rules and
requirements in relation to this subject. The main purpose served by both types of fittings is to
transfer the stack static and dynamic loads arising due to
2. ASPECTS OF CONTAINER STOWAGE inertia, wind etc. safely to the ship’s structure. The
AND SECURING specification of these components is documented in
standards such as ISO 3874.
As enumerated by Radisic [4], any container securing
system aims to fulfil the following key demands: 2.3 SECURING ARRANGEMENTS
• Reliability
• Simplicity and ease of use Various types of securing arrangements are possible
• Flexibility and compatibility of equipment depending upon the general arrangement of the ship and
• Low maintenance and cost efficiency the type of containers to be stowed. These are
categorized broadly into the following.
The principal elements within consideration with respect
to container stowage and securing arrangements are • Stowage within holds
described in brief in the following sub sections ▪ Stowage using cell guides
▪ Stowage without cell guides
2.1 CONTAINERS • Stowage on weather decks
▪ Stowage using cell guides
A shipping container comprises of end frames (door and ▪ Stowage using lashing bridges
closed), corner posts, corner castings, bottom and side ▪ Stowage using buttress system
rails as the major load bearing members. Thin corrugated ▪ Stowage using line load / dunnage.
sheets form an enclosure for packaging. The schematics • Stowage of 20ft containers in 40 ft bays.
are described in figure 1.Containers may also be catered
to store specific goods. This may be arranged in by way The safety of a securing arrangement is assessed by
of sizing of the container or by modifying the generic analysing the various forces to which given container
form. Thus flat rack containers, tank type containers, stack is subjected during operations. The assessment also
reefer containers etc are some typical forms which cater provides an idea of the securing components required.
to specific purposes. For example, if analysis demonstrates the presence of
separating forces (tension force) on containers within a
The specification of such containers is referred to from stack, then usage of twist locks is required rather than
relevant ISO standards (For e.g.; ISO 668, ISO 1161, stacking cones. Likewise if analysis shows the presence
ISO 1496 etc.) of excessive racking forces, lashing rods may be used for
securing the containers.

3. ASSESSMENT OF CONTAINER
SECURING ARRANGEMENTS

For the assessment of a given container securing

arrangement, the details such as the Capacity plan,
loading manual, container securing manual, lashing
manual, securing components, cell guide arrangement
plan as well as the operating seaway are generally needed
to be known.

The operating route enables a designer to compute the

motions and accelerations which the ship may encounter
thus leading to inertial loads on the stacks. The securing
components in form of portable and fixed fittings are
needed to be known in order to check their strength
against the reactions produced in resisting the inertial
Figure 1: Schematics of a shipping container loads.
2.2 CONTAINER SECURING COMPONENTS

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

ICSOT: Technical Innovation in Shipbuilding, 12-13 December, Kharagpur, India

A general description of the procedures commonly • Tipping failure

employed to assess the safety of securing arrangement is • Corner post compression failure
made in the following sub sections • Permanent deformations
• Lashing force on container corners
3.1 LOADS

Loads on the container stacks arise from the following

• Self weight
• Inertia loads due to ship motions
• Wind loads
• Buoyancy force due to submerged containers
• Green water loads

Within these, the self weight, inertia and the wind loads
are dominant for most containers within a stack.

The inertial loads arise due to the ship motions. These

are evaluated by using the classification society rules, or
by direct calculations or by suitable experiment / model
tests. For preliminary evaluations of ship accelerations
IMO CSS [5] is a useful reference.

Wind loads on a container may be obtained from first

principles from the pressure of the wind and the area of
the container exposed. The pressure depends upon the
velocity of the wind. IMO CSS [5] also provides
guidance to the selection of pressure magnitude for wind
load evaluation. The minimum pressure to be considered
is prescribed as 1 kN/m2.

