CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS

T E C H N I C A L N E W S A N D I N F O R M AT I O N O N C O N TA I N E R S H I P S NOVEMBER 2006 Issue 3

Welcome to the third

issue of Container Ship
Focus, a technical
publication produced
by Lloyd’s Register
exclusively for the
container ship industry.

IN THIS ISSUE

2 West’s trade imbalance

with China makes and
breaks fortunes

4 Preventing shaft bearing

damage

7 Lloyd’s Register and

Standard P&I Club publish
container securing guidance

8 CRC notation – The way

forward

10 Mandatory requirements
for strength of towing
and mooring equipment
on new ships

11 New ShipRight procedure

for container ships helps
to assess hull stresses

12 News and upcoming

conferences
2 CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS November 2006
West’s trade imbalance with China makes
and breaks fortunes
The traditional trade imbalance between the West
and Asia is good news for some and bad news for
others. Either way, container ship operators reap
the benefits.
In Lloyd’s Register’s paper
“Design Challenges of Large
Container Ships”, presented in
Singapore at ICHCA 2006,
there is mention of the imbalance
in the main east-west container
trades.* Cargo leaving Asia is
principally high value and
voluminous, occupying every slot
on container ships trading to
Europe and the US West Coast.
Conversely, the ‘back haul’, the
return leg to Asia, tends to
comprise mainly heavy cargoes.
Unfortunately, there is often
insufficient cargo on the back
haul legs to fill the ships. The
consequence is an accumulation
of empty containers, in Europe
and the US, which need to
be returned to Asia.
One side of this story is told by a
recent article in the Guardian
entitled “The world’s largest
container ship Emma Maersk
– symbolic of trade imbalance
with China”, which marvels over
the ship’s cargo manifest and
calls the ship “a floating world
of British desires and necessities”
on the eve of its first call into
the port of Felixstowe. The article
goes on to bemoan, however,
the significant trade imbalance
between the UK and China,
pointing out that while China
exported some £16bn of goods
to the UK last year, only £2.8bn
went the other way.
The back haul trade has
traditionally been bolstered by
the carriage of heavy, low-value
cargoes - any revenue for this
leg is better then carrying loss-
making empty containers.
Cargoes which have helped to
fill some of the otherwise empty
containers include scrap steel,
plastic and waste paper. This was
highlighted in a recent article in
The Times bearing the headline
"World's wealthiest self-made
woman”, about a self-made
businesswoman named Cheung
Yan who has amassed a fortune
of £1.8bn.
According to the article, Ms
Cheung is chairwoman of China’s
biggest paper-recycling company,
Nine Dragons Paper. She began
building her fortune in 1985
when, with less than $4,000, she
set up a wastepaper trading
business in Hong Kong. Within six
years, on the back of a booming
economy, she had accumulated a
significant amount of capital,
which she used to set up a scrap
paper exporting company called
America Chung Nam in Los
Angeles with her husband. The
company is now the leading
exporter of scrap paper in the
US. With China establishing
itself as a huge manufacturing
force, Ms Cheung spotted an
opportunity for paper to package
the countless products being
exported around the world or
marketed at home.
The east-west imbalance in the
container trades is, for many, a
major problem – but clearly
not for Ms Cheung, who had
the foresight to turn it into
a profitable advantage.

