stability of livestock carrier - Page 2 - Ships Nostalgia
07:17

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

stability of livestock carrier

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #26  
Old 14th March 2010, 23:33
randcmackenzie randcmackenzie is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
My location
Posts: 1,382
Think again John.

Though the weight of a container is applied through its base, the C of G is taken at one third height - or it was in my day.


Similarly, the C of G of a tank was taken at half height, even though the sounding could be below that, a useful margin I used to keep in my sleeve in Seatrain days.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 14th March 2010, 23:43
Interalia Interalia is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cassels View Post
Why try to calculate the CG of every animal ?. Surely the weight is transferred through
the feet so no matter how big , fat , high the beast is , the CG will always be at deck
level.
If the animal is lying down, having a kip or just travel weary there will then be a slight
rise in it's CoG.
John,
The CG of an individual animal is, as Cisco puts it, somewhere in the top half. The weight of the beast is transfered to the deck through it's legs, but the distance of its CG to the deck is variable depending whether it is standing up or lying down. Imagine a deck barge with a tower crane on deck - height say 20 metres with a ten tonne cabin at the top. The CG is somewhere in the region of the cabin. Now lower that cabin somehow to the deck of the barge, leaving the legs of the crane still at 20 metres high. The CG of the crane is now much closer to the deck.
As pointed out, loads suspended on hooks are a different situation, but we tried not to do that on a LIVEstock carrier.

Of course I am only experienced with Australian cattle and wouldn't their weight act in the opposite direction to European cattle?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15th March 2010, 00:24
Interalia Interalia is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27
If animals have been seasick in heavy weather then the initial transfer of stomach contents to the deck will have a very slight beneficial effect on the GM ( how much would depend on whether the animals were standing up or had already collapsed on the
deck when the incident took place) but may be offset by any free surface effect caused.

Cattle when they're seasick don't vomit - imagine what it would be like with four stomachs - would it happen in parallel or in series?
Of course reaction to seasickness at the stern of the animal is a bit different.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 15th March 2010, 09:14
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by randcmackenzie View Post
Think again John.

Though the weight of a container is applied through its base, the C of G is taken at one third height - or it was in my day.


Similarly, the C of G of a tank was taken at half height, even though the sounding could be below that, a useful margin I used to keep in my sleeve in Seatrain days.
Roddy , that's the whole point. A container does not move ( that's what we
hope anyway) so when the vessel heels , the force acting from the CoG moves to the side.
When a livestock carrier heels , the animals sway with the ship therefore
keeping their CoG always in a vertical line acting through the bisection
point of the diagonal lines between the hoofs.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 15th March 2010, 09:21
Lancastrian Lancastrian is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 390
Come on JC. Whilst the thread has produced some amusing banter, your original statement at #15 was wrong. Even the other guy can't get you out of that.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 15th March 2010, 09:36
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancastrian View Post
Come on JC. Whilst the thread has produced some amusing banter, your original statement at #15 was wrong. Even the other guy can't get you out of that.
OK , you win.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 16th March 2010, 01:56
Andrew Craig-Bennett's Avatar
Andrew Craig-Bennett Andrew Craig-Bennett is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,249
I'm glad we have that settled.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 16th March 2010, 02:41
Cisco's Avatar
Cisco Cisco is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
Active: 1963 - 2006
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 6,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancastrian View Post
Come on JC. Whilst the thread has produced some amusing banter, your original statement at #15 was wrong.
No it wasn't....


it is much the same as beef on the hook, the deck head height is used as 'worst case'.. a tight stow of beef on the hook will act as a solid mass. Likewise a tight stow of beef on the hoof will behave as a solid mass and , having just run the tape over a representative sample of my cows, would have a CofG of 1.1 to 1.2 metres above the deck. A single cow able to move with the roll will be as described by John.

Getting back to the 'standing in a dinghy ' scenario... if the C of G was acting through the body's centre then when people stand in the dinghy it will capsize.. it doesn't.. just so long as they stand steady. Trouble starts when standing people start moving around in the dinghy, transfer weight to gunwhale etc etc....

Got to run... off to do my bit for the Argentinian economy..
__________________
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 16th March 2010, 08:11
Interalia Interalia is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco View Post
.

it is much the same as beef on the hook, the deck head height is used as 'worst case'.. a tight stow of beef on the hook will act as a solid mass. Likewise a tight stow of beef on the hoof will behave as a solid mass and , having just run the tape over a representative sample of my cows, would have a CofG of 1.1 to 1.2 metres above the deck. A single cow able to move with the roll will be as described by John.

Getting back to the 'standing in a dinghy ' scenario... if the C of G was acting through the body's centre then when people stand in the dinghy it will capsize.. it doesn't.. just so long as they stand steady. Trouble starts when standing people start moving around in the dinghy, transfer weight to gunwhale etc etc....
Under AMSA and Australian Standards for Export of Livestock a (say) 300kg animal is to have minimum of 1.11 square metres of deck space; this is not a tight stow, leaving the cattle room to move about to take their turn at the fodder and water bins. Cattle transported by road in a truck are a different story - they may be considered a tight stow.