Buoyancy loads and green water loads are usually Figure 2: Failure modes of container stack. (a) Racking
considered in the formulations of classification societies (b) Tipping (c) Corner post compression (d) Permanent
rules. These may also be assessed using direct Deformations (e) Lashing forces
calculations.
The allowable forces corresponding to such failure
Besides these external forces, there may also forces act modes may be referred from ISO 1496 [6]. Likewise the
on the containers due to the tension in the lashing rods. forces within the container fittings described in section
2.2 also should be within allowable limits. These limits
For an evaluation of forces within a given container are dependent upon the breaking loads of the components
stack, the external forces described above are distributed and the safety margin specified. Such specifications are
firstly on the two end frames of the container in equal incorporated generally within classification society’s
proportion. Then at a given end frame, the forces are rules. IMO CSS [5] also provides guidelines to the
further distributed on the top and bottom frames based choice of the safety margins to evaluate safe working
upon the centre of gravity of given force acting upon the loads for securing components.
container. The weight of the container is divided equally
between the corner posts. 4. REVIEW OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY
RULES/GUIDELINES
The resultant transverse, longitudinal and vertical
reactions at container corners and corner posts are For the purpose of the present study, rules and guidelines
calculated using principles of basic mechanics. The of six classification societies have been reviewed. A
evaluation of these loads is well described in most rules summary of their salient features is compiled through the
and guidelines published by classification societies. following sub sections.

3.2 FAILURE MODES 4.1 ABS

The forces calculated in section 3.1 are then checked As per ABS Guidelines [7], the forces acting on the
against the allowable values corresponding to a given containers and loads on container securing systems have
mode of failure. The failure modes are listed below and been determined for all operational conditions. The
also depicted in figure 2. major loads considered for calculations are gravitational
• Racking failure forces, dynamic forces associated with ship motions,

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 ICSOT: Technical Innovation in Shipbuilding, 12-13 December, Kharagpur, India

wind forces and lashing forces whereas sea loads and foundations in form of stanchions are also provided. A
green water impact are not considered. The forces on general safety factor of 2.0 is prescribed for the securing
containers have to be calculated for two conditions i.e components in terms of portable or fixed fittings. On the
maximum roll and heave condition and maximum pitch whole comprehensive coverage is provided for each
and heave condition. The values of ship motions and component involved within the securing arrangement.
accelerations obtained by direct calculations or from
model tests could also be considered. The combined 4.5 LR
static, dynamic, and securing loads imposed on the
container structure are not to exceed allowable loads that LR [11] prescribes variety of securing arrangements
are derived from ISO standards. similar to those of other societies. It considers forces in
terms of static forces and dynamic forces. Forces are
4.2 BV evaluated considering upright, roll and heave conditions.
Dynamic forces are evaluated considering roll, pitch and
BV rules [8] provide for evaluating container stowage heave conditions. These are then combined considering
and securing arrangements within cell guides within six scenarios. Within these six scenarios, maximum roll
holds and for stowage on weather deck. Provisions are is combined with heave, maximum pitch is combined
also made for stowage of containers within holds without with heave and then collectively roll and pitch are
the use of cell guides. BV also mandates consideration of combined with heave. Required quantities such as
buoyancy forces on the containers secured on ship sides transverse and longitudinal racking forces, vertical corner
(Port and Starboard); these forces may arise due to post forces and forces within lashing rods (if utilized) are
possible water ingress. Line load stowage is permitted evaluated. These are then compared against the allowable
only upto one tier on the weather deck. For a given forces.
loading condition, assessment needs to include forces
considering still water conditions, upright conditions and 4.6 NKK
inclined roll conditions. The forces (longitudinal,
transverse and vertical) are computed using accelerations As per ClassNK guidelines [12], the inertial forces acting
prescribed in the rules. on containers have been calculated from combination of
ship motions considering design conditions
4.3 DNV • Combination of pitch and heave (in head sea)
• Combination of roll and heave (in beam sea)
DNV rules [9] prescribe that strength evaluation of Considering the combination of acceleration in the
container securing arrangement is to be carried out based vertical direction due to heave and the acceleration in the
on static load conditions in combination with extreme rotating direction due to pitch and roll four cases of
dynamic loads. The forces on containers are to be combinations of accelerations have to be considered.
calculated by using three approaches i.e. direct The forces calculated on containers consist of racking,
calculation using beam analysis, formula based analysis shear, compressive and lift force. When containers are
and considering special container arrangement. stowed in holds stacking load on double bottom is also to
In case of direct calculation using beam analysis the be calculated in addition to above mentioned forces.
container stacks are modeled as two independent 2-
dimensional beam models, one for the door end and one 4.7 IRS
for the doorless end, to incorporate the different racking
stiffness. Container stowage and securing arrangement motion
parameters are calculated based on vessel data.
4.4 GL Thereafter rule [13] combined accelerations in vertical,
transverse and longitudinal direction are used to account
GL [10] provides for stowage of containers in several for effects of ship motions. Transverse and longitudinal
arrangements and configurations like the other forces on the container stacks are evaluated considering
classification societies. However the differentiating point wind load and inertial loads due to ship motions. The
within its rules is the evaluation of accelerations. The lashing tension is calculated by considering stiffness
dynamic forces on the containers are determined based constants of the container and the lashing rod. The
upon the magnitude of the meta-centric height. Thus tension and compression forces at the top and bottom of
there are two methods viz. Standard Acceleration and containers are also calculated which are then compared
Reduced transverse acceleration. For calculation of with allowable forces as per ISO standards.
vertical forces on the container corner posts; an
inclination of 30o is specified. GL provides for clearances 5. VERIFICATION OF MOTIONS
between the securing components to be taken into
account while evaluating the loads appreciating the fact From the preceding sections it is well understood that the
that the containers may shift relative to each other. computation of ship motions becomes very important in
Details for design of cross tie structures, permissible order to derive the critical loads arriving on to the
stresses within cell guide structures and container container stack. Ship motions are mainly provided by

