INTRODUCTION

The basic philosophy underlying containerization is to convert loose cargo into standard
units, in order to protect cargo against damages and pilferage, make more efficient handling and to
permit an intermodal transport system to be evolved providing a possible combination of rail, road,
inland waterway and maritime transport (which comes under logistic which is not part of naval
architecture but while designing we have to consider all aspect regarding maximization of profit).
Earlier we were building the ship according the type of cargo but container ship is good option for
dealing the all types of cargo. All kinds of cargo commodities are loaded in containers; even bulk
cargoes and passenger cars. The container carriers are becoming increasingly predominant in many
cargo liner trades. This type of tonnage permits complete integration with other forms of transport,
thereby offering a door-to-door service. A basic requirement when introducing containers in the
deep-sea trades was that all countries should use the same standard container boxes, a considerable
undertaking when dealing with many different road and rail systems.

To meet this requirement the ISO devised a standard set of external container dimensions, initially
offering a box 8 ft high and 8 ft wide, with four optional lengths, 10 ft, 20 ft, 30 ft and 40 ft. In
practice the 20 ft container (Twenty Equivalent Unit - TEU) became established as a base in the
international container business.
Most container carriers carry a maximum number of containers on weather deck, up to 60
% of total capacity, aiming at easy access to units for handling in terminals. Generally, containers
require no protection from weather, and therefore can be carried without the additional expense of
an enclosing structural envelope. Deck containers are stacked up to five high, the limitation being
the stability of the ship and visibility from the wheelhouse. The hatch covers and the deck structure
must be designed for the extra weight of the deck containers. Deck containers must be carefully
secured, which is done by locking the lower corners of the containers to the hatch covers, as well
as between containers in higher tiers, by special locking devices. For three or more containers in
one stack, corner tying has to be applied transversally, by using diagonal lashings secured to
fittings on hatch covers at the end of the rows.
Since there is a requirement from most of the liner operators to stow a huge amount of
container cargo on deck (up to 60 % of total cargo capacity), the hatch covers have to be designed
for heavy point loads caused by container stacks. Up to six container tiers are stowed in a stack,
depending on ship’s stability and visibility from the wheelhouse. Containers are stowed
exclusively longitudinally. This is due to magnitude of high acceleration forces caused by ship
rolling motion and higher racking strength of container in end frames. Consequently, longitudinal
container stowage pattern allows for higher weight of containers in the stack that will enable you
to protect your cargo during shipment as well as our container and vessels.

The securing and lashing of containers on ship's decks is a difficult operation in terms of the work
environment. There are great problems during loading and discharge of containers. The stevedores
who carry out this work, known as riggers, have to work on container stacks which often are 13
metres high or more above the ship's deck. Safety arrangements are in some ports poor and the
work frequently has to be performed in the dark, under windy and rainy or sometimes icy
conditions. The difficulties are to a large extent due to the lashing equipment. The immense
diversity of the devices used gives rise to great problems. Securing of containers is the
responsibility of the ship's master, which can mean that there are large differences in the manner in
which the operation is effected between individual vessels and shipping companies.
In the early years of containerisation, existing general cargo vessels were converted with the
removal of tween decks and the addition of cell guides into the cargo holds. On deck, the hatch
covers were strengthened and fittings added for lashings. However, the containers on deck were
seldom stowed above one high and so were secured to the vessel by 'traditional' cargo ship
methods. Often seen still trading today, are a few of the 'first generation' vessels built during the
late sixties and early seventies. These ships were the first to be designed and built as pure container
carriers. The holds and hatch covers were as wide as possible, and container posts were fitted on
deck to facilitate loading of deck-stowed containers out to the ship's side. For this generation of
vessel, two systems of securing the cargo were common. One relied on the use of twistlocks in
conjunction with lashing bars or chains, and the second relied on the use of stacking cones and
bridge pieces in conjunction with lashing bars or chains. Gradually, due to the increased utilisation
of differing height containers, the second method became redundant and it became common
practice to use twistlocks throughout the stow. This method normally allowed containers to be
stacked three high and, in some cases, four high if the fourth tier was light in weight or empty. For
first generation vessels, computer technology was not available onboard to speedily calculate
dynamic loads acting on container lashings and frames. The shipboard computer (if any) was only
used to calculate stresses and stability for the ship itself. Therefore, the shipboard staff would
ensure the vessel was lashed according to a lashing plan taken from the lashing equipment
manufacturer's manual, which appeared to assume an ideal stow with respect to the distribution of
weight in each stack (the homogenous stack).
On post-panamax vessels - where among other features the vessel's large beam results in an
unavoidable, relatively large GM (metacentric height), and 6-high stowage on deck is common -
the modern practice is for the vessel to be fitted with a lashing bridge; a substantial steel structure
running athwartships between each forty foot container bay. This allows the second and third tiers
of containers to be secured to the bridge using lashing rods and turnbuckles, whilst the whole stow
is secured throughout with twistlocks. The lashing bridge allows the anchoring points for each
stack to be moved higher up the stack, which allows the lashings to be more effective in reducing
the tipping moments acting on a stack when a vessel is rolling heavily. However, the practice of
fitting the bridges between forty foot bays means that the twenty foot containers can only take
advantage of the lashing bridges at one end. So, in effect, the twenty foot stacks have to revert to
the limits of a conventional lashing system.. This is the case, because the practice of estimating the
forces acting on a stack divides the container weight equally between each end of the container. So
the weight in each twenty foot container is limited by the capacity of the lashing system at the
container end, which does not have the advantage of being secured by a lashing bridge. On smaller
vessels, the whole stow is also secured throughout with twistlocks, and the lowest three tiers are
secured to the hatch cover or support post using the lashing bar/turnbuckle combination. However,
since the mid 1980s, naval architects have produced computer programs to calculate the dynamic
loads acting on container stacks. Such programs have been designed for use by ships' officers and
container planners. On modern vessels, 5-high and 6-high stowage on deck is common; the use of
onboard computers to check the dynamics of the stow in all weather conditions is vitally important
for the safe carriage of the cargo.
d lashing of containers on ship's decks is a difficult operation in terms of the work environment.
There are great problems during loading and discharge of containers. The stevedores who carry out
this work, known as riggers, have to work on container stacks which often are 13 metres high or
more above the ship's deck. Safety arrangements are in some ports poor and the work frequently
has to be performed in the dark, under windy and rainy or sometimes icy conditions. The
difficulties are to a large extent due to the lashing equipment. The immense diversity of the devices
used gives rise to great problems. Securing of containers is the responsibility of the ship's master,
which can mean that there are large differences in the manner in which the operation is effected
between individual vessels and shipping companies.

