Figure 36.

1 APL C11 Post-panamax Container Ship


36.1 DESCRIPTION
Since the late 1950s the ocean cargo container has revolu-
tionized the seaborne and inland transport of general cargo
throughout the world. The specialized container ship is a
key element in an intermodal system developed to effi-
ciently transport standard sized ocean freight containers.
Containers are transported within cargo holds outfitted
with vertical cells and on deck utilizing specially designed
securing equipment.
36.1.1 Mission
A container ship is designed for the requirements of the in-
tended service, including required service speed, number
of containers by size and type and projected cargo weights.
Container capacity is maximized within the available vol-
ume of the ship. Features are provided to enhance port pro-
ductivity by allowing for faster loading and discharge. If
shore side cranes are not available in some ports of the
intended service, the ship may be equipped with self-
sustaining capability. While container features are impor-
tant, competition necessitates that the ship be reliable,
efficiently powered and constructed and operated econom-
ically.
36.1.2 Unique Features and Capabilities
A container transport system differs from a break bulk op-
eration in that cargo stowage is accomplished at a con-
tainer cargo terminal or by the shipper at the point of ori-
Chapter 36
Container Ships
Peter F. Zink and Eugene Van Rynbach
gin. Unique features of container ships are inherently as-
sociated with maximizing cargo stowage and with the sys-
tems required to safely stow and secure cargo containers.
These features are highlighted in the following subsection
and are discussed in detail in Section 36.2 covering system
design.
36.1.2.1 Container cell guides
Containers stowed below deck, and sometimes at locations
above deck, are stacked one on top of another within ver-
tical cell guides consisting of angles or fabricated tees. An
important component of the cell guide system is the flared
entry guide at the top of the cell angles, which assists the
crane operator in lowering the containers into each cell or
stack. A properly designed system will facilitate container
stowage, speed up crane cycle time, and will minimize the
potential for damage to the containers and the ship struc-
ture during loading operations.
36.1.2.2 Container securing on deck
Above the weather deck, containers are typically stowed in
stacks with the long dimension oriented fore and aft and
the stacks spaced about 20 to 25 mm apart, athwartship.
Container stacks may be secured to the weather deck struc-
ture using a variety of schemes. The most common method
utilizes lashings to secure each stack independently. In
some cases, deck stowed containers are secured in cell
guides.
Elevated platforms or lashing bridges may be provided
between bays of containers on deck to permit the stowage
36-1
36-2 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
of an additional tier of containers or heavier containers in
the upper tiers.
36.1.2.3 Pontoon hatch covers designed for
container stowage
Most container ships are outfitted with pontoon type hatch
covers. Depending upon the height of the hatch coamings
above the freeboard deck and distance aft from the bow,
the hatch covers may be either fitted with gaskets or a
labyrinth type system. Typically, there are two or three
hatch covers across the full breadth hatch opening.
Hatch covers are designed for the intended container
stack weights as well as for class requirements for water
head. The primary structural elements are typically longi-
tudinal girders located between adjacent stacks.
Container hatch covers may be shifted with either the
shore side gantry cranes or with the ship’s cranes and they
are typically fitted with ISO lifting sockets that are suitable
for the container spreader securing fitting. Therefore, the
weight and size of the covers may be dictated by the capa-
bility of the container handling cranes.
36.1.2.4 Container pedestals
In order to maximize container stowage on deck and still
permit fore and aft access on the weather deck for person-
nel, the outboard stacks of containers are often supported
on pedestals fitted with lashing points. Elevated platforms
are provided to facilitate handling and installation of the
lashing equipment by stevedores.
36.1.2.5 Hatch cover-less container ships
Cellular ships without hatch covers (open top) may be uti-
lized in feeder services and on shorter trade routes for
which port loading and discharging operations are a sig-
nificant portion of the voyage. Such ships have container
cell guides extending from the inner bottom tank top to
the uppermost container tier levels. Container stacks
above the weather deck and outboard of the hatch open-
ing may also be secured in cell guides. Due to the
open cargo holds, hatch cover-less container ships are de-
signed with enhanced bilge systems and unique fire sup-
pression and containment systems. The features and re-
quirements for open top container ships, as well as the
advantages and limitations, are discussed more fully in
Section 36.2.15.
36.1.2.6 Refrigerated container stowage
Depending upon the trade route, container ships may
transport large numbers of refrigerated boxes, commonly
referred to as reefer containers. These containers are typi-
cally self-contained in that each box has its own refrigera-
tion unit requiring provision for electrical power. It is es-
sential to have access to each reefer container to monitor
and maintain each refrigeration unit. Services with re-
quirements for transporting large numbers of reefer boxes
may necessitate stowing some boxes below deck. One or
more cargo holds may be outfitted with large ventilation
systems to provide ambient air for cooling and with access
for inspection and maintenance. Such reefer loads require
a large supply of electrical power and the ship’s generators
must be sized accordingly.
36.1.2.7 Provisions for self-loading and
self-unloading capability
Container ships that serve ports without crane facilities
must have the capability to load and discharge cargo
containers and thus be self-sustaining. Such ships may be
outfitted with either pedestal type jib cranes or gantry
cranes.
36.1.3 General Arrangement
The general arrangement for three types of container ships,
a self-sustaining feeder ship, a mid-size container ship and
a post-panamax size container ship are presented in Fig-
ures 36.2–36.4. The mid-size container ship shown is a de-
sign that has longitudinal hatch girders in the holds.
36.2 SYSTEM DESIGN
Container ship capacity is normally expressed in Twenty-
foot Equivalent Units (TEU). The TEU capacity is the ca-
pacity of the ship as if all containers were 20 ft containers.
A 40 ft container is equivalent to two TEU. Since container
ships generally carry more 40 ft containers than 20 ft con-
tainers, capacity in Forty-foot Equivalent Units (FEU) is
sometimes used.
36.2.1 Speed/Power Considerations
Container ship designs cover a broad spectrum of ship
sizes and speed requirements, ranging from small feeder
ships to 10 000 plus TEU line haul ships. Speed-power re-
quirements for a particular container ship may be guided
by an economic evaluation of the intended service and the
projected container cargo volumes. An optimum design,
within the parameters set by the service, will yield the
greatest return on investment and the lowest freight rates
inclusive of initial capital costs, maintenance costs and
daily operating costs. It will also provide a high degree of
reliability. However, competition for market share on spe-
Chapter 36: Container Ships 36-3

Figure 36.2 Self-sustaining Feeder Ship

Figure 36.3 Mid-size Container Ship

36-4 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2

Figure 36.4 Post-panamax Size Container Ship

cific trades may dictate that the speed requirements for a ment continues with preliminary design work and research
new ship meet or exceed the capability of existing ships. for 10 000 TEU and larger ships. While there are some
Most new buildings are single screw ships powered by twin screw container ships, current diesel engines are sur-
a direct coupled, low speed, two-stroke diesel engine. In passing 100 000 hp, allowing even the largest ships to be
general, container ships tend to be fine in hull form and single shaft.
fast. For liner ship companies, speed selection may not be The two curves presented in Figures 36.5 and 36.6 il-
driven by the lowest freight rate, but rather by the fastest lustrate trends in basic container ship characteristics as a
delivery time and other customer service considerations.
Timely delivery periods allow distributors and retailers
to minimize inventory and warehousing requirements. The
total transit may involve two or more modes of transport
with linked schedules and, therefore, maintaining a sched-
ule is very important. As a result, a strong emphasis is
placed on speed and speed make up capability that will
allow the ship to maintain its schedule even in heavy
weather or in light of other unforeseen delays.
New designs for line haul ships reflect significant in-
creases in size and a continuing effort to provide faster
transits. Previous experience and design limitations with
regard to the size of low speed diesel engines, after body
hull lines, propeller design, and the amount of power that
can be delivered through a single shaft and propeller are
constantly being challenged and improved. New develop- Figure 36.5 Block Coefficient versus Speed
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
Figure 36.6 Speed versus TEUs
Figure 36.7 LBP versus TEUs
function of speed. The curve in Figure 36.7 presents LBP
versus total TEUs. The curve in Figure 36.8 presents in-
stalled power versus container ship capacity in TEUs. The
data plotted in Figure 36.9 presents light ship weight as a
function of ship capacity in TEUs. The data points in these
curves represent a small sample of recent new ships cover-
ing a broad spectrum of sizes and types.
36.2.2 Container Characteristics and Standards
Containerization and the development of container sys-
tems began in the late 1950s. Even in the early stages, it
was recognized that standardization of container sizes
would be crucial for this mode of cargo transport to be-
come widely used. A brief review of the history of the early
36-5
Figure 36.8 Installed Power versus TEUs
Figure 36.9 Lightship Weight versus TEUs
developments in container standards and the design
changes in container systems is presented in reference 1.
Development of the transportation system and develop-
ment of the container standards were closely related.
Methods for transport and handling containers could not
be fully developed until the characteristics and strengths of
the containers were defined. The basic criteria for the de-
sign of containers could not be formalized until the re-
quirements of the entire transportation system were under-
stood. As a result, the process was an iterative one.
The first industry standards were developed by the ASA
(American Standards Association, now ANSI, American
National Standards Institute) and closely coordinated with
ISO (International Organization for Standardization).
While the units throughout this book are presented in the
metric system, containers lengths are sized in feet through-
out the world. In order to avoid confusion container lengths
36-6 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
will be stated in feet with the metric measure shown in
parenthesis immediately after.
Two companies, Sea-Land Service and Matson Naviga-
tion, responsible for early containerization efforts, each
developed their own standard size containers, 35 feet
(10.67 m) long and 24 feet (7.32 m) long, respectively.
Later, the first standard for container size promulgated
by ASA was for 10, 20, 30 and 40 feet (3.05, 6.1, 9.14 and
12.19 m) long containers with a 2.44 m width and height.
Although ASA/ANSI was originally responsible for de-
velopment of container standards (2), containerization was
an international process and the leadership quickly shifted
to the ISO TC-104 committee. The ISO standard presents
basic container terminology, dimensions and tolerances,
ratings, strength, testing, handling and securing, fittings,
identification and markings (3,4).
Cargo containers are generally certified by the classifi-
cation societies. The rules published for their certification,
such as reference 5, also provide a summary of the basic
dimensions and the minimum strength ratings for standard
containers. Containers moving in international trade must
be designed and inspected in accordance with the Customs
Convention (TIR) and the International Convention for
Safe Containers (CSC) and must carry a plaque indicating
this.
Since container strength ratings may limit permissible
stack weights, some operators specify that new containers
meet higher standards in order to maximize stowage. For
example, ship operators may require containers to have a
higher permissible gross weight or a strength rating greater
than the ISO standard. Two characteristics that are often
upgraded are corner post tension and corner post compres-
sion. Containers that meet higher standards are frequently
referred to as class A boxes by the classification societies.
It should be borne in mind that container standards are
voluntary. As road transport regulations change to permit
longer, wider, higher and heavier units, some operators, in
order to gain a competitive edge, elect to utilize larger con-
tainers. While 45 ft (13.72 m) long, 8 in.-0 ft. (2.44 m)
wide containers have become widely used in North Amer-
ica since their introduction in the late 1980s; 8 in.-6 ft.
(2.59) m wide 48 ft (14.63 m) and 53 ft (16.15 m) contain-
ers are typically utilized on special services. Until 48 ft and
53 ft containers are used more widely, they will present de-
sign challenges for stowage on deck and especially under
deck due to the need for stowage flexibility.
There has been a general increase in container height
from the original 2.44 m high standard to 2.59, 2.74 and
2.90 m high boxes. 2.90 m heights are commonplace for 40
ft and 45 ft containers and they are generally referred to as
high cube containers. Although most containers are 2.59 m
or 2.9 m high, there are also shorter containers in service
such as half height (1.45 m) flat racks and open top con-
tainers, as well as taller containers used for shipping auto-
mobiles and other special cargoes.
While the majority of all containers that move in inter-
national trade are dry cargo containers, there are a great
number of specialized containers, many of which require
special features onboard container ships. These include re-
frigerated, ventilated, insulated, dehumidified, liquid tank,
dry bulk, ammunition, garment, open top, tilt sided, fold-
ing, cattle, car, flats and other types.
Note that the IMO requires that every container ship
have a Cargo Securing Manual onboard.
36.2.3 Container Cell Guides and Entry Guides
36.2.3.1 Container cell guides
Containers are commonly stowed below deck and some-
times on deck within fixed vertical cell guides. A typical
cell guide angle is 150 × 150 mm with a thickness of 15
mm. The size and thickness of the angles may vary by de-
sign and with the spacing of the horizontal support struc-
ture. The angles and support structure should be designed
for the transverse and longitudinal loads associated with
the ship’s motions, as well as the impact loads experienced
during cargo loading. The former may be estimated from
the classification society guidelines for calculating design
accelerations as presented in references 6 and 7. The latter
may be approximated from the crane lowering speeds and
the geometry of the entry guide. Cell angle thickness
should also reflect some margin for the anticipated corro-
sion and wear experienced in service as the containers ride
up and down within the bosom of the cell angle.
Container cell guide systems may include features to
provide flexibility for stowing different size containers.
Moveable cell guide structures may be installed to enable
alternate length stowage. Holds may be fitted with guides
and cones to permit the stowage of paired 20 ft containers
within fixed 40 ft cell guides (see Subsection 36.2.3.3).
Designs may include features to facilitate future conver-
sions should changes in service or cargo warrant. For ex-
ample, slim 20 ft container cell guides may be installed
within fixed 40 ft cell guides to provide initial 20 ft slot ca-
pacity that may be readily converted should the additional
40 ft container capacity be needed.
Horizontal spacing of the four vertical cell angles in
one stack includes a margin over the dimensions of the
container. The typical margin is 38 mm longitudinally and
25 mm transversely. Examples of the clear, inside to inside
dimensions and the tolerances specified for 20 ft and 40 ft
container guides are given below:
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
40 ft Cell Length, Fore/aft: 12 225 mm +/– 5 mm or
12 230 mm +0/–10 mm
20 ft Cell Length, Fore/aft: 6090 mm +/– 5 mm or
6096 mm +0/–6 mm
Cell Width Transverse: 2460 mm +/– 3 mm or
2463 mm +0/–6 mm
Diagonal measurements are typically not to differ by more
than 12 mm for 40s and 8 mm for 20s.
Horizontal support structure for the vertical cell guides
is often provided at a vertical spacing of 1.3 to 1.45 meters
or roughly one half of the container height. In some de-
signs, horizontal support spacing equal to the container
height has been successfully used in conjunction with
heavier cell angles (19 mm) and with intermediate chocks
to functionally stiffen the cell angle by marrying it to the
adjacent one. In this scheme the horizontal support points
are located between each tier in way of the container cor-
ner castings, which contact the cell angles.
Out-of-true, excessive or insufficient clearances and ex-
cessive flexibility in container cell supports can lead to
containers jamming in the cells during loading or dis-
charging.
36.2.3.2 Container entry guides
An important component of the cell guide system is the
entry guide at the top of the cell angles, which assists the
crane operator in lowering the containers into each cell. A
properly designed system will facilitate container stowage,
thus increasing cargo-handling productivity, and will min-
imize the potential for damage to the containers and the
ship structure during loading operations. There are two
basic types of entry guides. Conventional entry guides pro-
vide flare in both horizontal directions and are positioned
at the same level across the hatch opening. The other type
of entry guide system is often referred to as a high/low sys-
tem because the height of adjacent longitudinal peaks is
staggered. The latter type allows for a reduction in the
transverse spacing of container stacks and has seen in-
creased utilization as a result.
The flare or gather for conventional entry guides, both
longitudinally and transversely, should provide the crane
operator with the largest target possible. If the spacing be-
tween adjacent container stacks is reduced to maximize
stowage below deck, transverse gather will be reduced, as
well, and crane productivity may be adversely affected.
Productivity is also related to the vertical distance separat-
ing the crane operator and the container entry guides. For
example, for an open top container ship with cell guides
that extend well above the main deck, a smaller transverse
spacing may be successful due to the close proximity of
36-7
the entry guides to the crane operator. A minimum trans-
verse spacing between adjacent container stacks for con-
ventional entry guides would be about 125 to 150 mm. The
entry guide should, preferably, have a slope of at least 4 to
1 in both directions. A steeper entry guide lessens the im-
pact damage and enhances loading operations by guiding
the containers into the cell angles more smoothly. A typi-
cal double entry guide is illustrated in Figure 36.10. Note
that the fore/aft peak of the entry guide projects beyond the
container cell angle, back toward the mating entry guide at
the other end of the hatch in order to facilitate capturing the
container by not allowing the container to rotate within the
gap between opposing cell guides.
An advantage of the high/low system is that it facilitates
loading operations for designs with reduced transverse
spacing. The lower entry guide peak allows the crane op-
erator to use a portion of the space adjacent to the target
stack to lower the container. Once below the higher entry
guide, the operator can shift it transversely, up against the
cell angle of the higher entry guide before lowering it into
the cell. Although the longitudinal peaks are staggered in
height, it is important to maintain the fore/aft sloping sur-
faces in the same plane, across the entire hatch opening.
This ensures that the container is guided in the longitudi-
nal direction first before the crane operator swings the con-
tainer transversely against the higher longitudinal peak. An
illustration of a high/low entry guide system is shown in
Figure 36.11.
For a high/low system with small transverse container
spacing, container stowage may be hampered if the ship is
allowed to heel beyond the limit of the cell guides. In this
scenario, the higher entry guide peak overshadows the cell
Figure 36.10 Typical Container Double Entry Guide
36-8 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2