Today’s vast order
book for container
ships, and especially
post-panamax
container ships,
continues to cause
nervousness in
the market. Photo
courtesy of AP Møller -
Mærsk A/S.
Panamanians voted ‘yes’ to the
expansion of the Panama Canal
by an overwhelming majority.
The expansion will see the
construction of a third set of
locks to accommodate
increasing traffic from Asia,
through the Canal, to the US
and back.
Cold ironing
‘Cold ironing’ is the US Navy’s
way of describing the practice of
connecting a ship to a shore-side
power supply in port with the
ship's machinery shut-down,
causing the hull to become ‘cold.’
This term is now commonly used
to describe a new generation of
different high voltage shore
connections with fast plug
connections and seamless load
transfer without blackouts, which
allow the full range of in-port
activities to continue.
The increasing use of such
arrangements has been driven by
concerns for the environment and
the health of residents in port
communities. There are existing
installations for visiting container
ships in the ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach, for instance. The
facilities were installed following
in-depth studies carried out by
the state of California which
showed that measures such as
cold ironing could contribute to
the improved health of local
residents.
The requirement to use cold
ironing is soon to have a
statutory footing, following the
approval by the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) of a new
regulation to reduce emissions
from auxiliary diesel engines
operated on ocean-going vessels
within state waters.
November 2006 CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS 3
According to an advisory issued
by the ARB, the regulation will
require ship operators visiting
California ports to reduce the air
pollution from their auxiliary
diesel engines through the use of
cleaner marine distillate fuels or
equivalent emission controls.
One way that shipowners and
operators can comply with the
emission limit is through the use
of shore-side electrical power.
To do so, however, owners and
operators must submit an
application demonstrating that
such alternative strategies will
result in emissions that are no
greater than would result from
compliance through the use of
the cleaner fuels stipulated in the
regulation.
The regulations are not yet in
force, but are expected to
become legally effective by the
end of 2006.
It is important, however, that ship
safety and environmental
benefits are given equal weight.
The technical difficulties, hazards
and potential for serious injury
and damage are not to be
understated. To address the
potential hazards Lloyd’s Register
has developed draft Rules for
on-shore power supplies in
consultation with a wide variety
of stakeholders. We have also
been invited to contribute to the
ongoing industry discussions and
working groups tasked with
devising uniform standards for
these arrangements. The aim is to
harness best practice to mitigate
the risks posed by the significant
change to port operations that
cold ironing represents.
For further information contact
David Tozer, Business Manager – Container Ships, Lloyd’s Register
E david.tozer@lr.org
T +44 (0)20 7423 1562
F +44 (0)20 7423 2213
Panama votes "Sí" to Panama
Canal expansion
On the October 22, 2006
Panamanians voted ‘Sí’ (‘Yes’ in
Spanish) in a national referendum
on Panama Canal expansion.
The voting began on a quiet
Sunday morning at 7:00 am.
The enthusiasm and energy was
apparent as each voter played his
or her part in determining the
direction and future of the canal.
By law, expansion must be put to
a vote in a popular referendum.
The Panama Canal Authority
(ACP) presented its formal
proposal to the Panamanian
government in April, and on the
day of the vote 78% voted for
expansion as of 9:30 pm EDT.
According to the ACP’s report
“Proposal for the Expansion of
the Panama Canal - Third Set of
Locks Project”, the containerised
cargo trade between Northeast
Asia and the US East Coast
reflects the highest canal transit
growth rate. This route currently
represents more than 50% of the
PCUMS – Panama Canal Universal
Measurement System – volume of
all containerised cargo transiting
the canal and is anticipated to
become a key growth driver for
the canal.
* A copy of the paper can be obtained
from www.lr.org
4 CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS November 2006
Preventing shaft bearing damage
With the advent of ever larger and more powerful
container vessels, it has become necessary to pay
greater attention to shaft alignment design and
propulsion shafting installation.
A good shaft alignment is one
in which all the supporting
bearings are well loaded in
the static condition and the
system is flexible enough to
withstand hull deflections and
imposed forces so that the
bearings remain well loaded in
all operating conditions. For
container ships, this requirement
has historically been easier to
fulfil than for other commercial
vessel types such as oil tankers
and bulk carriers. This has been
due to the inherent flexibility
of the shafting systems on
container vessels as a result of
the mid-position of the main
engine and the subsequently
long shaftlines.
Wiping damage at aft section of sterntube aft bearing
on a 4,500 teu container ship.
It is somewhat counterintuitive
that long shaftlines with many
bearings are in fact easier to
align than short shaftlines with
few bearings. However, theory
and practical experience
demonstrate that the short, stiff
systems found on vessels with
high-powered machinery placed
as far aft as practicable are the
most problematic.
With the advent of ever larger
and more powerful container
vessels, propeller and
intermediate shaft diameters
are increasing, with some
single-screw ULCS designs now
incorporating a propeller shaft
diameter in excess of 1 metre.
In conjunction with the larger
drive shafts, main engine designs
are also incorporating shorter
cylinder spacings and larger
crankshaft diameters.
These design trends make the
coupled propulsion shaft and
engine system more sensitive
to changes in bearing position.
In order to prevent bearing
failures, it has become necessary
to pay greater attention to
shaft alignment design and
propulsion shafting installation
on container ships.
Sensitivity of shaft systems
The design stage is crucial in
establishing a suitably flexible
shafting system. It is important
for the designer to minimise
the value of the bearing
influence numbers (the measure
of shaft stiffness). It is also
important to keep the static
bearing loads high enough to
prevent them from unloading
during operation. In simple
terms, this means that the
sterntube forward bearing and