On the 'standing in a dinghy ' scenario I agree that as long as the people stand steady there will be no capsize. But when the dinghy / livestock ship is acted upon by an external force such as wind, swell ....
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 16th March 2010, 09:39
Lancastrian Lancastrian is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 390
Quite so. Even if they are standing steady on the centreline, they are increasing the KG of the dinghy from what it was when they were sitting down, and the effect of their mass is not acting on the bottom boards.

Last edited by Lancastrian; 16th March 2010 at 09:44..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 16th March 2010, 09:54
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,931
Actually , it should be quite simple.

All livestock intending to make the trip should be given a quick basic course in elementary
stability which would include being able to roll with the ship and so keep their CoG from
moving. When required , they should know when to lie down ( not sit down as
Lancastrian would have it) so lowering their CoG.
When feeling seasick , they should be ready to aim for scuppers - so avoiding any free
surface effects.
A basic exam should follow the course - answers can be made by a nod ( for yes) or a
shake( for no) of the head.

Any animal not meeting the required standard would be refused passage.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 16th March 2010, 11:56
Billieboy Billieboy is offline  
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 1970
 
Join Date: May 2009
My location
Posts: 4,302
There may be a language problem there John, Spanish, Kiwi or plain Outback; perhaps a short linguistcs course could be patched in, on the train, from the farm, to the loading port?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 20th March 2010, 06:26
gululu gululu is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 6
I found a very interesting movie at Discovery Channel named "Mighty Ships "Berux", it's may helpful.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 20th March 2010, 09:35
NoMoss's Avatar
NoMoss NoMoss is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Radio Officer
Active: 1956 - 1986
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
My location
Posts: 941
There seems to be a lot of bull going on here.
__________________


Ted
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 20th March 2010, 10:13
lgrania02 lgrania02 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 699
Do not know too much about the stability of livestock, but I do know they were the only vessels that I made a conscious effort to board and leave on the windward side when they visited Jeddah. I was once told that with a mortality rate of about 3% a ship with 100,000 sheep aboard coming from Australia would be throwing a dead carcass overboard about every 15 minutes on average! Hard to believe but maybe true.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 27th March 2010, 05:54
livex livex is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1
Loading of livestock vessels is monitored by AQIS and to a lesser extent by AMSA.
AMSA these days does not police load density,water ,feed etc.

The role of AMSA is vessel condition and inspection and subsequent issuance of the ACCL(australian certificate carriage livestock)under MO43 .
Livestock carriers operating from Australia must be IACS class only.
There is less than 30 vessels(amsa compliant) that are able to serve the Australian trade.
The vessels servicing the Australian trade are in excellent order and are mostly european owned and managed.
VROON is by far the biggest player then SIBA.
The most recent newbuild is the MV OCEAN SWAGMAN operated by SIBA.
She was launched in feb 2010 and is the most advanced livestock carrier in operation.

All loading and stock densities are enforced by AQIS.
To formulate load area =av weight(one hd) .0034 + .09 x total hd = m2 required

water requirement = net kgs cargo x 12% x voyage length + 3 days.

Cattle are fed hay pellets that are mostly 5/8 in diameter and are stored in bulk or handled in small 35 kg bags.

feed requirement = net kgs cargo x 2% x voyage length + 20%.

Indonesia is world largest buyer of Live cattle importing more than 700,000 from Australia in 2009.Nearly all cargo are discharged at Jakarta or Panjang.
The busiest Australian port for cattle is Darwin.
Fremantle,Townsville and Broome do substantial numbers.

Fremantle is the main sheep port.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 3rd April 2010, 11:29
kevinmurphy kevinmurphy is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 46
Having worked on livestock carriers in the 80's, the average weight of the animals is obtained from weighing the lorries arriving at the port at a weighbridge, or from the holding area, day before loading we would mark the pens with the allowed number from the weights given, all carefully calculated from Aussie govt rules, then Mate did his stability based on the weigbridge data.
On passage, an allowance was made from food and water consumed being turned into sh!te, which from memory was 60% (but it was a while ago), we did daily calculations on passage.
rgds
Kev
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 20th April 2010, 03:34
NEWCON NEWCON is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1
Livestock Carriers

Is damage stability calculation (probabilistic) a requirement for Livestock carriers.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 1st January 2016, 23:19
Tony Foot Tony Foot is offline
Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1961 - 2009
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 34
This one triggered a memory!
one project we had when doing "Seconds" was to calculate stability for a sheep carrier on a voyage from Fremantle to the Middle East.
The vessel was a real life ex tanker, converted to a sheep ship. The original calculations were a bit dodgy as well.
It certainly taxed my calculating ability to get it there without getting the funnel wet!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 18th October 2018, 20:04
Annmckinnon's Avatar
Annmckinnon Annmckinnon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 185
I can remember back in the 60's my father who was Ben Line sending me photos of calf's and sheep from one of the ships he was aboard, so back then the must have had cargo of livestock.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cormo Express - livestock carrier Jan Hendrik Special Purpose Vessels 3 5th September 2019 09:41
J & J Denholm Gulpers J & J Denholm 865 11th May 2019 05:44
Ore carrier hits trawler rushie News and Views from the Shipping World 1 4th August 2006 13:16
Guardian Carrier flyer682 Coasters 1 18th June 2005 15:15



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.