Figure 36.11 Example of a High/Low Type Entry Guide System

and reduces the available opening, possibly to the point often reinforced for the stowage of two 20 ft containers
where the container contacts the lower peak and cannot be within the 40 ft cell guides. Fixed container cones are in-
stowed. The maximum allowable heel angle is defined as stalled at the 40 ft landing points to position the bottom tier
the arctangent of the sum of the transverse gather plus the 20 ft containers in the fore/aft direction while guides are
transverse cell clearance divided by the difference in installed mid-hatch between stacks to provide transverse
height between adjacent peaks. Ships with a high/low sys- restraint and to guide the free end of the 20 ft container into
tem and a small transverse container spacing will often in- position. Additional tiers of 20 ft containers are positioned
clude an automatic heel control system to prevent the ship using stacking cones. Do to the lack of support at the mid
from exceeding a defined heel angle during cargo loading hatch end of the 20 ft containers, stack weight limitations
operations. should be carefully investigated.
Due to the repetitive impact loads that occur when load- Figure 36.12 shows a typical hanging stacker. It has a
ing containers into the cell guides, it is most important that locking mechanism to secure the upper portion in the con-
the entry guides and the cell angles just below the entry tainer corner casting above. The lower cone is rigid and
guides are well supported to avoid damage. Entry guides provides a shear connection only, without a locking mech-
should be supported or reinforced along all free edges. anism.
Horizontal support structure should be provided along the
top of the entry guide and just below the connection to the
cell angles. An additional horizontal support for the cell
angles should be provided within 600 to 1000 mm of the
bottom of the entry guide. Container entry guides are typ-
ically fabricated from 19 mm or thicker plate.
Minimizing container ship surge at the pier is impor-
tant. The use of constant tension winches and correctly lo-
cating breast and spring mooring line chocks aids in hold-
ing the container ship in position, simplifies spotting the
containers over the cells and enhances the rate of loading
and unloading.

36.2.3.3 Paired 20 ft container stowage below deck

Twenty ft containers are 19 ft–10 1/2 in. long and two 20s
are thus 3 in. or 76 mm shorter than one 40 ft container. To
provide alternate stowage capability, the inner bottom and
stepped wing tank structure in the 40 ft container holds are Figure 36.12 Typical Hold Hanging Stacker
 Chapter 36: Container Ships 36-9

Figure 36.13 Typical Arrangement of Required Fittings for 20 ft Container Stowage in 40 ft Cell Guides

Figure 36.13 shows a typical arrangement of the fittings

utilized to stow 20 ft containers within 40 ft cell guides. In
compliance with regulations in some countries that limit
access to the top of stacks, and to improve productivity,
hanging stackers are normally inserted and removed pier
side.