plummer bearings need to be
spaced sufficiently far apart.
As a rule of thumb, the
length/diameter ratios of the
bearing spans should be kept
above 10:1. To achieve this
it may be necessary to omit the
sterntube forward bearing in
place of an aft plummer bearing
located on the propeller shaft,
immediately inboard of the
engine room aft bulkhead seal.
Table 1 compares the parameters
of several selected container
ship and oil tanker designs and
shows the theoretical influence
numbers. As a measure of
sensitivity, the downward offset
from the design position
required to unload the sterntube
forward bearing or, where no
forward bearing is fitted, the
aft-most plummer bearing is
shown.
Table 1: Sensitivity of selected shaft systems to bearing displacements
Prop. shaft
diameter
Vessel type (mm)
2,000 teu container
4,500 teu container
6,000 teu container
8,000 teu container
150,000 dwt oil tanker
310,000 dwt oil tanker
Of the container ship designs
studied, the 4,500 teu vessel has
the most sensitive system,
comparable to that of the oil
tankers. An important aspect of
the particular 4,500 teu design
studied is that the shaft span
between the forward and aft
sterntube bearing supports is
only 6.5 metres. This produces an
L/D ratio of only 8.2:1 with a
subsequently high influence
number of 13.6 tonne/mm.
November 2006 CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS 5
When combined with a design
bearing load of 12 tonnes,
it only takes 0.88 mm of
downward displacement for
the sterntube forward bearing
to unload.
A better design is the 6,000 teu
vessel, which has a span of
11.0 metres between sterntube
bearings, producing an L/D ratio
of 11.3:1. Despite the larger
shaft diameter, the sterntube
forward bearing’s influence
number is kept down to
6.7 tonne/mm.
The 6,000 teu design also has the
advantage of a longer shaftline
with more plummer bearings
(six, compared to only three in
the 4,500 teu design), which
helps to reduce the influence
number at the sterntube
forward bearing.
Sterntube forward bearing or aft plummer bearing
(2nd bearing from aft)
Bearing Influence
static load number
(tonne) (tonne/mm)
640 11 3.9
792 12 13.6
975 31 6.7
971 30 12.5
706 8 16.1
801 18 27.4
Bearing failure investigations
The need to achieve a good
static load on the sterntube
forward or aft plummer bearing
has been highlighted in recent
investigations undertaken by
Lloyd’s Register’s Technical
Investigations. Measurements
conducted on container vessels
demonstrated how the bending
moments imposed upon
the propeller shaft change
significantly during manoeuvring
turns, causing the sterntube
forward bearing to unload and
the propeller shaft to run
cross-axis in the aft bearing. This
typically occurs during turns to
starboard. The measurements
additionally confirmed that
successful sterntube aft bearing
performance is dependent on
achieving a static slope mismatch
between the journal and bearing
surfaces to within Lloyd’s
Register’s limit of 0.0003 radians
(0.30 mm/m).
These results are in line with
the findings of numerous
sterntube aft bearing failure
investigations conducted by
our Technical Investigations.
The most common forms of
propulsion shaft bearing damage
are wiping or overheating at
the aft end of the sterntube aft
bearing. In a number of cases,
such damage has occurred
Downward offset to
unload bearing
(mm)
2.82
0.88
4.63
2.40
0.50
0.66
during starboard turns when
increased bearing load and
slope mismatch between the
journal and bearing surfaces
has adversely affected the
development and maintenance
of a satisfactory oil film.
Although the shaft alignment
design calculations normally
consider the hydrodynamic
forces and moments generated
by the propeller, we have found
that overly simplistic assumptions
6 CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS November 2006
are often made which have led
to poor alignment designs being
submitted for class approval.
It must be remembered that the
propeller hydrodynamic forces
and moments are predicted
for the zero rudder condition
only and often at one vessel
draught condition. When the
vessel turns or operates in
different ballast conditions, the
propeller hydrodynamic forces
and moments can change
significantly due to wake field
variations. This causes the centre
of propeller thrust to move from
its predicted position, thereby
invalidating the values assumed
in the calculations.
For further information contact
Daniel Legg, Senior Surveyor, Engineering Systems,
London Design Support Services, Lloyd’s Register EMEA
E daniel.legg@lr.org
T +44 (0)20 7423 1757
F +44 (0)20 7423 1824
Overheating damage at aft end of sterntube aft bearing on
a 2,000 teu container ship.
We have recently amended our Final adjustments to the
shaft alignment Rules (Part 5, plummer bearing height will
Chapter 8, Section 5) to require be made, where necessary, to
a sufficient static load on optimise the alignment. The
the sterntube forward bearing final bearing load measurements
to prevent it from unloading required by Lloyd’s Register are
in all operating conditions, to be conducted in a sailing
including the transient draught condition, with the
conditions experienced engine warmed through in order
during manoeuvring turns. to minimise the uncertainties
of hull deflections, machinery
The amended Rules also thermal rise and propeller
introduce formal requirements buoyancy effects.
for bearing load measurements
to be performed at the
verification stage of the
alignment process.
When applied to container
vessels, this will mean that
shipyards will need to conduct
jack-up load tests on the
sterntube forward bearing, all
the plummer bearings and the
aft three main engine bearings
at acceptance sea trials.