HISTORY

In the early years of containerisation, existing general cargo vessels were converted with the
removal of tween decks and the addition of cell guides into the cargo holds. On deck, the hatch
covers were strengthened and fittings added for lashings. However, the containers on deck were
seldom stowed above one high and so were secured to the vessel by 'traditional' cargo ship
methods. Often seen still trading today, are a few of the 'first generation' vessels built during the
late sixties and early seventies. These ships were the first to be designed and built as pure container
carriers. The holds and hatch covers were as wide as possible, and container posts were fitted on
deck to facilitate loading of deck-stowed containers out to the ship's side. For this generation of
vessel, two systems of securing the cargo were common. One relied on the use of twistlocks in
conjunction with lashing bars or chains, and the second relied on the use of stacking cones and
bridge pieces in conjunction with lashing bars or chains. Gradually, due to the increased utilisation
of differing height containers, the second method became redundant and it became common
practice to use twistlocks throughout the stow. This method normally allowed containers to be
stacked three high and, in some cases, four high if the fourth tier was light in weight or empty. For
first generation vessels, computer technology was not available onboard to speedily calculate
dynamic loads acting on container lashings and frames. The shipboard computer (if any) was only
used to calculate stresses and stability for the ship itself. Therefore, the shipboard staff would
ensure the vessel was lashed according to a lashing plan taken from the lashing equipment
manufacturer's manual, which appeared to assume an ideal stow with respect to the distribution of
weight in each stack (the homogenous stack).
On post-panamax vessels - where among other features the vessel's large beam results in an
unavoidable, relatively large GM (metacentric height), and 6-high stowage on deck is common -
the modern practice is for the vessel to be fitted with a lashing bridge; a substantial steel structure
running athwartships between each forty foot container bay. This allows the second and third tiers
of containers to be secured to the bridge using lashing rods and turnbuckles, whilst the whole stow
is secured throughout with twistlocks. The lashing bridge allows the anchoring points for each
stack to be moved higher up the stack, which allows the lashings to be more effective in reducing
the tipping moments acting on a stack when a vessel is rolling heavily. However, the practice of
fitting the bridges between forty foot bays means that the twenty foot containers can only take
advantage of the lashing bridges at one end. So, in effect, the twenty foot stacks have to revert to
the limits of a conventional lashing system.. This is the case, because the practice of estimating the
forces acting on a stack divides the container weight equally between each end of the container. So
the weight in each twenty foot container is limited by the capacity of the lashing system at the
container end, which does not have the advantage of being secured by a lashing bridge. On smaller
vessels, the whole stow is also secured throughout with twistlocks, and the lowest three tiers are
secured to the hatch cover or support post using the lashing bar/turnbuckle combination. However,
since the mid 1980s, naval architects have produced computer programs to calculate the dynamic
loads acting on container stacks. Such programs have been designed for use by ships' officers and
container planners. On modern vessels, 5-high and 6-high stowage on deck is common; the use of
onboard computers to check the dynamics of the stow in all weather conditions is vitally important
for the safe carriage of the cargo.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Containerization

Advantages
 It permits a door-to-door service which may be from factory production site to the retailer’s
store.
 No intermediate handling of cargo at terminal (port) trans-shipment points.
 The absence of intermediate handling plus quicker transits permit less risk of cargo damage
and pilferage.
 Elimination of intermediate handling at terminal transfer points, i.e. ports, enables
substantial labour savings.
 Less packing needs for containerised shipments. In some cases with specialised containers,
e.g. refrigerated tank (liquid or powder), no packing is required. This produces substantial
savings in international transport.
 The elimination of intermediate handling coupled with the other advantages of
containerized shipments, permits the cargo to arrive in a better condition when compared
with conventional cargo shipments.
 Transits are much quicker compared with conventional cargo shipments. This is achieved
through a combination of faster vessels, the rationalization of ports of call and substantially
quicker cargo handling.
 Container carriers attain much higher space utilisation and generally are much more
productive than the conventional or ro-ro tonnage.
 Faster transits usually coupled with more releasable schedules and ultimately increased
service frequency, are tending to encourage many importers to hold reduced stocks/spares.
This produces savings in warehouse accommodation needs, lessens risk of obsolescent
stock, and reduces importers’ working capital.
 Containerisation produces quicker transits and encourages rationalisation of ports of call. In
many trades this is tending to stimulate trade expansion through much improved service
standards. Accordingly it results in increased service frequency which will aid trade
development.
 More reliable cargo transit arrangements.
 Higher overall quality service.
Disadvantages

 Containerisation is a capital-intensive transport system. It requires specialised vessels and

at least three sets of containers (leased or own). Furthermore, the authority of terminals
bears the cost of providing specialised cranes, straddle carriers, trailers and other handling
equipment, as well as has to create port stacking space.
 Not all commodities can be conveniently containerised. Such cargo either falls from the
trade or is transported by the container carrier with its poor capacity utilisation (cargo takes
much more space on board) and causes some difficulties with handling, resulting in higher
costs.
 The container in itself is a high capacity carrying unit, and in consequence, exporters with
limited trade are unable to fill the container to capacity. However, the cargo of many
exporters from similar destination/area may be collected and stuffed into a container.
 Uneven utilisation of vessel capacity in round voyage caused by various type of cargoes in
each direction (cargo of low stowage factor one way and cargo of high stowage factor in
reverse direction) or peak seasonal traffic.
 Difficulties with full utilisation of containers. In many cases loaded or empty containers are
waiting for handling.
 High cost of transporting empty containers (tracking and positioning).