36.2.4 Container Securing Systems and

Fittings On Deck
Deck container-securing systems are most often com-
prised of fixed and portable lashing fittings that restrain the
container stacks from tipping and from translation in the
horizontal plane. Alternatives are fixed above deck cell
guides and systems that are mechanical in nature. Since
conventional container lashing systems restrain each stack
independently they offer more flexibility for cargo stowage
arrangements.
Container stacks are supported at the four bottom cor-
ner castings and are secured to base sockets using twist- Figure 36.14 Single Wire Pull Semi-automatic Twistlock
lock stackers. Each subsequent container tier is secured to
the lower one using twistlock stackers. Safety regulations
in many countries do not permit stevedores to work on top moved) on the pier by twisting the upper cone and insert-
of container stacks to insert conventional twistlocks. To ing it into the lower container corner casting, usually with
avoid this requirement, a securing device referred to as a the container hanging from the crane. The lower cone au-
semi-automatic twistlock was developed. tomatically twists and engages when lowered into the top
Figure 36.14 shows a typical single wire pull semi-au- corner casting of a container below, onboard the ship. The
tomatic twistlock. This type of twistlock is inserted (or re- lower cone can be released by pulling on the wire thus al-
36-10 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
lowing the twistlock to stay with the container above when
it is discharged. Twist lock technology is still evolving
and designers should check with gear manufacturers and
with the latest regulations before selecting a securing
system.
Application of the lashing system components is de-
pendent upon the container tier weights. A light stack or
stacks that are one or two tiers high may typically be se-
cured using only twistlocks. Stacks with three or more tiers
of containers may also be secured using twistlocks but
with weight limitations. To achieve higher stack weights
for stacks with three or more tiers, transverse restraint is
typically provided with a cross lashing system.
The system includes one or two cross lash assemblies,
each consisting of a rod and a turnbuckle. The cross lash
system illustrated in Figure 36.15 utilizes two different rod
Figure 36.15 Typical Double Cross Lash System
lengths. The upper lash runs from the lashing point at the
base to the lower corner casting of the third tier. The lower
lash is secured to the lower corner casting of the second
tier container. An alternative system is a paired lash sys-
tem, which uses an upper lash to the bottom corner casting
of the second tier and a lower lash to the top corner casting
of the first tier. Although the resulting stack weights using
this system are slightly less than for the previously de-
scribed cross lash system, it is often favored operationally.
The shorter lashing rod may be used for either the upper or
lower lash and the shorter rod is much easier to install and
to handle than the longer upper lash rod shown in Figure
36.15.
It is essential that all slack be removed from the lash-
ings and that the turnbuckle design include a fitting to en-
sure that it doesn’t loosen in a seaway. Otherwise addi-
tional large dynamic loads may be imposed on the securing
system.
Guidelines for the design of container securing systems
or for the determination of permissible stack weights are
provided by the classification societies in publications
such as reference 6. Permissible stack weights are based on
the condition and characteristics of the ship, the location of
the container stack, the strength and stiffness of the con-
tainers, and the strength of lashing system components.
Empirical formulas are given for determination of the hor-
izontal and vertical accelerations. A severe wind pressure
is also assumed to act on the vertical surfaces of outboard,
exposed stacks. The combined forces, including the wind
load and the individual container weights times the verti-
cal and horizontal accelerations, are supported by both the
container structure and the lashing components.
Permissible stack weights are generally limited by the
container strength in racking, corner post compression or
corner post tension. Maximum stack ratings can be im-
proved with the utilization of stronger containers. If an op-
erator maintains a database with the characteristics of the
various series of containers in their system and can plan the
stowage with stronger boxes in the lower tiers of a stack,
then higher stack weights are achievable. In a cross lash
system the vertical component of the lashing assembly re-
straining force contributes to corner post compression and
may reduce allowable tier weights for some stack condi-
tions. For this reason side lashing systems or systems that
reduce the angle of the lashing assembly, such as a lashing
bridge system or a system utilizing longer rods secured to
a wider base, reduce corner post compression and allow
higher tier weights to be stowed.
In contrast to panamax containerships, which are gen-
erally stability limited, post-panamax container ships offer
good static stability characteristics that allow heavier con-
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
tainers to be stowed in the upper tiers on deck. These ships
are often fitted with lashing bridges between container
bays. The lashing restraint provided from the elevated plat-
forms is applied to the upper tier stacks at more effective
angles, thus permitting an extra tier and increased stack
ratings. Since torsional warping of the ship’s hull causes
the hatch covers and container stacks to move relative to
the ship’s structure, lashing bridge-securing systems must
be designed to account for this relative movement.
Classification guidelines limit the design lashing loads
to 50% or 60% of the minimum breaking strength of the
securing component to account for reductions in strength
due to minor damage and wear experienced in service, as
well as to provide a margin on the assumed design loads.
For a container ship that will utilize a conventional
lashing system, the arrangement should provide adequate
access for the stevedores to move the lashing equipment to
the container stacks and a safe workspace to install the
gear. Where space permits, the storage racks and bins for
the lashing equipment should be located close to the loca-
tion at which they will be utilized. When space between
container bays does not permit the lashing equipment to be
stowed locally, the racks and bins are often located along
or outboard of the longitudinal hatch coaming.
Bins for container semi-automatic twistlocks should be
capable of being removed to the pier for installation or re-
moval by the longshoremen as the containers are loaded or
discharged.
Deck stowed containers may also be secured using me-
chanical systems such as stacking towers and frames and
hydraulically operated hinged stacking frames. Such sys-
tems generally require that all boxes in a tier be the same
height, thus limiting stowage flexibility. For systems that
are designed for high cube boxes, it may be possible to ac-
commodate standard height containers with extension fit-
tings.
In a stacking frame system, each layer of containers is
restrained by horizontal frames that in turn are secured to
a buttress tower at the forward and aft ends of the container
bay. Key advantages include lower stevedoring costs and
fewer restrictions on container weights since permissible
stack weights would be limited by the support structure
and ship stability. Disadvantages include reduced flexibil-
ity for stowage of alternate height containers, additional
crane time required to handle the stacking frames and the
requirement for space on the pier or ship for stowage of the
stacking frames during cargo operations.
For a hinged frame securing system, transverse towers
are installed between container bays. Hinged truss type
frames are installed between tiers and are fitted with cones
and twistlocks that connect to the container corner castings
36-11
and provide horizontal restraint. The frames rotate down
after each tier is loaded and up after the tier above is dis-
charged. This type of a mechanical securing system offers
a reduction in stevedoring costs. Drawbacks include the
initial cost and the reduced container stowage flexibility
associated with constraints in both height and length.
The following suggestions are offered to enhance con-
tainer stowage productivity on deck.
• where possible, maintain the standard transverse spac-
ing for container stacks on deck (20 to 25 mm) in order
to facilitate loading by allowing the crane operator to
use the adjacent container as a guide when stowing a
container,
• install a guide on the outboard pedestals to assist the
crane operator when stowing the first container in the
first tier on deck, and
• use semi-automatic twistlocks that can be installed in
the bottom four-corner castings before the containers
are loaded to the ship.
36.2.5 Container Design Loads for Container Securing
and Container Supports
Containers are supported at the corner castings only, mean-
ing each container applies loads to the structure or con-
tainers that support it at these discrete points. Design loads
are derived from the gross weight of the containers and the
anticipated accelerations due to the ship’s motions. Classi-
fication societies have developed guidelines for the design
of container securing systems (6,8). Empirical formulas
are provided to estimate accelerations due to the coupled
motions of the ship in pitch, roll, surge, sway and heave
(7). These may also be determined by direct analysis.
There are two primary mechanisms for this dynamic
loading. One is the vertical loading associated with maxi-
mum pitch and heave conditions. The other is the trans-
verse and vertical loading associated with the accelerations
due to the coupled motion of the ship in roll and heave. Ap-
plication of the resulting accelerations to the design con-
tainer stack permits an estimate of the loads and forces in
the container structure, container securing equipment and
container support structure.
In addition to the acceleration loads, stacks that are ex-
posed to the weather are subjected to a wind pressure that
is applied to the profile or lateral side of the container.
Computer programs have been developed to calculate
the dynamic loads in the container structure and securing
components in accordance with class criteria or an owner’s
criteria. Results are evaluated against permissible con-
tainer strengths and the allowable loading for container se-
36-12 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
curing devices. The resulting loads may also be used to
evaluate container support structure.
The transverse load associated with the roll motion
coupled with heave typically governs the design of cell
guides, on deck pedestals, hatch cover shear chocks and
lashing systems. A significant component of the lateral ac-
celeration (parallel to baseline) is the force of gravity act-
ing at the maximum roll angle.
The following accelerations have been calculated for
containers stowed in the first and fourth tiers on deck for a
panamax container ship, based on reference 6.
GMt 0.4 meters
Estimated maximum roll angle 21.6 deg.
Roll period 18.5 sec.
Transverse acceleration due to gravity 0.55 gs
Total transverse acceleration – 1st tier 0.60 gs
Total transverse acceleration – 4th tier 0.68 gs
Maximum vertical acceleration 1.25 gs
Maximum longitudinal acceleration 0.25 gs
Note that the accelerations calculated from the classifi-
cation guidelines are predicated on the assumption that the
ship is rolling at or close to it’s natural period. In order to
experience synchronous rolling at normal operating GMs,
the encounter frequency must be relatively low and the di-
rection of the seaway would typically be from the stern or
stern quarter.
Severe roll accelerations can occur at encounter fre-
quencies other than the natural roll period. Model testing
has shown that large amplitude roll motions can occur
when the wave encounter period is one half the natural pe-
riod of roll in head or bow seas for very fine ships with a
high degree of bow flare. Such events have been recorded
in service for some post-panamax container ships (9).
Container stacks are typically lashed so that each stack
is independent and free standing. The container structure,
the lashing assemblies and other securing components,
such as twistlocks and twistlock foundations, resist the lat-
eral forces generated by vessel accelerations. The over-
turning moment created by the horizontal forces is coun-
teracted by the horizontal component of the lashing rod
tension and a moment formed by the vertical forces at the
base of the stack.
When designing the support structure for a lashed con-
tainer stack, the large vertical forces exerted by the lashing
tension and the overturning moment need to be considered.
For adjacent container stacks, when one corner of a stack
is under maximum compression conditions, the adjacent
stack corner is under maximum tension conditions, reduc-
ing the total vertical force on the surrounding structure.
However, since an adjacent stack may be empty, the struc-
tural brackets just below the twistlock foundation should
consider the maximum vertical load.
The design of container support structure such as hatch
covers and decks at the base of cell guides should also be
evaluated for the vertical forces resulting from vessel max-
imum pitch and heave. The vertical accelerations in this
condition vary along the length of the ship, with the lowest
values occurring at the vessel pitch center and the higher
values at the vessel ends. Values for vertical accelerations
can range from about 1.2 g near midship to 1.75 g near the
bow or stern. Concurrent longitudinal accelerations are on
the order of 0.23 to 0.27 g.
36.2.6 Vessel Beam and Hatch Opening Width
In order to maximize cargo stowage, the breadth of a con-
tainer ship is normally a multiple of the container spacing
on deck. Transverse spacing between adjacent deck stacks
is often 25 mm and therefore the ship breadth is typically
a multiple of 2463 mm with some additional margin.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, the breadth of large con-
tainer ships was typically the maximum breadth permitted
for transiting the Panama Canal, roughly 32.2 meters.
These ships, commonly referred to as panamax container
ships, permitted 13 stacks of containers to be stowed across
the ship on deck. Most shore-side cranes were designed
with an outreach to handle the outboard most stack of a
panamax ship. During this period, greater container capac-
ity was achieved by increasing ship length and by enhanc-
ing above deck securing systems to permit containers to be
stowed in stacks four and five high. Eventually, the pana-
max size ship faced limitations in stability and longitudinal
strength and some ships were designed with high density
fixed ballast in the midship double bottom tanks.
Further advances in capacity came about in two ways.
One significant change was the increase in beam. The first
post-panamax beam ships, the C-10 designated class for
American President Lines, were delivered in 1988. With a
beam of 39.4 meters, these ships permitted containers to be
stowed in 16 stacks across on deck and 12 across below
deck. Since 1988, other container ships have been deliv-
ered with larger beams permitting containers to be stacked
17 wide on deck. It is anticipated that future new buildings
will have even greater breadths and that total capacities of
10 000 TEUs or more will be achieved.
The second significant design change was to increase
the number of below deck stacks by widening the hatch
opening, by decreasing the spacing between containers
and by either eliminating the longitudinal girders that sup-
port the hatch covers or reducing their width. Increasing
 Chapter 36: Container Ships 36-13