Lloyd’s Register and Standard P&I Club
publish container securing guidance
A Master’s Guide to Container Securing aims to
provide masters and seafarers with best practice
guidance on how to safely stow and lash containers
into place to help prevent injury and loss.
Lloyd’s Register and the Standard
P&I Club have published A Master’s
Guide to Container Securing. The
book is the fifth in the Master's
Guide series by Standard P&I and
the second produced in association
with Lloyd's Register.
As the guide says, “In the early
days of containerised transport,
ships carried containers stowed on
hatch covers, three or four high. A
variety of lashing systems were in
use. However, the most reliable
system consisted of stacking cones,
twistlocks, lashing bars, bridge
fittings and turnbuckles (bottle
screws). These systems were
effective in lashing containers
carried on deck to the third tier.
A Master’s Guide to Container
Securing provides masters and
seafarers with guidance and
advice on container lashing.
November 2006
“Today, ships are bigger and a
post-panamax container ship will
carry containers on deck stacked
up to six, seven or eight tiers high.
However, while the ships are able
to carry containers stacked higher,
the lashing systems are still only
capable of lashing to the bottom
of the third tier containers or the
bottom of the fourth or fifth
container tiers when a lashing
bridge is fitted. Ship design has
developed but container lashing
systems have not.”
The book is intended to help
masters and seafarers to
understand the principles of
container securing, to describe
the various securing methods and
the fixtures and fittings which
are used, to describe common
causes of lashing failure and to
offer advice on how losses can be
minimised. The guide is designed
to be as readable as possible.
For further information contact
David Tozer, Business Manager – Container Ships, Lloyd’s Register
E david.tozer@lr.org
T +44 (0)20 7423 1562
F +44 (0)20 7423 2213
CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS 7
Container ship design has
advanced, but container lashing
systems have not necessarily
kept pace.
The intention is that a copy will be
available on-board every container
ship which is classed with Lloyd's
Register. Similarly, Standard P&I
will be distributing the guide to
their members.
The previous four publications in
the Master’s Guide series are:
G A Master’s Guide to Ships'
Piping
G A Master’s Guide to Berthing
G A Master’s Guide to Hatch
Cover Maintenance (in
collaboration with Lloyd's
Register)
G A Master’s Guide to Accident
Response.
A Master’s Guide to Container
Securing may be viewed on the
Lloyd’s Register website at
www.lr.org. To obtain a copy,
please contact your local Lloyd’s
Register Group office.
8 CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS November 2006
CRC notation – The way forward
Lloyd’s Register has developed a new set of Rules for
refrigerated containers which enables owners and
operators to carry refrigerated containers below and
on deck – and to give charterers confidence that this
can be done without risk to their cargoes.
Owners and operators are being
pushed by charterers to carry ever
increasing numbers of standard
integral refrigerated containers
onboard their ships. The inability to
carry these refrigerated containers
as hold cargo has been one of the
main stumbling blocks to the ideal
situation of total container
flexibility. Historically, the hold
carriage of refrigerated containers
was limited to specialist thermally
insulated ‘port-hole’ containers or
those fitted with a non-standard
water-cooled condenser in addition
to the normal air-cooled condenser.
As a result, devising a means of
carrying refrigerated containers
below deck, with their self-
contained refrigeration systems in
operation, became a priority.
Towards this end, Lloyd’s Register
developed our Rules for the
Carriage of Refrigerated Containers
in Holds (CRCH Rules) in 2000.
They were published as ‘Notice No.
2’ of the July 2000 edition of the
Rules and Regulations for the
Classification of Ships and were
then included as Part 7, Chapter 10
of the July 2001 edition of the
Rules for ships.
Previous to the development of our CRC Rules, refrigerated containers
carried on deck could not be assigned a dedicated notation.
The feedback obtained from both
shipyards and owners was that the
Lloyd’s Register CRCH Rules did not
adequately cover the following:
1. hold ventilation systems other
than a ducted exhaust type
2. refrigerated container plug-in
sockets and their associated
electrical supply system
3. refrigerated containers with
water-cooled condensers
4. deck-stowed refrigerated
containers and the effects of
waste heat dissipation.
In response to these comments,
we have developed Rules for the
carriage of refrigerated containers
(CRC Rules).
CRC notation
It was proposed that the original
CRCH Rules be completely revised
to embrace the above issues
and also be revised to take into
consideration knowledge gained
during subsequent discussions
with owners, operators, charterers
and shipyards.
It was also proposed that the
CRC Rules needed to allow an
appropriate notation to be applied
to any ship which has the facility
to carry refrigerated containers.
The notation additionally
differentiates between hold-
stowed refrigerated containers
and those stowed on deck. Further
descriptive notations cover items
such as cargo storage regimes
(such as chilled and frozen) and
the amount of electrical power
dedicated to container plug-in
points.
Assigning the CRC notation
indicates that the design,
installation and testing of the
hold ventilation system achieves
a satisfactory standard to allow
the carriage of a specified
number of integral refrigerated
containers below deck. The Rules
are based on the philosophy
that it is advantageous to allow
the shipyard’s ventilation system
designer to submit a proposal
without having to comply with
prescriptive regulations, specific
temperature limitations or airflow
requirements. However, guidance
air flow values are provided.
Thus, the type of ventilation system
proposed and its design, including
aspects such as ductwork sizing, fan
sizing, maximum air velocity, hold
space temperature limitations and
air sealing arrangements, are the
prerogative of the system designer.
 November 2006 CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS 9

