Proceedings of The Thirteenth (2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 25 –30, 2003
Copyright © 2003 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1 –880653 -60 –5 (Set); ISSN 1098 –6189 (Set)
A Study on Container Securing System for Optimum Arrangement
Sanghoon Shin, Sunil Won and Ickhung Choe
Structure Research Department, Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
Ulsan, Korea
ABSTRACT
In this study, a program for container securing system is developed.
The program calculates the container securing forces and decides an
optimum stock arrangement on upper deck of container ship. At first,
equilibrium equations for container securing forces were established by
a unified matrix form and the calculated forces are verified by the
programs which four Classifications such as GL, ABS, DNV and LR
distributed. When maximum stack weight is determined, the
arrangement plan of containers with higher vertical center of gravity
satisfying the requirements of the Classifications is essential for the
efficient operation of the container cargo. An optimum stack
arrangement algorithm was developed and combined into container
securing system to consider this design situation efficiently. Rules of
four Classifications mentioned above are applied to the calculation of
container securing system and graphic user interface system is also
introduced for convenience of users.
KEY WORDS: container securing; classification; stack weight;
arrangement plan; vertical center of gravity; optimum stack
arrangement algorithm.
INTRODUCTION
Most Classifications have their own guide for certification of container
securing systems and issue certificates for the securing systems which
are constructed and installed under their supervision according to the
requirements of the guide. The main goal in this study is developing a
program which decides an optimum stack arrangement and calculates
the securing forces satisfying the requirements of the Classifications.
An establishment of equilibrium equations for container securing forces
to apply to all the Classifications is needed and in this study it is
adjusted by a unified matrix form and verified by the programs which
four Classifications such as GL, ABS, DNV and LR distributed.
Basic loads to be taken into account in container securing calculations
are as follows: static gravitational forces, dynamic forces associated
with ship motions, wind forces, lashing or other securing forces.
Container securing forces used as constraints for the requirements of
the Classifications include racking forces, lashing forces, compression
forces, corner post loads and lifting forces.
357
When the value of stack weight is determined, lowering the VCG
(Vertical Center of Gravity) of the container stack is more stable from
the viewpoint of stack stability. However, if the containers are
rearranged, it is easy to violate the Rule constraints. Therefore, the
owners occasionally require the arrangement plan of containers with
higher VCG to satisfy the requirements of the Classifications. In this
study, an optimization algorithm was developed and combined into
container securing system to consider this design situation efficiently.
This integrated program can search optimum arrangement plan of
containers with maximum VCG when maximum stack weight is
determined and also find maximum stack weight when the arrangement
is not related to VCG.
Rules of four Classifications (GL, ABS, DNV and LR) are applied to
the container securing system and are selected as an option to users. A
graphic user interface is also introduced for convenience of users.
DEVELOPMENT SCOPE
To develop a container securing system for efficient stack arrangement,
it is considered as follows;
1) Evaluation of acceleration component acting on each container
2) Evaluation of container securing forces in according to each
container’s VCG
3) Effect of wind force
4) Effect of a lashing bridge
5) Effect of a vertical lashing
6) Calculation of maximum stack weight in case of homogeneous
container weight
7) Calculation of each container securing forces in case of determined
container weight
8) Calculation of a container weight distribution for maximum stack
VCG
CONTAINER LASHING PATTERN
Containers on the upper deck are supported like Fig. 1. On the view of
racking force and lashing force, both lashing type is not different.
However, left hand lashing has less compression force and lifting force.
So it can increase stack weight. On the view of efficient space usability,
it has some demerit like loss of passageway. Therefore, recent lashing R5
pattern takes right hand lashing and additional vertical lashing if
Fw5 F5
necessary. Fig. 2 shows two type of vertical lashing.
Vertical lashing is used to reduce lifting force. So, it is usually set up at
the edge of the deck where wind is more effective.
R4
Fw4 F4

R3
Fw3 F3

H2
R2
T2
Fw2 F2
D1
H1 o o'
a
R1 DL
T1
Fw1 F1
Right hand lashing Left hand lashing b
a a
Fig. 1 Lashing Pattern

FL FP
Fig. 4 Force Component

Wind direction The relation of racking force ( R1 , R2 ) and horizontal supporting force
( H 1 , H 2 ) with lashing effect are established as follows;

(c) (d)
R1 = f1 − H 1 − H 2 (1)
(a) (b)
R2 = f 2 − H 2 (2)

Short lashing Long lashing To solve these equations, add Eq. 1 and Eq. 2. And then;
Fig. 2 Vertical Lashing Type
R1 + R2 = f1 + f 2 − H1 − 2H 2 (3)

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION The deflection of upped deck based on the Classification is defined like
this;
Fig. 3 shows the simplification of container stock model. Both left hand
lashing and right hand lashing are simplified to a beam problem. R1
∆1 = (4)
KC
Here, the K C is the racking spring constant of the container (see
APPENDIX). Therefore, the deflection due to racking force is equal to
the deflection due to the horizontal supporting force. So, Eq. 5 is
determined.