below deck capacity lowers the center of gravity of the

cargo and enhances the overall efficiency by providing ad-
ditional useable capacity.
Increasing the hatch width tends to lower the neutral
axis of the longitudinal hull girder and leads to a design
with increased depth or to the utilization of high strength
steels in order to meet longitudinal strength requirements.
Large hatch openings also reduce the torsional rigidity of
the ship and increase torsional deflection and warping
stresses.
Watertight transverse bulkheads are designed to sup-
port the maximum water head load associated with a dam-
aged condition. Elimination of the inboard longitudinal
hatch coaming girders and the associated longitudinal sup-
port structure increases the span and structural require-
ments of the transverse bulkhead, upper box girder. Figure 36.17 Beam/Depth versus Total TEUs
A series of panamax container ships delivered in the
late 1990s permits stowage of 12 stacks below deck, one
less than on deck. The width of the port and starboard wing
spaces is approximately 1.1 meters. In light of the struc-
tural and operational challenges of this design, it will be in-
teresting to see if it is successful and will be followed by
similar ships.
The approximate relationship between the beam and
container capacity may be seen in Figures 36.16–36.18
which present LBP/Beam, Beam/Depth and cubic number
(LBP × Beam × Depth/100 in meters) versus total TEUs
for a range of recent new container ships.
Note that quoted container capacities can be misleading
since they often represent the total slot capacity or the total
number of spaces in which a standard height container may
be stowed rather than the actual useable capacity. The true
operating capacity is a function of the service and the an- Figure 36.18 Cubic Number versus TEUs
ticipated distribution of container cargo weights.
36.2.7 Vessel Depth
A typical container ship has a length to depth ratio of about
12, with lengthened vessels having ratios ranging upwards
to 15. Reducing the length to depth ratio by increasing the
vessel depth increases hull girder section modulus and
may allow a reduction in the thickness of the main deck
and bottom plates, as the top and bottom flanges of the hull
girder become more effective. However, other design is-
sues must be considered in determining the design depth.
An increase in depth increases the gross and net tonnages
thereby increasing vessel port fees. Depth affects the
height of the center of gravity of the lightship, and an in-
crease may adversely affect stability. A deeper ship may
have a greater hull steel weight if the reduction in main
deck and bottom plating does not offset the increase in
Figure 36.16 LBP/Beam versus Total TEUs transverse structure.
36-14 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
Container ship depth is closely related to the number of
tiers of containers to be stowed below deck. The distance
from the baseline to the top of the hatch coaming is equal
to the height of the double bottom plus the clear height
available for containers. The clear height reflects a mix of
high-cube and standard height containers and a small mar-
gin for clearance to the underside of the hatch cover.
The relationship between the number of tiers and ves-
sel depth can be illustrated in the following example. A
typical 275 m long container ship would have a double bot-
tom height of about 1.7 m and a coaming height of about
1.5 m. Assuming a clear height for seven tiers of standard
height containers plus one high cube and a small clearance
to the underside of the hatch cover equates to a depth of
21.3 to 21.4 m, which is typical for a panamax size con-
tainer ship. Provision for additional high cube boxes with-
out loosing a tier would necessitate increasing either the
upper deck height or the coaming height.
For deep ships with 8 or more tiers, permissible stack
weights must be evaluated based upon the structural limi-
tations of the inner bottom and container strength ratings.
Figure 36.19 presents the approximate relationship be-
tween LBP/Depth and total TEU capacity for recently con-
structed new container ships.
36.2.8 Hatch Cover Design
Container ship hatch covers have multiple requirements,
but the primary functions are to provide a weathertight
covering for the cargo hold and to support the stacks of
containers above. Operationally, they need to be easily
shifted and stacked by the container-handling crane. Over
Figure 36.19 LBP / Depth versus TEUs
the years lift-on/lift-off pontoon type hatch covers with
discrete support points have become the industry standard.
Because the hatch covers are an integral part of the
container stowage system, there are many issues that need
to be addressed when designing or specifying the hatch
covers.
36.2.8.1 Design loads
There are two primary design loads for a hatch cover. One
is the evenly distributed water-head load based on the load
line regulations (10). For position one locations from the
stem to L/4, the load is 1.75 t/m2 and for position two lo-
cations from L/4 to the stern, it is 1.30 t/m2. This design
load normally determines the tertiary and secondary stiff-
ener scantlings and can influence the primary longitudinal
girder scantlings, depending on the container loads.
The primary loads acting on the hatch covers in day-to-
day service are the forces from the containers stacked
above. Methods for calculating the container forces are de-
scribed in Section 36.2.5. The container loads are applied
to the hatch cover structure at the container base sockets
and at the lashing plates or D-rings. Cover supporting
loads are applied at the structural contact points to the
hatch coaming, including the bearing pads, shear chocks
and vertical securing points (for example, drop bolts).
Note that for some arrangements it may be necessary to
apply both the container load and a water-head load.
36.2.8.2 Arrangements and structures
Hatch covers for early container ship designs were sup-
ported directly on the perimeter skirts. This arrangement
led to maintenance issues associated with the cover skirt
wearing a groove in the coaming top and with damage to
the skirt plate. Current designs normally support the cov-
ers at discrete points or bearing pads. The design consists
of brackets attached to the skirt plate that support a bearing
pad fitted either externally or internally to the cover. The
bearing pads rest on steel blocks or stools installed on top
of the coaming. The bearing pads are typically fitted with
liners or wear plates. Due to the large relative movement
and the potential for significant wear, most large container
ships use synthetic low friction materials or bearing pads
that allow flexibility.
The intent in designing a hatch cover is to make it struc-
turally efficient and relatively light. The primary girders
are typically aligned with the container corners and the
bearing pads are located at the ends of the girders. In this
way, the heavy container loads are transferred in a direct
manner to the coaming structure. The scantlings of the top
and side structure can be relatively light, suitable for the
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
design water-head load. However, specific areas of the
cover such as in way of lifting sockets, hatch cover guides
and shear chocks need to be robust due to contact and nor-
mal handling requirements.
For ships without longitudinal hatch girders, it is oper-
ationally beneficial to align the break between adjacent
hatch covers with the cell guides below deck. This will
permit access to all vertical cells below any single hatch
cover.
Where possible, container stacks should not span over
the longitudinal joint between adjacent covers. The two
covers will move relative to one another in a seaway caus-
ing significant displacement and the potential for rapid
wear of the deck socket and twistlock fitting. The first tier
container may also experience additional strain. Contain-
ers spanning the gap between covers can be avoided if both
the below deck and above deck containers are an even
number or odd number across. When a container stack
does span a gap between hatch covers or spans from a
hatch cover to pedestals, sliding deck sockets or deck sock-
ets with elongated holes may be used to accommodate the
relative fore and aft movement.
36.2.8.3 Twenty ft container stowage on hatch covers
Stowage of 20 ft containers on a 40 ft hatch cover places a
significant load at mid span and increases the required
scantlings for the hatch cover main longitudinal girders
due to the increased bending moment. An alternative to
strengthening the longitudinal girders, which may increase
the weight and the depth of the covers, is to install trans-
verse beams with coaming supports at mid span. In this
way the 20 ft containers are directly supported at midspan.
This is commonly done when the hatch opening is fitted
with longitudinal hatch girders. For designs without longi-
tudinal hatch girders, midspan transverse girders can be fit-
ted to support the outer 20 ft container stacks of the out-
board covers. Inboard container stacks must rely solely on
the strength of the longitudinal girders. Hatch cover
weights are often limited to the maximum gross weight of
a 40 ft container. This design goal and the longitudinal
girder strength requirements limit 20 ft container stack
weights, which are typically 60 to 80 tons while 40 ft stack
weights are 90 tons or more.
A second design issue with 20 ft container stowage on
hatch covers is whether to stow the 20 ft containers in a 40
ft slot, separated by 76 mm at the mid point, or to space
them apart longitudinally. Stowing two 20 ft containers in
a single 40 ft slot provides greater stowage flexibility be-
cause the 20 ft containers can be overstowed by 40 ft con-
tainers. This is beneficial if only limited quantities of 20 ft
36-15
containers are to be carried on deck or if the structural, 20
ft container stack weights limit the number of tiers. The
disadvantage of paired 20 ft stowage is that the 20 ft con-
tainers can not be lashed at the mid hatch location, limiting
the 20 ft stack to effectively three tiers. The alternative de-
sign is to separate the 20 ft containers by roughly 800 mm
fore and aft. This arrangement requires that a second set of
20 ft container deck sockets be installed at one end of the
cover. It does allow lashing of the 20 ft containers at both
ends and up to five tiers high on deck. However, no over-
stow of 40 ft containers is possible. This arrangement
should be used when a large number of 20 ft containers are
to be carried.
36.2.8.4 Hatch cover fittings
Ease of handling of hatch covers and frequency of mainte-
nance are affected by the type of fittings installed on the
covers. Two high maintenance items are the gaskets and
the bearing pads.
Gaskets are used to provide the weathertight seal re-
quired by the load line regulations. Traditionally, the gas-
ket has been installed in a channel or angle bar retainer
along the periphery of the hatch cover and seals against a
stainless steel bar installed on the coaming. This design re-
quires control of the alignment and height of the cover off
the coaming in order to maintain the correct compression
of the gasket by the sealing bar. As the cover supports
wear, the gasket tends to over compress and become per-
manently deformed. In addition, after the gasket becomes
over compressed, the relative motion between the cover
and the coaming may result in damage to the gasket. Gas-
kets may also be damaged when covers are stacked one on
the other. The cover fittings or twistlocks on the lower
cover can hit and damage the gasket and gasket retainer on
the lower side of the upper cover. As a result of the many
sources of damage, repair and replacement of gaskets is an
ongoing and expensive maintenance item. Furthermore,
damaged gaskets can allow ingress of water into the cargo
holds, leading to accelerated corrosion and coating failure
within the holds.
Alternatives to the gasket and sealing bar arrangement
may be used to reduce or eliminate the associated mainte-
nance problem. Container ships with a large freeboard,
such as panamax or larger ships, may by class regulations
eliminate the gasket provided the cover and hatch coaming
are fitted with a simple labyrinth to restrict water ingress
into the hold. A second solution is to use an improved gas-
ket design. Some cover manufacturers have developed de-
signs that eliminate the sealing bar and allow the gasket to
rest on the coaming directly. This design eliminates the
36-16 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
problem of maintaining alignment of the gasket and seal-
ing bar and is more forgiving of differences in degree of
compression.
Hatches without inboard longitudinal girders present a
unique design condition. For gasketless covers, a small gap
is provided between adjacent covers and a gutter bar is in-
stalled along the length of both covers to channel any water
forward and aft to the transverse coamings. Alternatively,
the covers can be fitted with an inflatable type of gasket or
a rubber flap type seal for the longitudinal joint between
covers. Such designs have an advantage over an overlap-
ping sealing arrangement since they do not require se-
quencing of the covers.
Hatch cover support systems have been an ongoing and
difficult maintenance issue on container ships for years.
The traditional steel on steel system consisting of a support
bracket with a bearing pad resting on a steel block on the
coaming has been found to wear excessively in very short
periods of time, particularly on panamax and larger ships.
On smaller vessels, particularly feeders that are often not
in heavy weather, the steel on steel bearing wear pads can
have a reasonable life expectancy of 5 years or more. A
bearing pad is considered worn when the clearance be-
tween the cover skirt and the coaming is eliminated and the
skirt rests directly on the coaming. The difficulty in repair-
ing the bearing pads is the careful fit-up required to main-
tain good contact at all pads. In addition, if the bearing
pads are fitted internally on the cover access staging is re-
quired. Both aspects make this a difficult job to do with the
ship in normal service. A further problem with steel on
steel bearing pads is the large friction force created when
the cover moves relative to the coaming in a seaway. This
horizontal force can range up to 50% of the vertical force
and can, if not properly supported, damage the coaming
support blocks or the covers. The steel bearing pads should
always be designed with wear pads that are the same size
so that the wear is even and level. Utilization of wear pads
allows for easier removal and replacement.
The life expectancy of bearing wear pads can be im-
proved by using corrosion resistant and abrasion resistant
materials. However, wear still occurs and the problems
created by friction still exist. Another solution is to install
a low friction, long life liner material at the contact surface.
The mating face to the low friction liner is larger in area
and normally stainless steel in order to keep a smooth con-
tact surface. The key factors in evaluating the suitability of
such a material are its durability under high pressures and
toughness to withstand the rigors associated with the han-
dling of the covers and the harsh marine environment.
Good alignment and contact is important for all types of
hatch cover bearing pads, but is critical with some types of
low friction liners. Uneven distribution of loading on the
liners can lead to overloading of the part of the liner in con-
tact and cause premature failure. Some low friction liner
systems include a rubber shim to allow more tolerance in
alignment.
The transverse and longitudinal container loads associ-
ated with the ship’s motions in a seaway are transmitted
from the cover to the coaming by a fitting called a shear
chock. Hatch covers are aligned and positioned on the
coaming using a fitting called a cover guide. The functions
of these two fittings are frequently combined. The com-
bined shear chock and cover guides are normally fitted at
the transverse ends of the covers. One or two of the com-
bined fittings are installed at each end depending on
whether the arrangement and design of the fittings provide
support in one or both directions.
Hatch cover guides should be designed to insure that
that the cover will always contact the guide first, before
contacting other fittings or the adjacent cover, when the
cover is stowed. Replaceable shims should be fitted to the
guide to allow precise centering and alignment. The guides
and associated hatch cover fittings must be robust in design
and well supported to withstand the rough handling expe-
rienced in service.
36.2.9 Container Pedestals
All available spaces on the hatch covers and upper deck
that are reasonably safe from exposure to heavy weather
damage can be utilized for container stowage. Deck areas
that are needed for passage or for mooring may be kept
clear by installing pedestals to raise the container stacks
and to provide suitable headroom. Figure 36.20 illustrates
the typical arrangement of pedestals outboard of the hatch
coamings.
36.2.9.1 Types of pedestals
Pedestals are typically installed along the edge of the upper
deck outboard of the hatches so that the top of the pedestal
is level with the hatch cover. In a typical arrangement, the
outboard side of the outboard container stack is supported
on pedestals and the inboard side rests on the hatch cover.
In some areas of the ship, such as the forward part, the
hatches are farther inboard of the side shell and several
rows of pedestals are often installed.
Container pedestals can be either stayed or self-sup-
porting. The stays are provided to support transverse and
longitudinal container loads and are often fabricated from
pipes or other structural sections. A typical stayed pedestal
is fabricated from a 250 mm or 300 mm pipe stood on end
and topped with a heavy flat plate. The container deck
 Chapter 36: Container Ships 36-17