A 1970 built container ship lost 76 containers overboard on an eastbound North Atlantic crossing
in mid-winter. The claim has cost the Club $1.4m. The weather encountered was severe and indeed
the ship had to deviate to answer an SOS from another ship in the vicinity. Unfortunately,
criticisms could be levelled at the lashing and stowage systems. The lashing system was not strong
enough because it was based on wires, cones and lever tensioners rather than rods, twist-locks and
turnbuckles. In addition, the containers were stowed three high without any system for making
sure that the lighter containers were on top.

In another incident, a general cargo ship, fitted for the carriage of containers, lost 73 boxes
overboard in heavy weather during a transatlantic voyage. The claim cost the Club $725,000. The
containers were lost because the lashing system, comprising of stacking cones, chains and lever
tensioners, was in poor condition. Lashing systems are only tested during heavy weather, which is
also when they are most needed. Further, stacking cones only prevent slippage and will not stop
separation, jumping or toppling. With a cone based system, lashings need to be very tight,
otherwise any of these could happen. Further a con-bulker or general cargo ship may not be
suitable for carrying stacks of containers below deck unless the hold is homogeneously loaded and
fitted with a buttress.
There is practically no acceptable excuse for a stack of containers to collapse. Containers do not
fall overboard because of bad weather, although that is the reason normally cited.

The real reasons are:

1. Lashings applied incorrectly, defective or slack.

2. Lashings not checked during voyage.

3. Heavy containers loaded on top.

4. Stack weights exceeded.

5. Ship unsuitable to carry containers.

Yet stack weights are easy to calculate, lashings simple to use. We suspect that some masters may
turn a blind eye to charterers' commercial practices and allow the ship to be badly loaded, or
perhaps masters may not fully understand the differences between lashing systems and mix
components from one system to another. On some ships, particularly multi-purpose ships and con-
bulkers, greater care is needed. This may not be widely known.

The purpose of this article is to look at the causes of lashing failure.

Containers are lashed to stop them from moving when a ship rolls, pitches and heaves, motions
which attempt to eject, lift or slide a stack of containers. There are two methods used to lash
containers and both involve diagonal lashings. The first method, which is the most common,
incorporates lashings from the bottom corners of the 2nd and 3rd tier containers. The second
method, known as the parallel system, incorporates lashing from the top corners of the 1st tier and
bottom corners of the 2nd tier. Parallel lashing enables the use of shorter rods, chains or wires.
Lashing systems can look similar whilst in reality they vary enormously. This is because each
system has similar components which perform similar tasks. Every lashing system will have a
'connecting device', a twist lock or cone. There will be something to tighten the lashing (a turn
buckle) and something to connect the lashing to the ship and the containers (a D-ring and penguin
hook). People identify a lashing system by its strength and refer to a cone system with wires or a
rod system with twist locks. For an operator, it is important to realise that components from one
system cannot be mixed with components from another. Worn out rods cannot be replaced with
wires. This is because the components often have different strengths and different characteristics.
For example, rods have a breaking load of 50 tonnes, whilst wires 36 tonnes and chains as little as
20 tonnes. Twist locks have a breaking load of 40 tonnes tensile load and 30 tonnes sheer load.
Cones have no tensile properties at all and, unless a cone is used in conjunction with a pin, it will
not prevent containers from jumping. Twist locks should never be replaced with cones.

Unlike the rest of a ship, a lashing system is not usually certified by a classification society.
However, class will certify lashing components and approve the design, but will only survey the
system if requested. Perhaps an anomaly, but a ship can be approved for the carriage of containers
when the lashings themselves are not approved. The significance of this is that the master will have
to set up his own system for surveying lashing components, something which can be forgotten.
The Club has recently paid a large claim following the loss overboard of 70 containers. The ship
had a 30 tonne lashing system made up of cones and wires. Even though the loss occurred during
very bad weather, it was found that the lashing wires were in appalling condition.

They had never been examined. There had never been any procedures set up to check the lashings.
The master thought the class surveyor or superintendent did it, whilst the superintendent thought
the master was responsible. The cost of this claim was $1.6m.

During condition surveys and following investigations after loss or damage of containers,
surveyors have highlighted common problems which have contributed to lashing failure. Typically,
it is reported that:-

Securing points known as 'D-rings' are corroded under the retaining collar to an extent that the ring
can almost be removed.

 Lashing wires are never oiled.

 Double stacking cones which are broken are used as single stacking cones.
 Left-hand and right-hand twist locks are mixed in the same storage bins.
 Clips used to connect containers transversely, known as 'bridge pieces', are used as twist
locks.
 Chains which have become very thin because of corrosion are still used.
 Lashings are secured to other lashings, adjacent pillars, or to the bulwark and not to a
proper securing point.
 Turn buckles have not been tightened sufficiently or regularly checked.
 Lashings have been fastened to the wrong containers.