R1 H1
∆1 = = (5)
K C K1
Fig. 3 Modeling of Horizontal Force on the Container
K1 is the horizontal spring constant of lashing rod.
To establish container force equilibrium equations, the components of
force and moment are described as shown in Fig. 4. Like above, the deflection due to R1 + R2 at top of the 2nd level
container is determined as follows;

358
 R1 + R2 H 2 AE L cos 2 α
∆2 = = (6) K1 = K L cos 2 α = (15)
KC K2 lR
From the Eq. 5 and the Eq. 6, the Eq. 1 and the Eq. 3 are modified to ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION
Eq. 7 and Eq. 8. WITH LASHING BRIDGE
H1K C In previous chapter, the equilibrium equation is derived at the condition
= f1 − H1 − H 2 (7)
K1 that lashing rod is wired on the deck. In the practical circumstance, it is
required that lashing rod is attached to a lashing bridge as shown in Fig.
H 2 KC 5.
= f1 + f 2 − H1 − 2 H 2 (8) To describe the equilibrium of the condition shown in Fig. 5, the Eqs.
K2 1~2 are modified into Eqs.16~18.

These equations are represented in matrix form as follows; R5

−1
 K C  
 + 1 1  R4
 H1   K1    f1 
H  =   KC   f + f 2 
(9)
 2 1  + 2   1
 H2
  K2  R3
T2
In the GL Classification, dislocations on the bottom of container must
H1
be considered. So, Eq. 9 modifies to consider a force component of the
R2
dislocations as shown in Eq. 10. T1

−1
 K C  
 + 1 1  R1 Lashing bridge
 H 1   K1    f1 + K C v0  (10)
H  =   KC  f + f 2+ K C (v0 + v1 )

 2 1  + 2   1

  K2 
FL FP
Eqs. 11~13 are easily derived from the Fig. 4.

Fig. 5 Force Component with lashing bridge.

∆ L = ∆1 cos α (11)
T1 = ∆ L K L (12) R1 = f1 − H 1 − H 2 (16)
K L = AE L / l R (13) R2 = f 2 − H1 − H 2 (17)
R3 = f 3 − H 2 (18)
Here, KL : spring constant of lashing rod
A : Area of lashing rod. From these equations, Eq. 19 and Eq. 20 are derived.
T1 : Young’s modulus of the tensing rod
R1 + R2 = f1 + f 2 − 2 H 1 − 2 H 2 (19)
lR : Length of the lashing
R1 + R2 + R3 = f1 + f 2 + f 3 − 2 H 1 − 3H 2 (20)
From the Eq. 6, it is possible to derive Eq. 14
From the container deflection equation (Eq. 21 and Eq. 22), Eq. 23 and
H1 T1 cos α Eq. 24 are derived.
∆1 = = (14)
K1 K1 R1 + R2 H1
∆2 = = (21)
KC K1
From the Eqs. 11~14, the relation between K1 and K L is obtained as
following Eq. 15. R + R2 + R3 H 2
∆3 = 1 = (22)
KC K2

359
 area of lashing rod : 26 mm2
 K C  
 + 2  2  container length : 20’
 K1   H 1  =  f1 + f 2 
acceleration type : standard acceleration

  H   f + f 2 + f 3 
(23) container height : 8.5’
  KC
+ 3   2   1
container width : 8’
 2  number of stack : 5
  K2  lashing position : upper 1st tier, lower 2nd tire, lower 3rd tier

−1 In the above condition, the container is subjected in wind and no wind

 K C   condition separately. Each container weight are 20, 20, 20, 10 and 2 ton.
 + 2  2 
 H1   K1    f1 + f 2 
H  = 
CONTAINER FORCE CALCULATION
  f + f 2 + f 3 
(24)
 2  KC
 2  + 3   1
  K2 