socket and lashing plates are installed on the top plate. The
stays normally consist of two smaller diameter diagonal
pipes, one oriented fore/aft and one oriented transversely.
A variation of this design uses square tube sections rather
than pipes. Adjacent pedestals can be connected by a hor-
izontal strut in order to utilize a common diagonal brace.
The self-supporting, unstayed pedestal is usually rec-
tangular in shape and has adequate cross sectional area to
withstand all the forces exerted on it by the container stack.
A similar top plate is provided on which are fitted the deck
socket and lashing plates.
Regardless of the type of pedestal, a means to access
the top surface is needed for releasing twistlocks and for
carrying out lashing operations. One way to do this is to fit
a small platform to the pedestal and to install a ladder for
access. An alternative is to install a platform that extends
from the pedestal to the hatch coaming and allows access
from there. The latter arrangement is preferred since it pro-
vides a better workspace, across the front of the container
stack, to install and remove lashings. Handrails must be fit-
ted at the outboard edge and along unprotected edges of
the platforms for safety. At locations that are suitably re-
moved or clear of container handling, fixed railings can be
used. In close proximity of container stacks, a fold down or
removable railing should be installed. Railings are fre-
quently damaged during container handling and tend to be
a high maintenance item.
Pedestals that are installed over aft mooring spaces or
over deck areas where there are no hatches can range from
several containers wide up to the full beam of the ship.
They frequently are constructed of a horizontal beam with Figure 36.20 Design Loads on Container Stack Supported by Outboard
vertical stanchions in line with the container corners. Plat- Pedestals
forms are fitted at the level of the horizontal beam for lash-
ing and general access. Deck sockets and lashing eyes are
installed on the top flange of the horizontal beam. Diago- lashing tension. On the uphill side, the pedestal must sup-
nal braces are installed to provide longitudinal and trans- port the maximum corner post tension and the maximum
verse support. lashing loads.
A key assumption when designing single type pedestals
36.2.9.2 Design loads is the distribution of the transverse container stack loads to
Loads exerted on pedestals in way of the container deck the four bottom corners. The distribution of the load will
sockets and the lashing securing points are a combination be a function of the potential transverse movement of the
of the static stack weight and the dynamic forces created hatch cover, the flexibility of the pedestal and the slack in
by the ship’s motions as described in Section 36.2.5. Fig- the bottom container securing fittings that would allow the
ure 36.20 illustrates the container and lashing loads for the stack to slide. Consider the condition where the inboard
up-hill conditions, when the vessel is rolling away from the side of the container stack lands on a well-secured hatch
pedestal. When the vessel is rolling toward the pedestal cover while the outboard side lands on a single pedestal.
the horizontal forces are in the opposite direction and the Using an assumption of equal load distribution to the four
lashing tension pulls on the opposite corner. On the down- corners, the single pedestal would support a transverse
hill side, the pedestal must support the maximum 1st tier load that is a significant contributor to its size and cost.
container-racking load and the maximum corner post com- In order to reduce the required pedestal strength, more
pression load, which includes the vertical component of load must be supported by the well-secured inboard side of
36-18 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
the stack. The pedestal is designed to be flexible enough to
bend under the transverse loads, without overstressing, and
thus able to shed the transverse loads across the container.
Because of concerns about the strength of the container
bottom structure and the slack between the twistlock and
the container and deck sockets, this concept should be
carefully evaluated.
In addition to checking the adequacy of pedestals under
transverse loading conditions, they should also be checked
under maximum pitch and heave conditions that develop
the highest vertical loads. This assumed condition also de-
velops the maximum longitudinal loads on the pedestal.
Longitudinal loads are generally about one third the mag-
nitude of transverse loads. No lashing restraint is provided
in this direction. The under deck support structure should
be checked for the same design loads as the pedestals, par-
ticularly the maximum vertical loads.
36.2.10 Refrigerated Container Stowage
Refrigerated cargoes are important to carriers because of
the higher freight rates that they command. The traffic in
refrigerated containers, commonly called reefer contain-
ers, is increasing as a result of the growing trade in fresh
fruits and vegetables and frozen products throughout the
world. The reefer container is also gaining market share
from the dedicated reefer ship as it offers great flexibility
of shipment and reduced handling.
The reefer container is commonly a 40 ft container, al-
though some trades use 20s and a few 45s are being intro-
duced. Many newer boxes are 2.9 m high (high cube type)
in order to provide more available volume. The reefer ma-
chinery is recessed into the front panel at the forward end
of the container. Most modern reefer containers have an
electrically driven self-contained refrigeration unit with
sophisticated features and controls. They can maintain
constant temperature, carry frozen or chilled cargo, circu-
late air through the container, maintain special atmos-
pheres, and record internal temperatures. The transport of
reefers impacts the design and operation of container
ships. In addition to electrical power, reefers need ventila-
tion, a means to dissipate generated heat and access for
maintenance and for monitoring temperatures.
Since reefer containers are generally air cooled, the pre-
ferred stowage location is on deck. When large numbers of
reefers are to be carried, then consideration should be
given to adding below deck stowage. Forty ft reefers tend
to weigh over 20 tonnes and stowing some of them below
deck can improve stability.
If reefers are stowed below deck, then the cargo holds
have to be provided with a suitably sized ventilation sys-
tem. A rule of thumb used by some designers and ship-
yards is 60 to 90 m3/minute of ventilation for each reefer
container stowed below deck. This has been found to be
adequate ventilation for worldwide trading, including ser-
vice in tropical areas. Less ventilation may be installed,
particularly if the vessel is primarily intended for colder
waters and climates. Heat transfer calculations can be
made to obtain estimates of the heat generated by the
reefer containers, the ability of the hold to dissipate heat
and the required air exchanges per hour to maintain an ac-
ceptable temperature rise in the hold. Ventilation can be
ducted to each container or to the hold as a whole. Ducting
to the vicinity of each container is more effective and
avoids the potential build-up of heat in local areas that
might cause refrigeration units to trip on overload. The
bulkhead and coaming structure for a reefer cargo hold
should be designed to allow room for access, for ventila-
tion ducting, intakes and outlets and for storage of spare
parts. The access, hatches and equipment should consider
the need to handle heavy parts such as compressors.
Not all under deck reefer systems require the containers
to have self-contained refrigeration units and large ventila-
tion systems to dissipate the heat generated in the cargo
hold. One such alternative is the Conair system. Large re-
frigeration units are installed in the engine room where the
heat can be dissipated more efficiently using salt water
coolers. The refrigerant is piped to air chillers in the cargo
holds. Cooled air is distributed to individual containers via
fans and a ducting system with terminations that are con-
nected to each insulated reefer container. This type of sys-
tem eliminates the need to dissipate the heat generated by
the reefer machinery in self-contained units. It is used
mostly on vessels intended to carry large quantities of
reefer containers with common products. It requires a large
inventory of unique reefer containers, special outfitting
and machinery on board the ship and special attachable
units for cooling the reefer containers when they are off the
ship. Another alternative method is to supply chilled air to
the hold. It requires that the cargo hold be insulated and
that all of the cargo be of a similar type. The coolant can be
chilled water or a refrigerant.
Due to the high value of refrigerated cargo, it is impor-
tant for the crew to verify that each refrigeration unit is op-
erating properly and maintaining the cargo within an al-
lowable temperature range. Refrigeration units can be
monitored manually or remotely by using an electronic
system that either transmits conditions over the power sys-
tem or broadcasts them by a transponder. It is essential to
have access to each refrigerated container should the re-
frigeration unit require maintenance and repair, particu-
larly over a long ocean passage. For below deck reefers,
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
access is normally provided by installing platform gratings
at each tier.
In a projected service with a large number of reefer con-
tainers the peak electrical power requirements for the re-
frigerated cargo will impact the size and number of ship’s
generators. A reefer container operating in the full chill
mode uses between 10 and 13 kW of power. For frozen
cargoes electrical power usage is typically less than 10 kW.
Not all reefers are at full power simultaneously because the
reefers normally cycle on and off. When designing electri-
cal systems diversity factors ranging from 0.6 to 0.75 are
typical, but the designer should be careful to examine the
proposed service and equipment as this factor may vary.
Reefer containers are normally fitted with a long elec-
trical cord and an end plug that may be inserted into stan-
dard receptacles mounted on the hatch coaming for above
deck reefers and along the access gratings for below deck
reefers. Both the plug and receptacle are constructed ac-
cording to standard codes, which allow interchangeability
between shipping lines. The most common standard for
plugs and receptacles is the 440 V, 60 Hz, 32A, CEE 17.3h
standard (11). Four to six receptacles are commonly
ganged together in a stainless steel box. Each receptacle
has its own circuit breaker, usually 30 amps. The recepta-
cles are fed from distribution panels mounted below deck
in protected locations.
Providing generator capacity to meet peak loads with
high volumes of reefers can be costly both for a new ship
or when upgrading the number of reefers on an existing
vessel. A builder is naturally inclined to reduce costs and,
therefore, might utilize a low diversity factor or a low
power requirement per box in the design of a reefer sys-
tem. The resultant capacity may be misleading with regard
to the actual reefer capacity in summer and tropical condi-
tions. Operators prefer that the electrical system have
ample margins to meet all weather conditions and for pos-
sible future upgrades to increase the number of reefer re-
ceptacles. During the design phase, reefer capacity and
power requirements should be defined and agreed upon by
the customer, designer and shipyard.
Cargoes that are sensitive to high and low temperatures
may be carried in reefers or in insulated containers.
36.2.11 Transport of Dangerous and Hazardous Cargoes
Like reefer cargoes, dangerous cargoes command higher
freight rates than dry cargo and are increasing in volume
and as a percent of cargo transported. Because of their na-
ture, these types of cargoes must be transported with great
care and in accordance with international and national reg-
ulations. Proper segregation is a difficult stow planning
36-19
problem especially when many different hazardous car-
goes are transported.
The International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code,
commonly referred to as the IMDG Code, regulates the
packaging, handling, segregation, stowage location, label-
ing, environmental and fire fighting aspects of the transport
of dangerous goods. It includes specific regulations for
most dangerous commodities that are regularly transported
and divides them into nine classes, with most classes fur-
ther divided into sub-categories. The classes are as follows:
Class 1 Explosives
Class 2 Gases
Class 3 Flammable Liquids
Class 4 Flammable Solids
Class 5 Oxidizing Substances and Organic Peroxides
Class 6 Toxic and Infectious Substances
Class 7 Radioactive Materials
Class 8 Corrosives
Class 9 Miscellaneous Substances
Each dangerous commodity has an identifying number,
commonly referred to as its UN number. This number is
marked on the outside of the container so that everyone
dealing with the container is aware of its contents and can
take proper precautions when handling it, or if there is a
fire or leak in or around the container, can take proper fire
fighting and personnel safety measures.
Besides the requirements contained in the IMDG, many
nations have their own national regulations. These prima-
rily control dangerous goods entering or originating in the
country. In the U.S. these regulations are contained in
Chapter I of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), commonly referred to as the DOT regulations.
Regulations relating to the transport of dangerous goods
on ships are in Part 176.
Regulations prescribing the vessel equipment and out-
fitting required to carry dangerous cargoes are given in
SOLAS Chapter II-2, Regulation 54. Some of the major
requirements applicable to container ships are:
• a system of hold cooling by water spray or equivalent
for Class 1 explosive cargo,
• certified safe electrical fittings in holds for any class of
cargo that is explosive or flammable,
• a bilge system that is independent of the engine room
for any cargo that is flammable or toxic,
• ample water supply by fire hose,
• two additional sets of breathing apparatus and four
chemical resistant protective suits, and
• a hold ventilation system with two or six air changes
per hour. The lower number is applicable to specific
36-20 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
classes of dangerous cargoes that are carried in closed
freight containers.
Each vessel that is outfitted in accordance with Regula-
tion 54 is issued a Document of Compliance by the flag
administration or their designated issuing agent. This will
list the specific holds and deck areas of the ship that are
suitable for the designated classes of dangerous cargo.
36.2.12 Container Ship Structure
Container ship structure is designed to suit cargo contain-
ers that have fixed dimensions and discrete support points
and to provide special features that facilitate cargo
stowage, such as large hatch openings. Many structural
components need to be designed with care to avoid prob-
lems in service. Figure 36.21 illustrates some of the poten-
tial problem areas.
36.2.12.1 Midship section
The typical modern container ship has a double hull struc-
tural arrangement in the midship area. Figure 36.22 pre-
Figure 36.21 Areas of Interest for Container Ship Structure
sents the midship section and midship web frame for a
panamax container ship. Framing is longitudinal through-
out the midship section. The location of the longitudinal
bulkhead is defined by the below deck container stowage
arrangement and the width of the hatch opening. The large
hatch openings effectively make the container ship an open
section with reduced torsional rigidity. The sidewalls are
normally about 2 to 2.5 m wide. In order to increase the
number of container cells within the existing beam, some
designs have attempted to reduce this to 1 to 1.5 m. The re-
sulting narrow side tank creates many structural and access
issues that need to be carefully considered.
In the double bottom, the spacing of the longitudinal
side girders matches the spacing of the containers in the
hold above. In this way containers land on or adjacent to
the girders. The side girders and floors form a grillage type
structure that supports cargo hold container loads and ex-
ternal hydrostatic forces between bulkheads. Similarly, the
web frames and stringers in the side structure form a gril-
lage to support the ship’s side between bulkheads.
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
Figure 36.22 Typical Midship Section of a Panamax Container Ship
36.2.12.2 Longitudinal box girders
The large hatch openings that typify container ships reduce
the available width of continuous main deck plating or top
flange of the hull girder. Longitudinal strength is provided
by a continuous box girder that runs the full length of the
hatch openings and is fabricated using thick plate. It is
formed by the main deck outboard of the hatch openings,
the sheer strake, the upper strake of the longitudinal bulk-
head and the second deck. The stiffeners within the box
girder are typically slab plate longitudinals so that they
may effectively contribute to the hull girder section modu-
lus as well. The amount of high strength steel utilized in
the midship section varies from design to design. As a min-
imum, most new designs incorporate high strength steel in
the longitudinal box girder structure. Special attention
should be paid to the design details used in the box girders.
36.2.12.3 Longitudinal hatch coamings
Longitudinal hatch coamings experience significant
stresses and deflections because of their distance from the
neutral axis. Some early generation container ships were
constructed with non-continuous coamings. While this re-
36-21
moved the coaming from the hull girder section and re-
duced some of the stresses in the coamings, problems oc-
curred with cracking in way of the transitions to the upper
deck. A continuous coaming will contribute to longitudinal
strength and permit a reduction in main deck thickness. As
a result, most modern designs incorporate continuous lon-
gitudinal hatch coamings.
It is important to design the coaming with good conti-
nuity, well radiused corners and tapered longitudinal tran-
sitions to avoid cracking. Material should be equivalent to
or higher in strength than the main deck steel.
36.2.12.4 Longitudinal hatch girders
Container ships normally have two or three hatch covers
spanning across the hatch opening. Traditionally, this re-
quired one or two longitudinal hatch girders to support the
inboard sides of the covers. The tops of the girders are level
with the tops of the hatch coamings. The girders may be ei-
ther structurally continuous or non-continuous.
Continuous girders should be designed with special at-
tention to the transverse bulkhead connection because of
the propensity for cracking at this connection. Non-contin-
36-22 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2

uous girders avoid this potential cracking problem, but

pose design issues related to the expansion joint or in pro-
viding a weathertight seal in way of the flexible joint. In-
stallation of longitudinal hatch girders increases the over-
all width of the hatch opening for the designated number
of containers. Elimination of the girders may allow an ad-
ditional container cell and increase below deck stowage.
However, hatch girders do offer some advantages. They
make it easier to seal the longitudinal joint between hatch
covers and to support 20 ft containers on the covers.