A diligent crew can go far to redeem a sub-standard ship. Regular inspection of lashing
components and careful application will eliminate all of these defects. Lashing components should
be checked every time they are used and defective components discarded. A formal audit of every
lashing component should be completed annually, which involves a written report.
The Club has found that cone-based lashing systems are more likely to fail. For this reason, twist
locks are the preferred securing device. They should always be used to interconnect containers and,
whenever possible, at the bottom of the stack. Every operator should appreciate that a twist lock
behaves very differently to a cone. Twist locks hold containers together and as a result the strength
and number of lashings are reduced. Cones will only stop slippage and the danger of containers
separating and toppling is greatest when they are used because the containers are not locked
together.

Twist locks are not without problems, they can be left-hand or right-hand locking, they can be
damaged. Left-hand and right-hand locks should never be used on the same ship because it is
impossible to tell which locks are open and which locks are closed. Even though owners may have
supplied locks which all close the same way, stevedores can mix them with locks from another
ship. If an opposite locking device is placed onboard unnoticed, and used, there is the danger of a
lock being left open. It is important to mark the closed position and to be able to identify your own
locks. Ship's crew need to be able to identify, at a glance, if a lock is open or closed.

Claims involving shift or collapse of containers carried below deck tend only to occur on non-
cellular ships. Those which are designed to alternate between the container trade and the bulk
trade. These ships do not always have box shaped holds. Bulk cargoes are usually discharged by
grab so the bottom of a cargo hold needs to be flush, preventing the fitting of a raised twist lock
shoe. Dovetail shoes are used instead but these are only compatible with cones.

When containers are carried in con-bulkers, they are loaded in horizontal tiers in block stowage.
Partial stowage is dangerous. Containers should not be intermixed with other cargoes; 20ft
containers should not be mixed in the same stack as 40ft containers, except when overstowed with
40ft containers. Additional care is necessary to ensure cargo is not overstowed with cargo for a
later port of call. Container terminals expect vertical stowage in cell guides and unless the cargo
plan is marked Ôstowed in horizontal tiers', then mistakes can be made. Operators are reminded
that stack weights are still calculated vertically. Racking forces can cause containers stowed
between decks to separate and a stack can topple.

This problem is particular to con-bulkers and multi-purpose ships which do not have box shape
holds. It can happen even though containers are correctly lashed. Separation only occurs when
containers are carried more than three high. It is prevented with a buttress. Buttresses are portable,
and if carried, should always be used. Some years ago the Club paid $1m after the collapse of
containers in the cargo hold of a tween decker which had been converted to carry containers.

The lashings were inadequate. This was not picked up by surveyors who did not realise the ship
was converted. Quite often surveyors forget to examine lashings because lashings are not part of
the ship and can be removed. Containers are more likely to be damaged on a converted ship.
Lashing failure can occur on a new ship with a modern lashing system, if stack weights are
exceeded or when heavy containers are stowed high up.

Masters should never allow this, cargo plans should be checked long before loading starts and
loading continually supervised. On some ships charterers load the cargo, but it is a mistake to
expect charterers to pay the claims. It is very easy to carry containers safely.

There are only a few simple rules to follow:

1. Maintain the lashings and apply them correctly.

2. Whenever possible, use twist locks.

3. Never carry containers below deck more than 2 tiers high, unless they are supported by cell
guides or a buttress.

4. Never allow stack weights to be exceeded.

5. Never deviate from the approved lashing arrangement.

6. Never carry containers in twos and threes on dunnage with makeshift rope or wire lashings.
When these rules are followed, containers are likely to be delivered safely to receivers.

The members have now:

 replaced wires and cones with twist-locks, rods and turnbuckles;

 upgraded the strength of the system to withstand a 30 ton safe working load on the centre stack
and a 50 ton safe working load on the outside stacks;
 required the loading terminals to ensure that heavy containers are loaded at the bottom; and
 the system is now class approved and class-maintained.

In another incident, a general cargo ship, fitted for the carriage of containers, lost 73 boxes
overboard in heavy weather during a transatlantic voyage. The claim cost the Club $725,000. The
containers were lost because the lashing system, comprising of stacking cones, chains and lever
tensioners, was in poor condition. Lashing systems are only tested during heavy weather, which is
also when they are most needed. Further, stacking cones only prevent slippage and will not stop
separation, jumping or toppling. With a cone based system, lashings need to be very tight,
otherwise any of these could happen. Further a con-bulker or general cargo ship may not be
suitable for carrying stacks of containers below deck unless the hold is homogeneously loaded and
fitted with a buttress.

The Club has recommended to members, in Circular 1992/13, the use of lashing systems
comprising of twist locks, lashing rods and turnbuckles as the best method to secure containers.

Container Securing Manual

The container securing manual is a booklet showing the application of loose lashing gear
and maximum weight distribution for a certain GM case. Approval of container securing manual is
in the responsibility of the corresponding classification society.
The cargo securing manual (CSM) according IMO is a booklet which contains all kinds of useful
information about securing of cargo on board such as:
 A material list with all fixed and loose securing fittings on board specifying safe working load,
proof load, breaking load, material grade, name of maker etc.
 Item drawings for all loose and fixed securing fittings on board.
 Handling and maintenance instructions
 A copy of the approved container securing manual.
 Acceleration factors and example calculations for securing of non-standardized cargo.
 Example calculations for container lashing.
 Approval certificates for all fixed and loose securing fittings on board
Approval of cargo securing manual is in the responsibility of national authorities depending on flag
of the vessel. For the reason that most countries do not have their own approval office for cargo
securing manuals instead they will be approved by classification societies.

The benefit of stowing cargo safely inside containers includes smooth transport processing
without claims or extra costs, and customer satisfaction. In the beginning
stowage equipment and man hours will be an expense, however at the end, you the
customer will receive the benefit of transporting cargo with us

CONTAINER ARRANGEMENT ON SHIPS

On most ships which are specially designed for container traffic, the containers are carried
lengthwise:
This stowage method is sensible with regard to the interplay of stresses in rough seas and the
loading capacity of containers. Stresses in rough seas are greater athwartships than fore and aft and
the loading capacity of container side walls is designed to be higher than that of the end walls.