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

ICSOT: Technical Innovation in Shipbuilding, 12-13 December, Kharagpur, India

classification society rules / guidelines. Hence these 4 16.24 16.82

motions were evaluated using Indian Register of 5 13.95 15.55
shipping’s (IRS) in-house developed software “SO- 6 13.95 15.55
FORCE” based on 3-D diffraction-radiation method 15.47
7 15.27 16.86
(Green’ function) for a sample vessel and compared with 8 15.27 16.86
ship motions obtained using IRS rules and IMO CSS [5]. 9 14.14 15.69
The particulars of the sample vessel are listed below
10 14.14 15.69
15.72
11 15.42 17.01
LOA : 59.03 m
12 15.42 17.01
L : 56.5
B : 11.4 At (m/s2)
Sr.
D : 4 Motion
No. IRS rules IMO CSS
T : 2.4 Analysis
Cb : 0.79 1 13.10 9.66
GM (range) : 3.00 – 3.71 2 16.87 11.00
13.36
V : 7.5 3 13.10 9.66
4 13.10 9.66
The description of the vessel is shown in figure 3. 5 16.87 11.05
6 13.10 9.72
15.05
7 13.10 9.72
8 13.10 9.72
9 16.87 11.23
10 13.10 9.98
15.41
11 13.10 9.98
12 13.10 9.98
Al (m/s2)
Sr.
Motion
Figure 3: Schematics of the vessel No. IRS rules IMO CSS
Analysis
1 2.49 4.27
The results of the direct calculations are presented in 2 3.17 4.88
Table 1. It may be noted that the calculations are 3.04
3 2.49 4.22
performed considering container units whose locations
4 2.49 4.27
are described in Table 1.
5 3.17 4.81
Table 1. Location of the containers 6 2.49 4.22
3.04
Location of container (m) 7 2.49 4.27
Sr. Bay 8 2.49 4.27
No. no. Lc Yc Zc 9 3.17 4.81
1 41.40 2.43 6.16 10 2.49 4.22
3.04
2 41.40 2.43 8.75 11 2.49 4.27
1 12 2.49 4.27
3 41.40 0 6.16
4 41.40 -2.43 6.16
5 35.40 0 8.75 From the comparison of motions from direct analysis and
evaluation in Table 2 using IRS rules [13] and IMO
6 35.40 0 6.16
3 guideline [5], it is observed that the results correlate well
7 35.40 2.43 6.16
with each other. Thus the prescriptive formulae within
8 35.40 -2.43 6.16 the rules are able to predict the accelerations within a
9 14.40 0 8.75 good range of agreement with actual motion calculations.
10 14.40 0 6.16
9
11 14.40 2.43 6.16 In the following section, a numerical comparison of
12 14.4 -2.43 6.16 various items calculated using different rules and
guidelines is presented considering a sample stack
Table 2: Comparison of Results configuration.
Av (m/s2)
Sr. 6. CASE STUDY – SAMPLE CONTAINER
Motion
No. IRS rules IMO CSS STACK
Analysis
1 16.24 16.82
2 16.24 16.82 16.80 6.1 GENERAL
3 15.16 15.51