36.2.12.5 Hatch corners

Large angular deflections of the hatch opening caused by
torsional moments acting on the container ship’s open sec-
tion create large strains in the main deck hatch corners. As
a result, this structural detail is one of the most critical in a
container ship. Hatch corners at the coaming top level are Figure 36.24 Typical Elliptical Design with a Large Initial Radius of 900 mm
also important, particularly when the longitudinal coam-
ings or hatch girders are continuous. For these corners a
large, generous radius should be provided.
Three examples of common hatch corner designs are
shown in Figures 36.23–36.25.
Circular and elliptical hatch corner details lower the
stress concentration in the main deck. In order to further
reduce stresses, a thicker plate may be inserted in the main
deck in way of the corner. Typically, these inserts range
from 10% to 40% thicker than the surrounding main deck
plate. Thickness transitions in way of inserts should have
at least a 1:4 gradient. The plate edge of the hatch corner

Figure 36.25 Typical Keyhole Type Design for Highly Stressed Corners Such
as Forward of the Engine Room

should have a smooth surface free of gouges or nicks,

Figure 36.23 TypicalHatch Corner with Deck Insert and 300 mm Radius
preferably ground, and with no weldments or attachments.
Hatch corner design is particularly important on post-
panamax ships because their large breadth and correspon-
ding large hatch openings make them very soft torsionally.
They experience large warping displacements and the
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
structural details for hatch corners at the main deck and
hatch coaming levels must be well designed for flexibility
and with minimal stress risers.
An alternative hatch corner design is to provide a face-
plate. Achieving a good weld in way of the connection to
the main deck may be difficult because of the constrained
geometry. The potential for weld defects in a flanged hatch
corner, as well as the stress riser associated with the weld
itself, may result in a shorter fatigue life than a higher
stressed, radius-cut corner with a smooth, ground edge.
36.2.12.6 Transverse bulkhead design
Transverse bulkheads in the cargo holds are arranged to
suit container stowage and to support both the double bot-
tom and the side structure. Not every transverse bulkhead
needs to be watertight. Adequate subdivison for 40 ft con-
tainer holds can frequently be achieved by making every
other transverse bulkhead a watertight bulkhead.
Transverse bulkheads are often designed as a flat plate
and stiffener grillage with the primary structural elements
arranged to suit container stowage below deck. The webs
of the vertical girders are spaced to align with the inner
bottom side girders and, therefore, with the container cell
angles. Horizontal webs are spaced vertically at every tier
or second tier. At the top of the bulkhead there is typically
a transverse box girder of the same depth as the longitudi-
nal box girder plus the coaming height.
The non-tight bulkhead between container bays is an
open bulkhead and is frequently referred to as a midcell
structure. Fore/aft width of this structure is typically less
than that of a watertight bulkhead. Similar to the watertight
bulkhead, the non-tight bulkhead structure is intended to
support the cell angles as well as the double bottom, the
side shell structure and the transverse coaming above. Re-
quired support for the double bottom is frequently pro-
vided by plating in the lower part of the non-tight bulk-
head. The upper portion of the non-tight bulkhead is a
transverse box girder that is similar to the watertight bulk-
head.
36.2.12.7 Stepped hold structure at vessel ends
The holds at the vessel ends, particularly forward, have a
stepped shape. The steps are dimensioned to coincide with
the container cells and tiers and are formed by a series of
flats, stringers, transverse webs and intermittent longitudi-
nal bulkheads. To avoid creating hard spots and discontinu-
ities in the structure, continuous stringers and flats should
be used to the extent possible. These should align, where
possible, with flats and stringers in the bow structure and in
the midship portion of the hull. Radiused transitions or
brackets should be used at square corners. Handrails should
36-23
be fitted in holds adjacent to stepped structure to protect
personnel.
36.2.12.8 Structural transitions
The large hull deflections and high cyclical loadings asso-
ciated with high-speed container ships, together with the
extensive use of high tensile steel for purposes of mini-
mizing weight, increase the importance of using good de-
sign details at structural transitions. Good details include a
generous radius at corners, gently tapered changes in sec-
tion, avoidance of abrupt endings, good continuity of
structure and avoidance of hard spots. Specific structural
transitions that need to be developed with attention to de-
tail are:
• termination of the longitudinal box girder,
• connections of longitudinal hatch girders to bulkheads,
• terminations of double bottom longitudinal side gird-
ers,
• longitudinal coaming transitions and terminations,
• transitions from longitudinal to transverse framing, and
• terminations of decks, flats, stringers and longitudinal
bulkheads in way of stepped holds.
36.2.13 Tank Arrangements and Piping Systems for
Fuel Oil and Salt Water Ballast
Tank arrangements can have an impact on ship stability
and the effective utilization of the upper tiers for loaded
containers. A common arrangement is to use the forepeak,
aft peak, forward deep tanks, double bottom tanks and
some wing tanks for salt water ballast. Fuel is carried in the
wing tanks. Because they transport a large amount of cargo
on deck, panamax size and narrower container ships can be
stability limited. It is important to be able to ballast tanks
that have the largest impact on stability, such as the double
bottom tanks. In addition, during the voyage it is desirable
to minimize the impact of fuel burn off on stability and the
need to compensate by filling ballast tanks. Wing tanks are
well suited for use as fuel bunker tanks in two ways. First
their center of gravity is closest to the center of gravity of
the loaded ship and second, they typically have a small free
surface effect. Therefore, as fuel is consumed over the
course of a voyage the impact on GM is not as significant
as for a double bottom tank or a deep tank.
For large, deep container ships it may be preferable to
split some of the wing tanks horizontally to create an upper
and a lower wing tank. For this arrangement, selection of
either the upper or lower tanks for fuel oil storage will be
based on the type of cargo that will normally be carried. If
a container ship is intended for trades with primarily heavy
36-24 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2