OPTIMUM PLAN OF THE CONTAINER STACK

ARRANGEMENT

The optimum plan of the container arrangement in a stack on upper

deck is the plan of containers with higher VCG which satisfying the
requirements of the Classifications. So, the objective function and the
restrict condition are described as follows;
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Objective : the result from GL classification the result from present study
 ntier  Fig. 6 Container forces (door end) with the wind force
Maximize f ( x) =  ∑ xi hi  Wi (25)
 i =1 
Find : xi
Subject to :

ntier

∑x
i =1
i = Wt xi : the weight of a ith container

1.0 − xi xmin ≤ 0. xmin : the min. weight of a ith container

(20' container : 2.5 ton, 40' container : 3.5 ton)
xi xmax − 1.0 ≤ 0. xmax : the max. weight of a ith container
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
(20' container : 24 ton, 40' container : 30.5 ton) the result from GL classification the result from present study
Ri ( R ) rule − 1.0 ≤ 0. ( R) rule : allowable racking force Fig. 7 Container forces (closed end) with the wind force
T j (T ) rule − 1.0 ≤ 0. (T ) rule : allowable lashing tension
FL ( FL ) rule − 1.0 ≤ 0. FL : a lifting force
FP ( FP ) rule − 1.0 ≤ 0. FP : a compression force
FC ( FC ) rule − 1.0 ≤ 0. FC : a conner post load

EXAMPLE

To verify the calculation procedure and to show the effectiveness of the

optimum arrangement, a specified condition of container stack (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
arrangement is selected. The condition of calculation is as following; the result from GL classification the result from present study
Fig. 8 Container forces (door end) without wind
LBP (length between perpendicular) : 187.00m
VCG of each container: 0.45 × 8.5’ (1166 mm)
stack position : 128.90m from AP

360
 GUI SYSTEM

To facilitate usage of this program, user friendly system is adapted.

This system is separated to 2 modules, one is calculation module
composed in FORTRAN. The other is GUI (Graphic User Interface)
module composed in Visual C++. These two modules exchanges,
several data files which contains geometry and forces. This kind of
program makes for user easy to calculate securing force and container
loading plan.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
the result from GL classification the result from present study
Fig. 9 Container forces (closed end) without wind

The description of the (a) ~ (e) in Fig. 6~9 is as follows :

(a) : racking forces
(b) : compression forces
(c) : conner post load
(d) : lifting forces
(e) : lashing forces

The calculation results shows that the securing forces are same as the
value from GL’s program.

OPTIMUM CONTAINER WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION

The optimization function for container securing plan is to get higher

VCG within Classification restriction. Here, an example calculation of
optimum container securing plan is suggested.
All the component of container forces must be satisfied with
Classification regulations for both door end and closed end. The
calculated optimum weight distribution is as follows;
Fig. 10 Dialogs for data input with GUI
This system shows the calculated results in graphical view such as
racking force, lashing force, lifting force, and optimum container
loading weight.

Table 1 result of container securing calculation

Total
VCG
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 weight
(m)
(ton)
GL
20.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 2.0 72.0 4.78
proposal
Max. VCG
22.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.0 72.0 5.68
(with wind)
Max. VCG
23.5 21.0 10.0 9.0 8.5 72.0 4.92
(with wind)
Uniform
weight
11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 55.0 6.45
(without
wind)
Uniform
weight
7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 37.5 6.45 Fig. 11 Container forces (closed end) in the no wind
(without
wind)
CONCLUSIONS

Table 1 shows the calculated optimum container securing plan and
VCG. Uniform weight plan shows higher VCG, however total
container weight is smaller than the variable weight plan. The
calculated optimum arrangement shows that the developed program in
this study suggests a higher VCG than those from GL proposal.
A calculation procedure of the applied force on the container stack and
an optimum container arrangement plan has been established in this
study. The principal character is follows;
1) The developed program provides optimum container arrangement
plan in a stack on upper deck with the applied securing force.
2) The container securing forces can be calculated based on the major

361
Classification societies (GL, ABS, DNV, LR) requirements APPENDIX
3) The lashing effect is also considered.
4) GUI is applied in the calculation program.
Racking spring constant of the container ( K C )
REFERENCES Classification Position KC
All Set Marine Lashing (2000). "Cargo Securing Manual," m/v CSCL GL(kN/cm) Door end 1/0.027
Shanghai Closed end 1/0.006
American Bureau of Shipping (1988). "Guide for Certification of ABS(ton/mm) Door end 0.38
Container Securing Systems,"
Det Norske Veritas (1983). "Strength Analysis of Container Securing Closed end 1.60
Arrangements," Classification Notes, Note No. 32.2. DNV(kN/mm) Door end 3.85
Germanischer Lloyd (1998). "Rules for Classification and Construction Closed end 10.0
Ship Technology," Part 4, Chapter 3 LR(ton/mm) Door end 8' 8.5' 9' 9.5'
Lee, Sangyoup (1997). "Visual C++ Program Bible 5, " youngjin.com
Lloyd's Register (1998). "Classification of Ships," Part 3, Chapter 9, 11 1/2.70 1/2.85 1/3.00 1/3.15
and 14 Closed end 8' 8.5' 9' 9.5'
1/0.60 1/0.65 1/0.70 1/0.75

362