Lloyd’s Register’s heat flow To adequately assess all these heat

model
During operation, a container’s
integral refrigeration unit removes
the total container heat load
made up of the following: heat
generated by the respiration of
the cargo, heat transferred across
the container’s boundary, heat
carried in infiltration and air-
refreshing air and heat generated
by internal electrical equipment
such as evaporator fan motors.
This heat is transferred by the
refrigerant and rejected through
the container’s condenser to the
atmosphere. When a number of
containers are located in the same
hold, the temperature inside the
hold can increase significantly,
adversely affecting the efficiency
of the refrigeration units and their
ability to maintain the containers’
internal temperatures. If sufficient
fresh air is circulated through the
hold, the temperature of the air
in the hold can be maintained
within acceptable limits.
loads and the interaction between
the various refrigerated containers
in a cargo hold for the purposes of
writing the new CRC Rules, Lloyd's
Register created a macro-volume
model (MVM), which focuses on
the bulk movement of heat. This
bulk movement is referred to as
the ‘reefer heat flow’. As the
container refrigeration units are
operational before loading, and
their operation is quasi-steady over
the duration of a voyage, the heat
flow is assessed under steady-state
conditions.
The MVM was created in a
spreadsheet to assess the heat
balance for a container ship’s hold,
to enable us to appraise proposed
ventilation systems. The model
can simulate any ISO arrangement
of reefers, at a variety of cargo
temperatures (see Table 1), and
returns a value of ambient air
flow required to maintain a
target temperature in the hold.
Modelling has been undertaken
on existing ships to verify the
program, and this has shown that
the guidance air flow values given
in the CRC Rules are conservative.
The model considers each hold
separately, and the hold input data
includes number of rows, number
of tiers, refrigerated container
slots, non-refrigerated slots and
void areas such as fuel tanks.
For each slot, the model can show
the effect of carrying, not only
containers having different
temperatures, but also different
cargoes. Other aspects such as
the effects of carrying empty
containers can also be modelled.
Table 1 – Cargo container
set temperatures
Name Temperature ºC
‘Banana’ 13.0
‘Chill’ 2.0
‘Frozen’ -18.0
‘Deep Frozen’ -29.0
Giving confidence
The development of the CRC Rules
now allows owners whose ships
have the ability to carry refrigerated
containers to demonstrate that
the facilities provided achieve
certain design criteria. This will
allow charterers to have confidence
in the ship’s ability to carry their
valuable refrigerated cargo in a
satisfactory and safe manner. The
historic view that it is not possible
to transport refrigerated containers
in enclosed holds has now been
discredited. We now have the
ability to verify the amount of
ventilation required to ensure the
effective carriage of refrigerated
cargoes. We believe that our reefer
heat flow model has the ability to
not only determine air flow
requirements but also the resulting
hold space temperatures.