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 ICSOT: Technical Innovation in Shipbuilding, 12-13 December, Kharagpur, India

In order to analyse different parameters involved in The container stack is located at Xc = 0.9L from A.P and
container stowage and securing arrangement a sample transversely at Yc = 21.78m from CL
stack has been considered. The stack has 20 ft containers
stowed four tiers high and secured with single cross lash 6.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
system. The results have been calculated and analysed
for lashing force, racking force, compressive force and The comparison of several parameters such as motions
tension force acting on container. The documents used and forces is demonstrated through tables 3 – 10.
for calculation includes ABS, DNV, NKK, BV, GL and
LR classification society guidelines .In addition to results Table 3: Motion parameters
from all classification society IRS proposed methodology IRS ABS DNV NKK BV GL LR
results also analysed. Maximum roll combined with
Roll Angle (deg) 14.21 19.52 14.2 19.99 13.79 30.00 1 21.7
heave was considered as the benchmark load case.
Period of roll (s) 46.3 47.5 46.3 45.7 45.7 - 21.23
6.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION Centre of gravity 0.5 0.45 0.45 0.33 0.33 2 0.45 0.33
Wind Force (kN) 15.7 17.0 18.5 11.6 18.8 15.0 3 18.8
The container tiers and lashing arrangement for a given
container stack are shown in figure 4. Each container is 1. Used for evaluation of tension and compression forces in inclined condition
in the outboard position, with all tiers exposed to wind 2. Assumed value. Rules prescribe C.G to be used at actual
loading with their weights W1=150 kN, W2=140 kN, 3. Only for 1st tier container. For other tiers, 30kN is to be used.
W3=130 kN and W4 =116 kN
Table 4: Stiffness constant of container (kN/mm)
END IRS ABS DNV NKK BV GL LR
Door 3.7 3.73 3.85 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Closed 15.7 15.69 10 15.7 15.05 16.6 15.4

Table 5: Lashing rod tension (kN)

END IRS ABS DNV NKK BV GL LR
Single lash Door 112.1 142.3 96.7 146.4 114.2 125.1 99.2
Closed 51.9 71.8 30.2 73.5 59.2 59.4 49.7

Table 6: Transverse acceleration (m/s2)

Tier IRS ABS DNV NKK BV GL LR
4 2.74 4.25 4.88 4.25 3.45 6.57 5.11

Figure 4: Stack description 3 2.73 4.25 4.88 4.23 3.44 6.57 5.03
2 2.72 4.25 4.88 4.22 3.43 6.57 4.94
6.3 INPUT DATA
1 2.71 4.25 4.88 4.2 3.43 6.57 4.85
The input data of the container ship along with container
stack and lashing particulars used for analysis of results Table 7: Vertical acceleration (m/s2)
is listed below. The data is referred from [12]. IRS ABS DNV NKK BV GL LR
18.48 12.1 18.48 11.46 12.17 12.28 9.92
L : 318
B : 46
Table 8: Racking Force (kN)
D : 24.5
T : 14 Tier IRS ABS DNV NKK BV GL LR
Cb : 0.64 4 15.9 15.5 20.9 14.6 13.6 19.7 14.1
V : 25
GM : 0.6 3 48.8 50.5 63.4 55.0 51.1 66.6 53.2
U : 36 2 83.3 88.1 119.7 93.2 92.6 118.5 95.9
Hc : 2.591 1 83.7 83.2 115.6 133.0 99.6 140.1 109.6
Wc : 2.438
Lc : 6.058
kcdoor : 3.7
kcclosed : 15.7
Erod : 104
lrod : 2.35
Arod : 491
θrod : 51.5