Containers stowed lengthwise fore and aft stowage on board a ship

However, on many ships the containers are stowed in athwartships bays or are transported
athwartships for other reasons. This must be taken into consideration when packing containers and
securing cargo.
Containers stowed athwartships (athwartships stowage) on board a ship

This stowage method is not sensible with regard to the stresses in rough seas and the loading
capacity of containers. Stresses in rough seas are greater athwartships than fore and aft but the
loading capacity of container end walls is lower than that of the side walls.

Containers stowed both ways on board ship

Even unusual stowage methods like this, where some of the containers are stowed athwartships
and others fore and aft, are used, but they require greater effort during packing and securing
operations.

The above two pictures show how important it is to find out about the various carriers and their
way of transporting containers, either in order to rule out certain modes of transport or to be able to
match cargo securing to mode of transport. If the method of transporting a container is not known,
then packing and securing have to be geared to the greater stresses.

CONTAINER SECURING

THE BASIC CAUSE of many collapsed container stows and the loss of containers overboard can
be attributed to inadequate or incorrect securing, resulting from lack of instructions/information
on-board concerning an approved stowage and securing arrangement. Also there has been no
International Standard for Container Securing Equipment.

There is current legislation in progress which hopefully should improve matters.

SOLAS
Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, Chapter
6 (Carriage of Cargoes), Regulation 5, originally required that from 1st July 1996, cargo units,
including containers, shall be loaded, stowed and secured throughout the voyage in accordance
with a Cargo Securing Manual approved by the Administration. However, it is understood that the
Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) have altered the coming into force date to the 1st January 1998
for existing ships, to allow Marine Administrations time to approve manuals. New ships with keels
laid down after 1st July 1996 to have manuals on board on delivery.

The Cargo Securing Manual shall be drawn up to a standard at least equivalent to the guidelines
developed by the International Maritime Organisation.
The guidelines referred to above are the Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and securing,
adopted by resolution A.714(17) as amended, and in particular to Chapter 1, sections 1.6 and 1.7.

ISO Standard
A proposal for the standardisation of the construction and operation of container twistlocks was
taken up by ISO TC104 in 1992 and is presently under review by a Technical Committee. It is
understood that the intention is to include the physical and functional requirements for container
securing devices as annexes to ISO Standard 3874; and to give the rationale for these requirements
in a Technical Report. The Technical Committee’s original remit has been extended to include
Latchlocks, Stacking Cones, Lashing Rods and Tensioning Devices.

Lashing forces in stack of containers

The trend in sea transportation of dry cargo is towards larger container vessels with a container
capacity exceeding 6000 TEU. These ships will carry the containers in the holds as well as on the
deck with stack heights up to 8 containers. Due to the large breadth of the ships significant inertia
forces can be reached in severe sea states in addition to gravity and wind forces. Failure of a
container stack usually lead to failure of adjacent stack like a ‘domino’ effect and the economical
consequences of such failures are enormous. Therefore the ship owners make a lot of effort in
providing weather routing for the ship master and tools to load and lash the containers in the most
appropriate way. Thereby the sea loads can be estimated rather acutely in a statistical sense.

To calculate the probability of failure of a container stack the strength of the container and of the
lashing system needed, too. The most relevant failure mechanisms seem to be tensile or
compression failure of a corner post and racking failure of the container and failure of the lashing
system. The present project concentrates on the lashing system. The classification societies
prescribe proper lashing configurations using rod as well as wires. These lashing components have
certified stiffness and strength properties but wear, dents and minor damages during operation
might reduce these values.

The aim of the project is to calculate to the load carrying capacity of new and used lashing systems
of a stack of standard dry cargo containers using the finite element method (ANSYS), modeling
the containers, the lashing system and the lashing bridge.

The project should start with a literature study using the guidelines from the Ship Classification
Societies and relevant ISO documents.

The results should be compared to with the simplified procedures given in the guidelines from the
Ship Classification Societies.

Racking force:

The resultant force in the container – end and door frame, as a

result of the static and dynamic forces parallel to the deck.
In pitching condition the racking force is acting in the
container side frames.Exceeding racking forces can be reduced by use of diagonal lashing units

Lifting force:

The resultant vertical lifting force. Exceeding lifting forces can be reduced by use of diagonal or
vertical lashing units.

Post load:

The resultant pressure force of the container post.

Exceeding corner post compression cannot be reduced by
lashing units, contrary diagonal lashings are even increasing
vertical loads. Container weights must be reduced.
Lashing force:

The resultant force in the lashing.

Exceeding lashing force can be reduced by using additional
lashing units.

CONTAINER LASHING SYSTEM

Assumptions for Lashing Systems

Factors which should be considered when choosing a container securing system are specified
below:
Stack Weight

Stack weights should be carefully investigated since a simplified stowage arrangement with
adequate container weight capability may provide faster handling or reduced maintenance costs.
Following should be observed:
Expected container weights, which depend on type of cargo commodities
carried. ISO standard restrictions regarding strength of container to be kept.
Limitation of vessel container carrying capability:
- vessel stability referred to volume of container stowed on hatch covers
- allowable deadweight
- hatch cover and deck strength.

Height of Container Stacks

Vessel characteristics like stability, visibility, crane clearance limitations may limit stack heights.
Where four or five high stowage is desired on deck, the securing system should be easily adaptable
to all stack heights.