For further information contact

Robbie Sillars, Senior Surveyor, Engineering Systems,
Is this the ‘new’ reefer ship?
London Design Support Services
E robbie.sillars@lr.org
T +44 (0)20 7423 1921
F +44 (0)20 7423 1824
10 CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS November 2006
Mandatory requirements for strength of
towing and mooring equipment on new ships
A new regulation, “Towing and mooring
equipment”, has been added to SOLAS.
The new regulation 3-8, “Towing
and mooring equipment”, has been
added to SOLAS Chapter II-1, Part
A-1. The regulation reads:
1. This regulation applies to ships
constructed on or after 1st
January, 2007, but does not
apply to emergency towing
arrangements provided in
accordance with regulation 3-4.
2. Ships shall be provided with
arrangements, equipment and
fittings of sufficient safe
working load to enable the
safe conduct of all towing and
mooring operations associated
with the normal operation of
the ship.
3. Arrangements, equipment and
fittings provided in accordance
with paragraph 2 shall meet
the appropriate requirements
of the Administration or an
organization recognized by
the Administration under
regulation I/6.*
For further information contact
David Tozer, Business Manager – Container Ships, Lloyd’s Register
E david.tozer@lr.org
T +44 (0)20 7423 1562
F +44 (0)20 7423 2213
4. Each fitting or item of
equipment provided under this
regulation shall be clearly marked
with any restrictions associated
with its safe operation, taking
into account the strength of its
attachment to the ship’s structure.
In addition to this amendment
to SOLAS, the International
Association of Classification
Societies (IACS) has developed and
issued a second revision to Unified
Requirement (UR) A2 and a new
Unified Interpretation (UI) SC212.
Copies of UR A2 and UI SC212 may
be downloaded from the IACS
website (www.iacs.org.uk).
The requirements specify the
strength of the towing and
mooring equipment to be supplied
and give criteria for the design
and approval of associated support
structure. These new requirements
are applicable to new ships of
all types and sizes which are
constructed on or after January 1,
2007. They apply to continuations
of existing series, even if the lead
ship was built before this date.
Currently, for ships under 90 metres
Lloyd’s Register’s Rules specify the
minimum number, length and
strength of mooring lines. Towlines
are not required for classification,
but details are given in the Rules
for guidance.
“A new regulation on towing and
mooring equipment has been added
to SOLAS.”
Ships greater than 90 metres in
length do not require towlines and
mooring lines as a classification
item; however, guidance is given in
the Rules.
Container ships
Of particular note with regard to
container ships is the Equipment
Numeral used for establishing the
strength of towing and mooring
equipment. This numeral must take
into account the profile area of any
cargo carried on deck. This is a
change from the current method,
which excludes deck cargo from the
calculation. It is anticipated that this
will have the effect of increasing
the equipment numeral by one
step, irrespective of ship size. There
will be exceptions where a greater
or zero increase in the numeral will
result, but for most new container
ships, there will be an increase in
the required strength, length and
number of mooring lines over and
above the minimum basic standard
currently recommended by class.
The new regulations also define
requirements for the design and
strength of shipboard fittings
(including bollards and bitts,
fairleads, stand rollers and chocks)
and supporting hull structure.
Our Rules and Regulations for the
Classification of Ships are currently
being amended to incorporate the
above amendments.
*Refers to MSC/Circ 1175, Guidance
on shipboard towing and mooring
equipment (available as a download
from www.imo.org).
 November 2006 CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS 11