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

ICSOT: Technical Innovation in Shipbuilding, 12-13 December, Kharagpur, India

Table 9: Compressive Forces in the cornerposts (kN) GL predict the racking forces in general on a
At bottom of Tier 1 container conservative side. As per table 9 compression forces
(bottom and top) on the container in the first tier yield a
END IRS ABS DNV NKK BV GL LR range of evaluations with LR predicting the forces on an
Door 538 472 553 489 478 583 466 optimistic side. GL and DnV predict the forces on a
conservative side at the bottom of the 1st tier. The
Closed 538 464 547 538 471 576 460 variation of forces between door and closed end at the
At top of Tier 1 container top of the 1st tier container is more compared to that for
the bottom between different classification societies. This
Door 423 397 424 363 365 432 345 may also attributed to the tension in the lashing rod as
well as the consideration of different vertical
Closed 379 341 387 363 322 380 306
accelerations by each classification society.

Table 10: Tension Forces in the cornerposts (kN) Finally the tension forces are listed in Table 10. A wide
At bottom of Tier 1 container scatter is observed in the tension forces on the container
corner posts. This is attributed to the same reasons as
END IRS ABS DNV NKK BV GL LR
described for compression forces on the corner posts. It
Door 69.8 74.1 184.1 139 84.7 160 125.2 is notable that the tension forces at the corner posts
Closed 113.9 120.8 214.9 187.2 121 203 158.1 remain unchanged at top of container for both closed and
door ends. This is due to the fact that lashing tension
At top of Tier 1 container does not feature within the calculations.
Door &
62.9 69.9 128.8 99.9 58.2 101 78
Closed 7. CONCLUSION

From Table 3, it is observed roll angles are considered From the motion studies, it was observed that IRS rules
differently amongst classification societies. Thus IRS, correlate well with direct calculations.
DNV and BV display agreement with their values while
ABS and ClassNK also agree well with each other for The following conclusions are drawn from the case
roll angle evaluation. With regards to period of roll, good study.
agreement is observed between the rules of all
classification societies. Considered wind loads are also • Different classification societies adopt different
more or less similar for all classification societies except approaches within their rules / guidelines for
for ClassNK which predicts wind load based upon evaluation of container securing arrangements.
considered wind speeds. Container end frame stiffness is • With relation to ship motions and inertial forces,
in good agreement between all classification societies for a wide scatter is observed between the quantities
the door ends as seen from Table 4. For closed ends a evaluated by different rules.
similar agreement is observed except for DnV which • All societies agree more or less with each other
considers the stiffness constant on a conservative side. on the evaluation of wind loads and container
end frames stiffnesses.
Tension within the lashing rods shows a wide variation • Wide difference is observed amongst the
as is evident from Table 5. This is justified as the transverse accelerations predicted by different
transverse forces on each container are different for each classification societies. This in turn affects the
classification society due to the difference in their magnitude of the racking forces.
transverse accelerations evaluated in Table 6. There is a • The tension forces within the lashing rods vary
range of scatter of values of transverse accelerations between different classification societies. This is
evaluated by all the classification societies. Thus IRS in turn attributed to the difference in magnitudes
predicts the transverse accelerations on an optimistic side of the combination of wind and inertial forces at
while GL predicts the most severe values for transverse the top of the 1st tier containers.
accelerations. It is to be noted that transverse acceleration
• The location of centre of gravities of the
values for BV and LR are derived indirectly; i.e. these
containers may also to some extent affect the
are back calculated from the forces calculated using the
evaluations. It appears that most of the societies
rules. A certain trend is however noticeable in the fact
are agreeable considering the centre of gravities
that for all societies, the transverse acceleration variation
of containers at 45% to 50% of the container
with the container tier is more or less insignificant.
height.
Considerable variation in vertical acceleration values is
• The corner post compression and tension forces
observed between all classification societies.
in general show a scatter among various
Racking forces tabulated in 8 are in general agreement
societies rules/guidelines. These are explained
with each other for Tiers 2, 3 and 4. For the first tier
using the differences in the ship motions in
containers, the racking forces are dependent on the
terms of transverse and vertical accelerations.
tension in the lashing rods. It is observed that DnV and