Type of Container Securing System

In order to minimise human errors and accidence, container securing systems should be automated
as far as possible. Simplicity and reliability should be main factors when choosing any system. An
example of semi-automatic twistlock is given in Fig. 20. The twistlocks are attached to the
containerposts at the wharf, prior to loading on board. By stowing containers on the hatch cover or
on the other container already placed on board, this fitting locks automatically. Manual unlocking
of twistlock is required prior to container discharging.

Lashing Bridges

In order to simplify container lashing system, lashing bridges are arranged on weather deck
athwartship, between hold openings. The arrangement consists of platforms and vertical supports
fitted to hull structure (Fig. 21a and 21b). Special fittings to attach container lashings are provided
on the platforms, which allow the use of much shorter lashing rods, and give better and much safer
access in order to perform container securing work. Furthermore, lashing bridges simplify
structure of hatch covers, because forces from lashing rods are directly transformed to the hull.

Container Stowage Plan

Container carriers have to be provided with the container stowage plan, showing each unit position
on board. In order to unify and simplify container freight and handling, an international code has
been developed, which is obligatory for all container vessels. The 20 ft and 40 ft container patterns
with separate numbering are provided (Fig. 24, copy from GL Rules). Containers are stowed in
bays (department of one length unit), which are horizontally subdivided into tiers, and abreast the
ship in rows. In that way position of each unit stowed on board is specified. A space required for
one unit is called "slot".
Lashing material

Lashing materials are used for securing the cargo. They prevent cargo against tipping, horizontal
movement and bouncing. There are different terms and definitions to value 22 the possible load of
a lashing. The breaking strength is the load in length direction which cuts the rope. The lashing
must not be stressed with this load. Therefore a safety factor is introduced. This safety factor
depends on the type of lashing and its use. The breaking strength divided by the safety factor result
the Maximum Securing Load (MSL). Usually the MSL is written in the data specification or direct
on the lashing material. Additional to the MSL the load must be reduced, when the lashing is bent
around sharp
edges. Different lashing materials have different elastic stretch. Therefore it is not allowed to use
different lashing materials on one cargo piece. If done so, and the cargo moves in one direction, the
whole load will be hold by the lashings with the lowest elastic stretch. This lashing will brake and
the remaining lashings will not be able to take the entire load. Mixing might be possible, if the
force directions are completely different for each kind of
material.

Fibre Ropes

Fibre ropes are made from natural material like hemp, manila or sisal, or from synthetic material.
Depending on the material they are able to withstand several environmental influences. The natural
fibre ropes are sensitive to acids, alkalis and solvents. Natural fibres stretch when they absorb
moisture and shrink on drying. Synthetic fibres withstand more against environmental influences.
The breaking strength is very weak. Therefore fibre ropes can only be used for securing light
cargoes like tarpaulins, passenger cars, drums or light cases. One special type of fibre rope named
“Hercules” contains a thin steel wire as core. It has the same breaking strength as normal fibre
ropes, but a shorter elastic stretch, is less flexible and improves the twisting.

Nylon Belt
The most common lashing materials are nylon belts. They are available in a wide range of
Maximum Securing Load (MSL). They are easy to use and prevent the cargo against damages.
Edge protection must be used on sharp edges. It is strongly forbidden to knot nylon belts. The
connecting ends must fit to the lashing eyes of the container and
the cargo.

Steel Strapping (Signode)

Steel Strapping is a flat steel band. It has nearly no elastic stretch. Therefore it can not be used for
soft cargo like cases. If the wood eases, the steel strapping looses the lashing force completely. The
same happens, when heavy cargo stays on weak wooden bedding. It is very important, that the
cargo, fixed by steel strapping does not reduce
its volume during the transport. At the other hand, steel strapping is very useful to fix 23 steel rolls
or to bundle profiles. Installing steel of strapping lashings is very quick, but requires special tools.
Signode must not be used on sharp and uneven edges.

. Steel wire, turnbuckles, shackles and wire clips

Steel wires are quite common for lashing heavy unpacked cargo. There are many different sizes
and shapes in use. Steel wires can take strong forces, based on their diameter and have a short
elastic stretch range. On the other hand, steel wires lose a lot of their breaking strength when they
are bent along sharp edges or u-turns. Additional equipment is required when steel wire is used for
lashing. Shackles are taken as connection between turnbuckle, wire and lashing devices. Quite
often a hook with a short chain is used between lashing device on the container and turnbuckle at
the lower part of the lashing. This chain can be bent without losing its breaking strength. Wire clips
are used to connect the ends of the steel wire. The whole lashing arrangement will be tightened by
the turnbuckle.

STOWAGE SYSTEM IN HOLDS

Securing in vessel holds by cell guides alone

Virtually all all-container ships are provided with cell

guides with vertical guide rails as securing means for hold cargoes. The greatest stress the
containers are exposed to stems from stack pressure. Since the containers are not connected
together vertically, lateral stress is transmitted by each individual container to the cell guides.
When positioned in such cell guides, individual containers are not usually able to shift. If the
corner posts of one of the containers at the bottom of a stack collapse under excessive pressure,
containers stowed above it generally suffer only slight damage. The risk of damage to containers in
adjacent stacks is kept within tight limits.
The containers are guided by these rails of the cell guides during loading and unloading. The photo
shows clearly that the upper ends of the guide rails each take the form of insertion guides

Twist stackers are handled in the same way as semi-automatic-twistlocks which means the twist
stackers will be inserted on the quay side and then loaded together with the container on board.
Twist stacker do not have any locking function because lifting forces do not occur for this securing
solution, their only purpose is to prevent 20’ containers against horizontal sliding. When
discharging containers the twist stackers will be transported to the quay side hanging underneath
the container and finally stored in bins on flat racks.