New ShipRight procedure for container

ships helps to assess hull stresses
When a ship twists, warping (fore
and aft) stresses are generated and
these are resisted partly by shear
forces in the transverse bulkhead
topside structure – principally at
upper deck level. This effect is
quite small because the bulkheads
are slender.

However, the introduction of

Lloyd’s Register’s has published a new
ShipRight procedure for the Structural A new SDA procedure for container
Design Assessment of container ships. ships is supported by software.
Lloyd’s Register’s Structural Design In May 2006 a new version of the
Assessment (SDA) and Construction SDA procedure was released to
Monitoring (CM) procedures are provide guidance on the direct
mandatory for container ships calculation methods to be applied
with a beam of panamax size or to a number of new features which
greater and for other container are being used in the design and
ships of abnormal hull form, or of build of the latest container ships,
unusual structural configuration principally the positioning of fuel
or complexity. oil tanks within the cargo holds,
driven by the introduction of
MARPOL Annex 1, Regulation 12A.
ShipRight SDA software provides support
Positioning the fuel oil tanks within
Lloyd’s Register ShipRight SDA software has been developed to support the cargo holds can have a
the application of the SDA procedure. The software is designed to significant effect on the distribution
interface with shipbuilders’ own systems and provides load generation of stress within the hull of a
and post-processing of stress and buckling results which are container ship, particularly when
automatically assessed against the SDA criteria. the ship is subjected to torsional
loads such as those produced by
Key features include: uneven distributions of cargo,
G ship modelling – users can create a ship model using the software or ballast water and fuel and by the
work with models imported from CAD systems or in NASTRAN format twisting of the hull in oblique seas.
G automatic generation of many of the SDA load components – for For a ‘conventional’ container ship,
example, to identify a tank within the finite-element model, all that is the cargo hold region is generally
required is a single reference point anywhere within the tank. The U-shaped in section and the centre
software identifies the tank boundaries and automatically applies of twist – which is close to the shear
pressure loading as appropriate centre – is about D/2 below the
G automatic wave balancing – when assessing the structural strength of baseline. For a closed section, such
a large container ship it is necessary to model the entire ship and as the engine room and at the
balance it on a wave profile. Our ShipRight SDA software can forward end, the centre of twist is
automatically adjust draught and trim to achieve equilibrium. within the ship, at about D/2 above
Additionally, the wave height can be adjusted to achieve the required the baseline.
bending moment value at midships.
G automatic loading of fine mesh models and transfer of boundary
deflections obtained from the full ship model For further information contact
G automatic stress assessment against the SDA or user-defined criteria Sue Rutherford, Technology Manager,
Research and Development, Lloyd's Register
G automatic panel buckling calculations and assessment
E sue.rutherford@lr.org
G automatic report generation in Word format.
T +44 (0)20 7423 2538
F +44 (0)20 7423 2061
tanks within the cargo holds has
a big effect – they increase the
enclosed area of the hull cross-
section and therefore increase
the St Venant torsional stiffness.
The centre of twist of the hull
moves up sharply into the hull in
the region of the tanks, and the
entire stress distribution within
the hull is changed.
In addition, the ‘hard spots’ created
at the ends of the fuel tanks, at
the top of the tanks, must be
examined carefully to ensure that
the design will perform effectively
– leakage due to cracks at this
point could lead to fuel oil ingress
into the cargo holds.
All of these aspects, and the local
strength issues associated with
such arrangements, are addressed
in the new procedure. The new
procedure also includes a revised,
simplified method of fatigue
assessment for hatch corners,
which recognises the benefit of
high-tensile steel on the fatigue
performance of unwelded material.
This has been introduced as a result
of Lloyd's Register's on-going
programmes of fatigue assessment
and testing.
The new ShipRight SDA procedure
can be accessed from ClassDirect
Live (www.cdlive.lr.org).
12 CONTAINER SHIP FOCUS November 2006