cargo and vertical stratification is practical, then the lower possible due to cargo and trim and stability requirements.
wing tanks should be used for fuel tanks. In this loading The ballast piping system should allow for the internal
plan it is assumed that some of the double bottom or lower transfer of salt water between tanks to provide more oper-
wing ballast tanks will not be filled at departure. These can ating flexibility and therefore to reduce the likelihood of
then be filled to compensate for the loss in stability caused the discharge of non-indigenous species.
by fuel consumption. One pair of salt water ballast wing tanks may be de-
If it is desired to optimize the ship for lighter contain- voted to the control of ship heel. Such systems may include
ers, then it can be advantageous to carry fuel in the upper a cross-connecting pipeline with a separate pump and con-
wing tanks and utilize the lower wing tanks for ballast. trol system that automatically adjusts the ships heel during
Combining these lower wing ballast tanks with the double cargo loading and discharging operations.
bottom ballast tanks results in the maximum possible bal- Wherever possible, manholes and bilge wells should
lasting capability for the vessel. The center of gravity of not be located below stowed containers.
the fuel tanks will be close to or possibly above the center
of gravity of the vessel so there will be no adverse impact
on stability from fuel consumption. 36.2.14 Container Handling Cranes
Fuel tanks may also be located in way of the transverse Small to mid-size container ships that serve ports without
bulkheads between container bays. This option provides shore crane facilities are often outfitted with either revolv-
the greatest protection against fuel spills from collisions ing jib type pedestal cranes or portal type gantry cranes.
and groundings. It is more practical in container ships with Figures 36.26 and 36.27 illustrate typical examples of each
sufficient fore and aft spacing between container bays to type.
allow the installation of structural fuel tanks, such as ships Jib boom cranes are more commonly used and typically
with pedestal jib cranes. Most other container ships would cost less. A series of jib cranes are positioned along the
have to be built slightly longer to accommodate the wider hull to provide minimal loss of container slots, good out-
bulkheads and this would increase the construction cost. reach to serve the intended cargo holds and some redun-
Double hull protection of HFO tanks is under considera- dancy or overlap of the areas served. Cranes are normally
tion by IMO and may be required in the future. on centerline to service each side of the ship equally. On
Tank arrangements and hull piping system designs can smaller vessels cranes are sometimes installed at the side
strongly impact each other. A primary reason is the need to
segregate the fuel oil and ballast systems so that fuel pipes,
vents and sounding tubes are not run in ballast tanks and
vice versa. This is more difficult if the fuel tanks are widely
spread along the sides of the vessel. Several solutions have
been developed to address this problem. One option is to
utilize the wing tanks forward and aft of the engine room
for the full fuel capacity of the vessel so that all of the fuel
oil transfer pipes can be run through wing fuel tanks.
Another possible piping arrangement is to fit a pipe tun-
nel in the double bottom and to run the fuel mains in the
pipe tunnel. Branch pipes to the wing tanks can be run
above the tank top in way of the bulkheads. Valves would
all be remotely operated. The advantage of this arrange-
ment is that the piping is protected from side collisions. Al-
ternatively, the fuel oil wing tanks may be extended in-
board to the pipe tunnel in way of the inner bottom floors
that correspond to the transverse bulkhead frames.
Salt-water ballast systems for new container ships
should consider either a treatment system or a ballast ex-
change system to reduce the risk of discharging non-in-
digenous marine organisms in harbors. Most ship’s officers
strive to ballast tanks at sea where there are lower concen-
trations of marine organisms. However, this is not always Figure 36.26 Typical Pedestal Mounted Jib Boom Crane
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
Figure 36.27 Small Container Ship with a Gantry Crane
of the ship to be less intrusive to the cargo stowage. The re-
sultant weight offset must be balanced with cargo or tank
liquids. The cargo stowage arrangement is limited in the
self-sustaining mode to the capabilities of the crane with
regard to lift and outreach. Cargo stowage must also allow
for proper stowage and securing of the booms.
Gantry cranes are used on fewer ship types and are
often unique in design. As a result, they are costly and
often comprise a significant portion of the total ship cost.
They generally have a higher productivity rate in loading
and discharging containers than jib boom cranes and, de-
pending on the service, may be justified for this reason.
The gantry crane moves forward and aft on rails located
Figure 36.28 Conventional and Open Top Midship Cargo Arrangements
36-25
outboard of the longitudinal coaming and containers may
only be stowed outboard of the hatch covers when loading
and discharge is accomplished with shoreside cranes. Con-
tainer stowage on the hatch covers is also limited by the
maximum height of the gantry crane spreader.
36.2.15 Hatch Cover-less Container Ships
The unique features of hatch cover-less container ships
favor feeder services and trades with short ocean transits,
for which more time is spent in port loading and discharg-
ing cargo. A fully cellular, hatch cover-less or open-top
ship permits a reduction in stevedoring costs since labor is
not required to install or remove lashing gear for above
deck container stacks. Port productivity may be enhanced
since valuable crane time is not spent handling or stowing
hatch covers to gain access below deck. Other merits and
detractions of hatch cover-less container ships as well as
key design points are discussed in the following para-
graphs.
36.2.15.1 Container capacity
Differences in cargo stowage between a conventional ship
and a comparable open-top design are illustrated in the
midship sections in Figure 36.28. Stowage of standard
height and non-standard height containers below deck on a
conventional container ship is limited by the clear height to
the underside of the hatch cover. If an optimum mix can-
not be achieved, some space may be lost. The open-top
36-26 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
ship permits a reduction in the center of gravity of the deck
stowed containers equal to the depth of the hatch cover
plus any lost space below the hatch cover. On deck, the
conventional container ship may utilize the full breadth for
container stowage with a smaller spacing between stacks.
36.2.15.2 Crane productivity
Cargo operations on an open-top container ship offer both
a gain and a reduction in crane productivity. Time require-
ments to handle hatch covers and to install semi-automatic
twistlocks in the bottom corner castings of containers on
deck are eliminated. The close proximity of the entry
guides and the shorter wire length from the trolley pulleys
to the spreader pulleys facilitates the crane operator’s task
of guiding the spreader into the cell guides. Offsetting
these savings is the additional time required for the con-
tainer crane spreader to travel to and from the top of the
cell guides for each container stowed or discharged below
the upper tier.
For the conventional ship, the spreader vertical travel
may be abbreviated once above the hatch coaming. Time
studies of cargo operations for two Matson Navigation
Company ships converted to an open-top configuration in-
dicate that overall productivity improved slightly after
conversion (12).
36.2.15.3 Container stowage flexibility
A hatch cover-less, fully cellular container ship has some
limitations in container stowage flexibility but does offer
some advantages.
For either type of design, stowage is enhanced by strat-
ification, which is placing heavier boxes in lower tiers and
lighter boxes in upper tiers. Cell guides, however, offer the
capability to stow the occasional heavy container in an
upper tier. On a conventional ship, utilization of an upper
tier slot is governed by the capabilities of the lashing sys-
tem.
A conventional container ship provides alternate
stowage for different size containers on deck and, there-
fore, more flexibility than a hatch cover-less ship. This is a
concern for operators on services with seasonal cargo con-
siderations and variations in the volume of different length
containers. The fully cellular ship can provide 20/40 ft
flexibility by offering paired 20 ft container stowage
within 40 ft cell guides.
Variations in the mix of other length container sizes,
such as 40s and 45s, are more difficult to achieve. Also the
fully cellular ship does not offer the flexibility to handle
growth in non-standard or new container sizes. Conven-
tional container ships with hatch covers can stow danger-
ous goods on deck, segregated from the holds. For a hatch
cover-less ship dangerous goods stowed above deck, but
within the hatch opening, can leak into holds, making
stowage segregation a more difficult task.
Container stowage on the hatch cover-less, fully cellu-
lar ship may also limited by container corner post com-
pression. The bottom container must be capable of sup-
porting the weight of the containers stowed above it.
Containers certified by the classification societies (5) are
typically rated for a maximum stacking load equal to nine
times the maximum gross weight of the container. It is
based upon a six high stack and an assumed maximum
vertical acceleration of 1.8 gs. For stacks greater than 6
high, the average container weight would be less than the
maximum gross weight. Increased stack weights may be
achieved by using containers with higher corner-post com-
pression strength ratings. A detailed ship motion analysis
of the ship and the service intended may yield a combined
pitch and heave vertical acceleration that would permit a
reduction from the assumed 1.8 gs and higher stack rat-
ings.
36.2.15.4 Water ingress
The hatch coaming height above the design waterline must
be verified by model tests to limit green seas ingress to
a volume of less than 400 mm per hour of water depth
times the area of the hatch opening for any hatch. Detailed
requirements for the seakeeping tests are given in refer-
ence 13.
The bilge system must be designed with the capacity to
handle water ingress into the cargo holds for the most se-
vere of the following design conditions (13):
• green seas ingress determined from seakeeping model
tests,
• green seas ingress for the dead ship condition in beam
seas, multiplied by a safety factor of 2.
• severe rain conditions equal to 100 mm per hour, and
• four thirds of the amount of water required for fire-
fighting purposes in the largest hold.
36.2.16 Post-panamax Container Ships
Growth in container ship capacity continues and is associ-
ated with the economic advantage that size offers in re-
ducing the average cost to transport a container, typically
measured in cost per TEU mile. Operators and designers
strive to maximize cargo stowage for all ships, but partic-
ularly, for line haul container ships operating in very com-
petitive services with large ocean transits.
For post-panamax ships on long ocean transits, speed
and the ability to maintain schedule are very important.
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
Delivered power requirements continue to push the design
envelope with regard to the amount of power that may de-
livered by a low speed diesel engine through a single shaft
and propeller.
Fine hulls with low block coefficients are essential to
achieve the required service speeds. However, the aft por-
tion of the hulls often has a high degree of shape to maxi-
mize container stowage on deck. There are, therefore, rel-
atively flat portions of the hull above and in the vicinity of
the propeller. The propeller must be designed to minimize
vibrations without significantly reducing efficiency. Due to
the high power levels involved, the aft structure in the
vicinity of the propeller and just forward should be care-
fully designed to insure that plate stiffener panels are de-
tuned from the first and second harmonics of the propeller
induced vibration.
The large breadths of these ships combined with the
fine underwater hull form result in bows with a high degree
of flare. The local structure in way of the flare is suscepti-
ble to water impact loads in severe seas. The highly flared
bow will also generate large torsional loads in bow quar-
tering seas.
A number of post-panamax container ships have expe-
rienced very large roll angles with short periods in head
and bow seas. This phenomenon is known as head seas
parametric rolling. It occurs when the ship’s metacentric
height is such that the natural roll period is approximately
twice that of the wave encounter period. In a large seaway,
the bow flare may be submerged, generating a large right-
ing moment. At the next wave encounter the ship has rolled
to the opposite side (one half of a full roll cycle). Submer-
sion of the bow flare on the opposite side develops a right-
ing moment in the opposite direction thus reinforcing and
also accelerating the motion. Unlike a roll motion with a
forcing function acting at the natural roll frequency, this
roll motion is directly coupled with the ship’s pitch, devel-
oping both high vertical and transverse accelerations. The
resulting motions are severe and very violent. See refer-
ence 9 for an in depth discussion of this phenomenon. At
the time of this writing, class guidelines for securing con-
tainers do not yet account for these severe motions. De-
signing the hatch covers and container securing systems
sufficiently robust to withstand these large loads would be
costly and less practical than taking steps to insure that the
ship is detuned and avoids conditions of operation when
this might occur.
The bearing support pads for the hatch covers and
coamings should be designed to allow for the significant
relative movement between them. If elevated lashing tow-
ers are installed to permit the higher stack weights that can
be handled with the increased stability associated with the
36-27
larger beam, the lashings must also be designed with con-
sideration for the hatch distortion and the movement of the
hatch covers relative to the coaming.
36.2.17 Multi-purpose Container Ships
Ships other than dedicated container carriers are used to
transport significant quantities of containers. These multi-
purpose ships include specially outfitted bulk carriers,
specially outfitted general cargo ships and combination
RO/RO container carriers.
Combination container/bulk carriers and container/
general cargo carriers typically have hatch openings that
are larger than conventional bulk or general cargo ship
designs. The hatch covers and deck areas are normally
strengthened and outfitted to carry containers. Below deck,
some ships may have removable type container cell guides,
but most ships are not fitted with cell guides and the con-
tainers stowed in the holds are secured using special fit-
tings. These special fittings secure the containers vertically
into stacks and also horizontally between adjacent stacks
in order to effectively provide a large interconnected block
of containers. There are some disadvantages with this sys-
tem of stowage. The installation of the securing fittings re-
quires stevedores to work below deck, within the cargo
hold. Productivity during loading and unloading opera-
tions is less than with cell guides. Lastly, there is more po-
tential for damage to the containers due to a failure of the
securing fittings or while loading and discharging.
The combination RO/RO container carrier has a stow-
age arrangement that provides lift on/lift off container
stowage typically in way of the upper deck, but possibly
also in cargo holds fitted with hatch covers and fixed cell
guides. The container hatches may extend to the bottom of
the ship or they may have RO/RO decks below them. In
some designs the container hatches are located forward
and the RO/RO stowage is aft. A few combination vessels
have been built with a standard weather deck container
stowage arrangement and RO/RO decks below that are fit-
ted with hatches that allow conversion from RO/RO decks
to container holds. Combination RO/RO container carriers
can offer reduced port times if both modes of stowage can
be carried out simultaneously.
36.2.18 High Speed Container Ships
In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in
container ships with service speeds over 30 knots. The pro-
posed vessels generally have unconventional shapes and
power plants. The higher the speed, normally, the more ex-
otic the hull shape. The machinery plants in these vessels
36-28 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
tend to incorporate high power to weight engines, such as
gas turbines and high-speed diesels.
Liner shipping companies strive to reduce transit times
in order to provide better service and a marketing advan-
tage. In the early 1970s, when fuel was relatively inexpen-
sive, competition amongst container shipping companies
led to the development and construction of a series of
higher speed container ships. Best known of these are the
eight fast container ships built for Sea-Land Service, re-
ferred to as the SL-7 class. The SL-7 had a maximum ser-
vice speed of 33 knots with a corresponding fuel con-
sumption of about 600 tonnes per day. The interest in
high-speed ships quickly diminished when fuel prices in-
creased dramatically in the mid 1970s. Service speeds for
large liner type container ships dropped to the 21 to 23.5
knot range, increasing in recent years to about 24 to 25.5
knots for the typical panamax and post-panamax size ves-
sels, ranging from 4000 to 6000 plus TEUs.
Relatively low fuel prices, new developments in hull
shape design, and improvements in the power and effi-
ciency of gas turbines and diesel engines, have revived in-
terest in the high-speed container ship. The potential mar-
ket is the transport of high value, time sensitive cargoes for
shippers interested in a lower cost alternative to airfreight.
Several interesting concepts have been developed to
improve the performance of the high-speed ship and to
make it more reliable in all types of weather. One concept
is the slender monohull with a wave-piercing bow. See
Figure 36.29 for an illustration of a proposed design. The
wave-piercing bow is rounded in shape with reverse shear
and more closely resembles a submarine bow than a con-
ventional ship bow. It is designed to penetrate through
waves rather than ride over them. This reduces the ten-
dency of the vessel to pitch and heave, making it easier to
maintain speed. One concern with this concept is that on
deck containers must be located well aft, behind a large
breakwater, for protection from impact by the seas riding
over the bow. In addition, to achieve the required speeds
Figure 36.29 High Speed Container Ship with Wave Piercing Bow
these displacement hulls have a narrow beam, which re-
duces deadweight and stability and, therefore, cargo dead-
weight and potential earnings. Engines are typically gas
turbines for larger and faster designs and high or medium
speed diesel engines for smaller and slower designs.
An alternative design is the semi-displacement hull,
which develops some lift at higher speeds. As a result, it
rides on top of the waves, thus reducing pitching and other
motions. Vessels of this type tend to have more beam and
a wider transom then a comparable displacement hull.
Water jet propulsion has been proposed for these designs
with power provided by multiple gas turbines or diesel
engines.
For speeds over 50 knots, conventional displacement or
semi-displacement designs are not very suitable and de-
signs based on the surface effect concept have been pro-
posed. The surface effect ship uses air pressure to support
the vessel above the water surface thus allowing it to avoid
the speed-power restrictions of the displacement hull.
However, available cargo deadweight tends to be lower for
the size of the vessel due to the energy needed to lift and
support the vessel.
High-speed vessel concepts only merit consideration if
a concurrent system is developed for expedited handling of
the containers at both the loading port and the discharge
port. Expeditious handling must start at the cargo shipment
origination point and continue with transport to the port,
quick entry into the terminal and fast loading onboard. At
the discharge port similar expeditious handling and ground
transport is needed to insure prompt delivery of the cargo
to its destination.
There are several considerations that have limited de-
velopment of high-speed container services. One is that the
cost per TEU is significantly higher than a conventional
container ship. Second, providing competitive service with
several arrivals and departures per week requires a signifi-
cant investment in multiple ships. Third, unless the expe-
dited landside handling and transport of the containers are
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
fully developed, the timesavings achieved at sea could be
diminished by the slow handling and transport of the con-
tainer ashore. However, as the volume of container trans-
port increases on the major trade lanes, there may be a
sufficient amount of high value, time sensitive cargo to
support a high-speed service between specific ports within
a trade lane.
36.2.19 Machinery Arrangements
The conventional arrangement for mid and large size con-
tainer ships is to place the engine room at a location
roughly three quarters of the length aft of the forward per-
pendicular. For small vessels a common arrangement, par-
ticularly for European designs, is to place the accommo-
dation and engine room fully aft. In either arrangement the
engine room protrudes into the cargo space. In the three-
quarter aft arrangement the engine room and shaft alley are
under the holds aft of the house and in the fully aft arrange-
ment the engine room protrudes into the hold forward of
the engine room.
The low speed diesel is almost universal as the main en-
gine for the modern conventional container ship except for
the smallest sizes, which can have medium speed engines.
As container ships tend to have high speeds and high
power requirements for their size, the low specific fuel
consumption of the low speed diesel make it well suited for
this type of vessel. In addition, container ships generally
have the full depth of the hull available for the engine
room, so the required overhead clearance for a long stroke,
low speed diesel is available.
The container ship generally has a conventional engine
room layout. Ballast, bilge and fire pumps, seawater and
fresh water circulating pumps and purifiers are generally in
the lower engine room or on the lower platform deck. The
control room, compressors, fresh water generators and
workshops are generally on the second deck and upper
platform decks. The auxiliary boiler may be on one of the
platform decks or in the casing. The waste heat boiler is
normally in the engine casing above.
Electrical power is generally provided by diesel gener-
ators, supplemented on some ships by shaft generators.
Since modern diesel generator engines burn heavy fuel and
have specific fuel consumptions close to that of low speed
diesels, there is generally not an economic basis for fitting
a shaft generator. Diesel generators are generally located
on a platform deck, either adjacent to the main engine or
aft of it under the hold. Because of the large electrical
power requirements for reefer containers, container ships
have larger electrical plants than many other types of ships.
Most container ships have an automated engine room with
bridge control and remote operation of ballast and fuel
36-29
transfer. An automated heel control system is often pro-
vided to enhance port productivity.
36.3 DESIGN ISSUES
36.3.1 Stability and Trim Considerations
Container capacity on deck for a conventional container
ship is a significant percentage of the total, ranging from
45% to as high as 65%. Utilization of upper tier slots for
cargo stowage may be limited by stability and must often
be offset by ballasting the double bottom tanks. Maximiz-
ing container capacity below deck and keeping the base
height of each individual stack as low as possible helps to
lower the center of gravity of the cargo, reducing required
ballast and thereby increasing cargo capacity and operat-
ing efficiency.
For a ship that is stability limited, useable slot capacity
will be a function of the average container weight, the
range in container weights and the potential for stratifica-
tion of the cargo. These factors are dependent upon the ac-
tual service. Lacking this data, a good assumption for the
cargo weight is within the range of 8 to 14 tonnes/TEU.
The stability may be conservatively evaluated by assuming
a homogenous stow. However, operators can often stratify
cargo to increase the number of containers that can be
carried and to reduce the required ballast, thus enhancing
revenue and fuel efficiency. A reasonable assumption of
stratification, either above or below deck, would be to in-
crementally reduce the container weight from a bottom tier
weight equal to 1.2 to 1.25 times the average up to a top tier
weight equal to 0.75 or 0.8 times the average. Average con-
tainer weights on deck are influenced by refrigerated con-
tainers, which are heavy and typically stowed in the first
two tiers. For stability reasons, among others, transport of
large numbers of refrigerated containers may require that
some be stowed below deck.
Stowage below deck is generally designed for a mix of
standard height (2.59 m) and high cube (2.90 m) contain-
ers. For a conventional container ship, this assumption de-
termines the underdeck clear height and the height of the
hatch coaming. In turn, this decision also establishes the
base height for the majority of the container stacks on deck.
It affects the stability of the ship in that each additional high
cube container raises the center of gravity of the stacks
above the hatch cover by 0.3 m. Not providing enough high
cube (2.90 m) container slots can mean that a slot will be
lost for each additional high cube container stowed in a
stack. The design mix of standard height and high cube con-
tainers should reflect the current inventory in the operator’s
fleet, current trends and the anticipated market. High cube
boxes are more desirable for specific trades and markets.
36-30 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2
Double bottom tanks are generally utilized for salt-
water ballast for stability reasons. Wing tanks and deep
tanks are used for either ballast or fuel oil storage. Fuel oil
storage tanks may be located throughout the ship, but lo-
cating them forward of the engine room will permit SWB
tanks to be used to compensate for changes in trim and sta-
bility as HFO is consumed.
36.3.2 Applicable Standards and References
for Statical Stability
Reference 14 is the current IMO criteria for the intact sta-
bility of general cargo and passenger ships. It includes the
previous standards given in IMO resolutions A167 (stabil-
ity criteria) and A562 (weather criteria) as well as a new
form factor adjustment for A167 that is applicable to con-
tainer ships.
36.3.3 Structural Analyses
The complex nature of container ship structural response
means that the simple or empirical formulas traditionally
used for ship design cannot accurately estimate the loads
and stress distributions resulting from the simultaneous
application of torsional, horizontal and longitudinal bend-
ing moments on the open section of a container ship. Ac-
curate calculations of hull deflections, warping stresses
and cross deck and hatch corner stresses can only be made
using modern numerical calculating techniques. As a re-
sult, container ship design has benefited from these tech-
niques and is closely associated with the development of
modern computerized analyses to determine hull structural
responses.
36.3.3.1 Finite element analyses
The finite element analysis (FEA) technique has become
an important tool in determining container ship structural
responses. Some of the early developmental work in FEA
applications was commissioned in the 1970s by the Ship
Structure Committee to resolve container ship design is-
Figure 36.30 3D Coarse Mesh Model of a Container Ship
sues. Much of this work involved the analyses carried out
by ABS of the hull structure of the Sea-Land SL-7 class
(15,16).
In recent years, many of the new panamax and larger
size container ship designs have been extensively analyzed
by FEA. The FEA process is becoming a standardized
process, even though new developments are always refin-
ing it.
The FEA process normally begins with a ship motions
analysis to determine the input hydrodynamic loads. The
ship motion analysis should have several wave loading
cases. For container ships these include maximum hogging
loads, maximum sagging loads and maximum torsional
loads at several points along the hull. The latter are associ-
ated with oblique sea conditions. In more advanced types
of analyses, such as the ABS Dynamic Load Analysis
(DLA), not only are the wave loadings determined but the
dynamic loadings from internal loads such as containers,
ballast and fuel and the local hydrodynamic loads from the
waves and ship motions are also determined. In this way
the loadings applied to the finite element model are more
representative of the actual loadings on the ship’s hull.
The overall hull structural responses are determined
from a three-dimensional (3D) coarse mesh model of the
entire ship. Figure 36.30 shows an example of a typical
model that incorporates all of the major structural elements
of the ship. Applied to the 3D model are the loadings de-
termined in the ship motion analysis for each of the load
cases analyzed. Outputs are the deflections and stresses at
each of the finite elements.
In order to determine the deflections and stresses in lo-
calized areas of the hull, a fine mesh model is created of the
area to be analyzed. Depending on the configuration of the
structure, this can either be a two-dimensional (2D) or 3D
model. The boundary input displacements for the fine
mesh models come from the 3D coarse mesh output. Ex-
amples of critical areas where fine mesh models are used
are hatch corners, coaming corners, continuous centerline
girders, longitudinal coaming transitions and other areas
where it is important to have detailed knowledge of the lo-
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
calized stresses. Figure 36.31 shows a 2D fine mesh model
of a hatch corner. The same FEA model used for the struc-
tural analysis can be used for vibration analyses typically
carried out for the full ship, deckhouse and aft hull.
36.3.3.2 Other types of finite element structural
analyses
In a typical container hold the perimeter of the double bot-
tom structure is supported by the transverse bulkheads, for-
ward and aft, and by the outboard longitudinal bulkheads.
Due to the long spans involved it is often desirable to eval-
uate the adequacy of this structure for the intended loads.
The intersecting transverse floors and longitudinal girders
in the double bottom form an indeterminate structure suit-
able for a grillage analysis. The analysis should be based on
a combination of hydrostatic buoyancy loads, double bot-
tom tank fluid loads and discretely applied container loads.
Several load conditions are typically analyzed. One condi-
tion is at maximum draft with minimum container and tank
loads and another is at maximum container and ballast
loads with minimum draft. These two conditions or vari-
ances of them develop the envelope of secondary stresses in
the double bottom. In some analysis procedures wave crests
in way of the analyzed hold are assumed or the vessel is as-
sumed to be rolling to a set angle or both. As with the full
ship FEA, the results have to be evaluated against criteria
appropriate to the program being used.
The FEA process is also used for analysis of other
structural components of a container ship. Examples are:
• hatch covers for container loading,
• hatch coamings in areas prone to cracking,
Figure 36.31 2D Fine Mesh Model of Hatch Corner
36-31
• major equipment foundations,
• bow structure for the high wave loadings on higher
speed container ships, and
• bulkhead structure for container loading.
36.3.3.3 Class rules using PC-based structural analyses
Class Rules for structural design have been updated to take
advantage of the ever-increasing computing power of the
personal computer. Examples are the ABS SafeHull Pro-
gram, Lloyd’s ShipRight Program and DNV Nauticus Hull
Program. Most of these programs have modules designed
specifically for container ship structure. In many cases ap-
plication of the program is the primary means of design re-
view and approval of the container ship’s structure by the
classification society. A simplified FEA module in the pro-
gram usually checks the determined scantlings. In the ABS
SafeHull program a three hold model is used, one at mid-
ship and a second one, if needed, in way of the aft end of
the main open hatch portion of the hull (engine room for-
ward end), a highly stressed area. For complex designs the
simplified FEA contained in the class program may not ad-
equately model the responses. In this case the more tradi-
tional complete FEA analysis described previously should
be carried out.
36.3.4 Fire Safety
In container ship cargo holds, the typical fire-fighting
medium is CO2. Similar to other ship types it is typically
released from a central storage system. Fires are detected
by a system that analyzes the air in each hold for smoke.
Frequently the same pipes used to deliver the CO2 are used
36-32 Ship Design & Construction, Volume 2