Securing in vessel holds by cell guides and pins

Feeder ships, multipurpose freighters and container ships in certain regions have to be particularly
flexibly equipped, in order to be able to carry containers of different dimensions. To this end,
convertible stowage frames have been developed, in which 20', 24½', 30', 40', 45', 48' and 49'
containers may be stowed securely without appreciable delay.

Most of these frames are produced as panels which are brought into the required positions by
cranes. At the bottom they mainly have fixed cones, which engage in pockets welded into the tank
top area. At the sides, the frames are secured by pins, which engage in bushes which are let into the
wing bulkheads. Such frames are often man-accessible, so that the containers can be locked in
place by means of pins.

If it is necessary to be able to carry containers 2500 mm wide, the frames are arranged on the basis
of this dimension. To secure standard containers of normal width, closure rails are then fitted on
both sides of the guide rails by means of screw connections. If necessary, these adapters may be
removed.

Removable container guides have also been developed and constructed for multipurpose freighters,
reefer vessels and the like. Such guides allow containers to be carried in regular or insulated holds
without any risk of damage to the holds themselves. If other cargoes are carried, the stowage
guides may be removed using ship's or shore-based loading or lifting gear and deposited in special
holders on deck.

Securing in vessel holds by conventional securing and stacked stowage

On older, conventional general cargo vessels and multipurpose freighters, stacked stowage
methods are used in the hold, combined with various securing methods:

Example of stacked stowage with conventional securing

The lower containers stand on foundations capable of withstanding the stack pressures which arise.
Dovetail foundations, into which sliding cones fit, are provided to prevent slippage. The containers
are connected together by single or double stacking cones or twist locks. The entire stack or
container block is lashed using lashing wires or rods and turnbuckles. This system entails a lot of
lashing work and material and, moreover, is less secure than securing in cell guides.

Securing in vessel holds by block stowage and stabilization

This securing method is found less and less frequently, but it is still found on some conbulkers and
other multipurpose freighters. Containers are interconnected horizontally and vertically using
single, double and possibly quadruple stacking cones. The top tiers are connected by means of
bridge fittings:
Securing in vessel holds by block stowage and stabilization

This securing method is found less and less frequently, but it is still found on some conbulkers and
other multipurpose freighters. Containers are interconnected horizontally and vertically using
single, double and possibly quadruple stacking cones. The top tiers are connected by means of
bridge fittings:

Fastening containers together

To the sides, the containers are supported at their corner castings with "pressure/tension elements".
Examples of block stowage method with stabilization

The term "pressure/tension elements" should not be understood to mean that these elements exert
pressure or tension, but rather that they are capable of absorbing compressive or tensile forces.
With more up-to-date variants, the lateral supporting structures are moved hydraulically towards
the container corner castings.

This type of container securing has two marked disadvantages:

 If an individual container breaks, it is not just one container stack which is affected, but the
whole container block.

 Due to dimensional tolerances and wear and tear to the stacking cones, the entire block can
move constantly in rough seas. This causes the intermediate stacking cones to break and an
entire block may collapse.

Securing on deck using container guides

On some ships, containers are also secured on deck in cell guides or lashing frames. Some years
ago, Atlantic Container Lines used only cell guides on deck. Certain ships belonging to Polish
Ocean Lines had combined systems. In other ships, cell guides can be pushed hydraulically over
the hatch cover as soon as loading below deck is completed and the hatches have been covered up.

Securing on deck using block stowage securing

This method was used a lot in the early days of container ships, but has been used less and less in
recent years for economic reasons.

Example of block stowage securing on deck

The containers in the bottom layer are positioned in socket elements or on fixed cones. Double
stacking cones are used between the layers and the corner castings of adjoining containers are
connected at the top by bridge fittings. The containers are held together over the entire width of the
ship or hatch cover by cross lashings. A distinct disadvantage of this method is reduced flexibility
when loading and unloading, since adjoining containers have always to be moved as well if access
to a particular container is required.

Numerous variants, not listed any greater detail here, are available for attaching the lashings.
Sometimes the lashings from different stacks cross one another.

Crisscross lashings from different container stacks

This securing method is being used increasingly in very large container ships.

Instructions for lashing on board ships are displayed in obvious places:

Lashing system for 40' and 45' containers

Lashing system for 20' containers from the lashing bridges of the end hatches

Lashing system for 20' containers from the hatch covers of the middle hatches

Securing on deck using stacked stowage securing

This securing method is the one used most frequently. Cargo handling flexibility is its key
advantage. The containers are stacked one on top of the other, connected with twist locks and
lashed vertically. No stack is connected with any other stack. The system thus allows loading or
unloading of an individual stack. The container lashings do not cross over the lashings from other
stacks, except for the "wind lashings" on the outer sides of the ship.

Principle of stacked stowage securing

Securing of on-deck containers with lashing rods and twist locks

Securing of on-deck containers with twist locks and chains

Securing of a 3-tier stack on board a semi-container ship

A container stack of this type has to be secured due to the risk of toppling.

An absence of special equipment for securing containers and unfavorable stowage spaces increase
the risk for container cargoes. "Sloppy" carriers should be avoided wherever possible. This applies
quite generally, not only to the operators of aging ships. Timely information about as many as of
the circumstances and procedures encountered during carriage as possible can be extremely useful.