Classification news Horizons Upcoming

conferences
Lloyd’s Register’s Classification News delivers up-to-date Horizons is our quarterly Lloyd’s Register will be
information on issues requiring urgent and immediate technical publication for presenting at the following
dissemination to the marine industry. Recent inspection the marine industry. Topics container ship conferences
and statutory alerts we have issued include: recently covered include: in the upcoming months:

• Changes to the Rules and
Regulations for the Classification
of Ships, 2006 – Part 1: The
Regulations (Applicable to all
Lloyd’s Register-classed ships)
• Changes to the Rules and
Regulations for the Classification
of Ships, 2006 - Part 1: The
Regulations (Applicable to
ESP ships)
• Removal of redundant, expired
or replaced certificates from
ships' files
• EU Sulphur Regulations
applicable to passenger ships on
regular services in EU waters
• Daniamant Rescue Dan M
and Rescue Dan W lifejacket
lights replacement
• Canada introduces new
mandatory ballast water
regulations.
Classification News is available
free of charge. These issues,
together with the archive
of alerts, may be viewed
electronically at www.cdlive.lr.org
• revisions to MARPOL Annex I
• improving Port State Control
performance
• a profile of leading ship
operator Teekay Shipping.
Horizons includes regular
features on:
• legislative developments
• the latest in ship technology
• recent deliveries to Lloyd's
Register class
• forthcoming exhibitions and
technical papers.
Horizons can be downloaded
from our web sites (www.lr.org
and www.cdlive.lr.org). If you
would like to receive a hard copy,
please contact:
RINA Design & Operation of
Container Ships, November
22-23, 2006, London, UK
“Development of
requirements to safeguard
large container ships from
the effects of bow flare
slamming”, Ling Zhu, Lloyd’s
Register
“Energy prices and
container shipping”,
Andrew Penfold, Director,
Ocean Shipping Consultants
Ltd and David Tozer,
Business Manager –
Container Ships, Lloyd’s
Register
“Design of container ships
for safer securing and
access”, Brian Sherwood
Jones and Roland Ives,
Lloyd’s Reigster and Roy
Smith, Hutchinson Ports

Boxship 2006, December 5-

Adele Williams
C O N TA I N E R S H I P F O C U S 6, 2006, Shanghai, PRC
Lloyd’s Register
For further information on our marine services relating to the “Impact of bunker prices on
71 Fenchurch Street
container ship sector, please contact container ship design”,
London EC3M 4BS, UK
David Tozer, Business
David Tozer, Business Manager Managing Editor: T +44 (0)20 7423 2309 Manager – Container Ships,
– Container Ships: Dolly Robinson F +44 (0)20 7423 2213 Lloyd’s Register and Andrew
T +44 (0)20 7423 1562 Marine Media Manager E adele.williams@lr.org Penfold, Director, Ocean
F +44 (0)20 7423 2213 T +44 (0)20 7423 1682 Shipping Consultants Ltd
E david.tozer@lr.org E dolly.robinson@lr.org
“Container ship propulsion
Container Ship Focus is produced by Marine Business Development. efficiency enhancement”,
Lay-out by theclubb design consultants. John Carlton, Head of
Care is taken to ensure that the information in Container Ship Focus is Technology and
accurate and up to date. However, Lloyd’s Register accepts no responsibility Investigations, Lloyd’s
for inaccuracies in, or changes to such information. Register

Lloyd’s Register EMEA Lloyd’s Register Asia Lloyd’s Register Americas, Inc.
T + 44 (0)20 7709 9166 T + 852 2287 9333 T +1 (1)281 675 3100
F + 44 (0)20 7423 2057 F + 852 2526 2921 F +1 (1)281 675 3139
E emea@lr.org E asia@lr.org E americas@lr.org

71 Fenchurch Street Suite 3501 China Merchants Tower 1401 Enclave Parkway, Suite 200
London EC3M 4BS, UK Shun Tak Centre Houston, Texas, 77077, USA
168–200 Connaught Road Central
Hong Kong, SAR of PRC

www.lr.org

November 2006
Services are provided by members of the Lloyd’s Register Group.
Lloyd’s Register, Lloyd’s Register EMEA and Lloyd’s Register Asia are exempt charities under the UK Charities Act 1993.