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 ICSOT: Technical Innovation in Shipbuilding, 12-13 December, Kharagpur, India

In general, different societies follow different approaches 10. GERMANISCHER LLOYD. “Rules for classification
/procedures within their rules. Computation of and construction. I – Ship Technology. Chapter 20 –
accelerations could be harmonized in order to better Stowage and Lashing of containers.” (2012).
facilitate evaluation of container securing arrangements. 11. LLOYDS REGISTER. “Rules and regulations for the
However the authors understand that additional Classification of Ships, Part 3, Chapter 14 - Container
evaluations and subsequent comparisons may be required Securing arrangements.” (2012).
to identify a definite plan. It is however established that 12. NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI. “Guideline for container
evaluation of container stowage and securing stowage and securing arrangements.” (2009)
arrangement is an insightful topic and deserves thorough 13. INDIAN REGISTER OF SHIPPING, “Rules and
attention to maintain the safety of container shipping on regulations for the construction and classification of steel
the world’s oceans. ships, Part 3, chapter 4 –Design Loads.” January 2013.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
10. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY
The authors express their gratitude to Mr. A.R. Kar,
(Vice President – Research and Rule Development) and Sachin S. Awasare is working as Surveyor in the
Mr. Sharad Dhavalikar at the Indian Register of Shipping department of Research and Rule Development at Indian
for their guidance and motivation. The authors would Register of Shipping since 2006. He is involved in
also like to thank the Indian Register of Shipping for carrying out research and consultancy work in see-
supporting the reported work. The views expressed in keeping and stability analysis. He has also worked in
this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily other areas such as fatigue, welding distortion control,
reflect those of Indian Register of Shipping. strength and vibration analysis of ship and industrial
structures. He has experience in developing guidelines
9. REFERENCES and procedures related to ship structural components. He
can be contacted at sachin.awasare@irclass.org
1. WILSON, I.D, ROACH, P.A, WARE, J.A.”Container
stowage preplanning: Using search to generate solutions, Karan Doshi is a surveyor within the Research and Rule
a case study.” Journal of Knowledge based systems, Vol. development division at Indian Register of Shipping
14, pp 137 – 145. 2001 since 2009. He holds a B.Tech degree in Civil
2. WORLD BANK DATABASE. Engineering with post graduate specialization in
“http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.SHP.GOOD.TU Structural Engineering, both from the Indian Institute of
“. (2013). Technology, Kharagpur. Within his four years of
3. MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARITIME experience he has worked on various topics such as
SANCTUARY.”http://montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepr fracture mechanics, fatigue, ultimate strength, vibration,
o/resmanissues/lostshippingcontainers.html” (2013) strength and failure analysis related to ship structures. He
4. RADISIC, Z. “Necessity of proper lashing of can be contacted at karan.doshi@irclass.org
containers on the ship’s deck as part of optimization of
sea voyage.” Integrated transport review, Vol. 2, pp 97 –
104. (2004).
5. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
(IMO). “Code of safe practice for cargo securing and
stowage.” IMO publication sales number – IB292E.
(2011).
6. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
ORGANIZATION. “ISO 1496 – Specification and
testing – Part 1: General cargo containers for general
purposes.”
7. AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING.
“Certification of Container Securing systems (updated in
2012).” 2010.
8. BUREAU VERITAS. “Rules for classification of
ships – Part E, Chapter 10, Section 5 – Container
Lashing Equipment.” (January, 2013)
9. DET NORSKE VERITAS. “Container Securing.
Classification note 32.2”. (2011).

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

View publication stats