SEMI-AUTOMATIC SOLUTION FOR BOTTOM TIER ON DECK

LONGITUDINAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTAINERS ON DECK

Asymmetrical arrangement
Symmetrical arrangement

LONGITUDINAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTAINERS ON DECK

In general there are two solutions for the longitudinal arrangement of containers when 20’
containers shall be stowed with lashing gap in between. Very often it can be seen that containers
are arranged asymmetrically with 5 rows of foundations per 40’ bay only. Despite of the cost
saving effect for a minimum quantity of foundations and reinforcements this solution has several
disadvantages. 40’ lashing at asymmetrical end has to be made 3-dimensional which can have
negative effect on the efficiency of lashings. The lashing plates have to be inclined about 10° or
even more in direction of containers. The wider the lashing gap
between 20’ containers is, the more difficult it is to cover all lashing positions with unified length
of lashing rods. In some cases it might be necessary to install additional lashing plates at
asymmetrical end between 20’ and 40’ foundations, if so
stevedores have to shift turnbuckles each time when loading 20’ instead of 40’ and opposite. For
this reason it is recommend to arrange the containers symmetrically in longitudinal direction
resulting in 6 rows of foundations per 40’ bay. This solution brings best results concerning the
arrangement of lashing plates and unified lashing length. Even in case of large lashing gap between
20’ containers no additional lashing plates have to be arranged and no shifting of turnbuckles by
stevedores is required. Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) specifies a minimum gap of
550 mm between 20’ containers regardless of the lashing but at the same time they recommend a
clear width of 550 mm between lashing plates. Despite of safety authorities SEC recommends a
minimum gap of 750 mm between containers for proper lashing operation.

In case that the vessel is equipped with lashing bridges the symmetrical arrangement of containers
in longitudinal direction is even more important.

Stowage Above Deck

Containers above deck are stowed on hatch covers. Those Containers will have twist locks
below them. This twist locks will lock on to the container foundation on the hatch cover. There are
container foundations for 20ft, 40ft and 45ft container etc. There are also lashing eye plate for
lashing the container to the hatch cover. Turnbuckles are connected to the lashing eye plate and to
the lashing bar from the container. The space between two holds where we can walk is called the
catwalk. Depending on the levels on the catwalk lashings of containers could also be done to the
last level of the catwalk.
The main deck consists of a sidewalk of about 1.5m wide. On top of this a container is kept at
the same level as the hatch cover. One side of the container will be on the hatch cover and the other
on a foundation welded to a plate and strengthened by a beam, which is welded to the side of the
ship and the hatch coaming.
A container will have points at 8 corners were we can put a twist lock. The bottom 4 for fixing
the container to the hatch cover or the top of another container and the top 4 for fixing the top
container on it. Containers below the hatch cover will not have twist locks. So each container
above the hatch cover will have 4 twist locks at the bottom. The twist lock can be released and
when the container is unlocked the crane will come and lock itself to the top 4 corners of the
container and lift it up

FIXED FITTINGS ON DECK

Raised foundations
Elongated foundations
Sliding foundations
Dovetail foundations
Lashing plates
Horn type lashing plates
Slewing eyes
D-rings

FIXED FITTINGS IN HOLDS

Flush type twistlock pockets
Doubling plates
Welding cones
Guide fittings
Counter bearings

LOOSE FITTINGS ON DECK

Conventional twistlocks
Semi-automatic twistlocks
Midlocks
Bottom midlocks
Dovetail twistlocks for point load
Dovetail twistlocks for line load
Turnbuckles (+ spanner)
Lashing bars (+ extension rods)
Bridge fittings (+ spanner)
Operating rods
Bin racks
Storage bins

LOOSE FITTINGS IN HOLDS

Twist stackers
Stacking cones
Bottom stacking cones
Anti-Rack-Spacer
Tension/pressure elements
Pressure elements
Pressure adapters

Miscellaneous Parts Miscellaneous Hooks Miscellaneous Hooks

TWISTLOCK CONE ROPE ACCESSORIES

EYE FOOT
SECURING PAD

SINGLE STACKING D-RING

TENSION LEVER EYE HOOK

HOOK TENSION LEVER

EYE HOOK BRIDGE FITTING

SECURING PAD TWIST LOCK

DOUBLE STACKING
TURN BUCKLES
ELEPHANT FOOT & EYE FOOT

MISC

MISC
MISC

An Investigation of Head-Sea Parametric Rolling and

its Influence on Container Lashing Systems

Recent studies have demonstrated that parametric roll in extreme head or near head seas can occur
when unfavorable tuning is combined with low roll damping (reduced speed) and large stability
variations (governed by wavelength, wave
height, general hull form, bow flare, and stern shapes). Parametric rolling is an unstable
phenomenon, which can quickly generate large roll angles that are coupled with significant pitch
motions. The rolling occurs in phase with pitch, and on containerships introduces high loads into
the containers and their securing systems. It appears that post-Panamax containerships may be
particularly prone to this behavior. This is an important issue considering the large number of these
vessels scheduled for delivery in the next few years. In October, 1998, a post-Panamax, C11 class
containership encountered extreme weather and sustained extensive loss and damage to deck
stowed containers. The motions of the vessel during this storm event were investigated through a
series of model tests and numerical analyses. These studies provide insight into the conditions in
which post-Panamax containerships are likely to experience head sea parametric rolling, and the
magnitude of motions and accelerations that can occur. The findings from this investigation are
presented in this paper, together with discussion of how such extreme motions impact the
design and application of container securing systems. Also outlined in the paper are
recommendations for additional research needed to better understand the influence of vessel design
and operational considerations on the propensity of post-Panamax containerships towards
parametric rolling.

CONCLUSION
The loss of containers from the deck of containerships has become an increasingly widespread
problem in recent years. This is in part due to lashing failures of poorly maintained equipment on
older vessels. However, statistics suggest that modern container vessels, which carry a large
proportion of their cargo on deck, suffer even greater losses. In order to understand the reasons for
these losses it is necessary to consider the various matters that, as a whole, make up the container
securing arrangement. So container lashing is the important factor which controls the container
security system.

Reference::

www.container-lashings.com
www.containertechnics.com
www.maritimetraining.com
www.solentwaters.co.uk
http://www.mt.mek.dtu.dk/research/Msc/index.htm