to sample the cargo hold air. On deck, water from fire
hoses, portable foam generators and fire extinguishers are
used for fighting and extinguishing fires.
Note that current guidelines require additional CO2 ca-
pacity for container ship cargo holds having non-weather-
tight hatch covers are being considered. These would in-
clude hatch covers with labyrinth seals or gaps between
adjacent covers at a hatch.
Hatch cover-less container ships have open holds that
make a conventional CO2 fire suppression system imprac-
tical. Water spray systems are installed on open-top ships
to protect the tank top and vertical sides of the cargo holds
from structural damage, and to contain the fire to the bay
of origin. Reference 13 specifies that the water spray sys-
tem shall be capable of spraying the outer vertical bound-
aries of each container bay in an open hold and that the ap-
plication density should not be less than 1.1 liters/min/m2.
The water spray system must be capable of evenly distrib-
uting the water over the areas to be protected.
36.4 CONTAINER SHIP CHARACTERISTICS
Table 36.I presents the main characteristics of recent con-
tainer ships.

Table 36.I Characteristics of Recent Container Ship Designs

Geared Feeder Mid-Size Panamax Post-panamax

LOA, m 150.8 209.9 294.0 304.2

LBP, m 140.4 197.1 281.6 292.2
Beam, m 27.5 32.2 32.25 40.0
Depth, m 14.3 19.4 21.4 24.2
Draft, Design, m 10.0 11.0 12.0 12.0
Draft, Scantling, m 10.0 12.5 13.5 14.0
Capacity, Volume in TEU 1399 2746 4388 6175
Capacity, 14 t/TEU 1000 2180 3230 4975
Number of Reefers 70 150 300 500
Below Deck TEU 528 1218 2229 3075
Above Deck TEU 871 1528 2159 3100
Below Deck Stowage 9w×5h 11 w × 7 h 11 w × 8 h 14 w × 9 h
Above Deck Stowage 11 w × 5 h 13 w × 5 h 13 w × 5 h 16 w × 6 h
Below Deck Hi-Cube Tiers 1 2 1 1
40 ft Bays 8 12 17.5 18
Design Speed (knots) 18.2 22.5 24.5 25.6
Main Engine Type LS Diesel LS Diesel LS Diesel LS Diesel
MCR, kW 10 440 28 880 43 500 57 100
Daily HFO Cons., t/day 42 112 169 225
Accomm. Persons 29 24 28 28
Accomm. Location Aft 3/4 Aft 3/4 Aft 3/4 Aft
Cranes 3 × 40 tons None None None
Bow Thruster, kW 880 1300 2000 2500

NOTES: Volumetric capacity is based upon IMO visibility requirements. Above and below deck stowage = number of rows
wide x number of tiers high based upon volumetric capacity. Design speed = service speed on design draft at 90%
MCR, 15% sea margin. LS diesel = low speed, direct coupled diesel engine. Daily HFO cons. = main engine daily
heavy fuel consumption at 90% MCR.
 Chapter 36: Container Ships
36.5 REFERENCES
1. Harlander, L. A., “Container System Design Developments
over Two Decades,” Joint California Section Meeting, 1981
2. Basic Requirements of Cargo Containers, ANSI MH 5.1 –
1971
3. ISO 668: 1995, “Series 1 Freight Containers – Classifica-
tion, Dimensions and Ratings”
4. ISO 1496-1: 1990, “ Series 1 Freight Containers – Specifi-
cation and Testing – Part 1: General Cargo Containers for
General Purposes”
5. Rules for Certification of Cargo Containers, American Bu-
reau of Shipping, 1987
6. Guide for Certification of Container Securing Systems,
American Bureau of Shipping, 1988
7. DNV Rules Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 4B, Design Loads –
Ship Motions and Accelerations, 2000
8. DNV Classification Note 32.2, Strength Analysis of Con-
tainer Securing Systems, July 1983
9. France, William N., et. al, “An Investigation of Head-Sea
Parametric Rolling and Its Influence on Container Lashing
Systems,” SNAME, MT Volume 40, Number 1, January
2003
36-33
10. ICLL 66, International Convention on Load lines, IMCO,
London, 1966
11. IEC Standard 60309- Plugs, Sockets and Couplers for In-
dustrial Purposes, International Electrotechnical Commis-
sion
12. Alman, P. and Fisher, P.A., “The Open-Top Containership –
A U.S. Experience,” SNAME Transactions, 1995
13. Interim Guidelines for Open-Top Containerships, Interna-
tional Maritime Organization (IMO) Marine Safety Com-
mittee (MSC) Circular 608/ Rev. 1, 5 July 1994
14. IMO Resolution A.749(18), Code on Intact Stability for All
Types of Ships Covered by IMO Instruments, 1995
15. Elbatouti, A. M., Liu, D. and Jan, HY, “Structural Analysis
of SL-7 Containership Under Combined Loading of Verti-
cal, Lateral and Torsional Moments using Finite Element
Techniques,” SSC-243, Ship Structure Committee, May
1974
16. Hatch Corner Study for SL-7 Containerships, Technical Re-
port OE-79001, American Bureau of Shipping, 1979 (Pro-
prietary Report)