Cable Laying Vessels: a Review of the Classification, Statutory and Station Keeping Aspects
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Return to Session Directory > Doug Phillips Verification, Testing and Trials Fail to Meet Expectations Again Dynamic Positioning Committee Marine Technology Society P DYNAMIC POSITIONING CONFERENCE September 18-19, 2001 VERIFICATION, TESTING AND TRIALS Cable Laying Vessels: A Review Of The Classification, Statutory And Station Keeping Aspects Andrew McKinven LR Americas Inc. Andrew McKinven, Lloyd’s Register Cable laying vessels Return to Session Directory Cable laying vessels: A review of the classification, statutory and station keeping aspects INTRODUCTION Section 4 focuses on the more popular, yet Section 1 of the paper provides an overview more onerous, LR DP(AA) notation (IMO of the development of cable laying vessels Class 2 equivalent), identifying the design from their earliest designs to those of the requirements for the proprietary DP control present day; particular reference is made to system and the ship's engineering systems. four Maersk vessels which recently entered Section 5 builds upon previous sections, into Lloyd’s Register (LR) Class. This discussing the requirement for a Failure section continues with a review of the Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to be differences between modern cable laying conducted and the subsequent functional vessels and general cargo vessels before testing during sea trials. The final section considering how cable layers differ as a ship provides an overview of the key issues type. Section 2 addresses the relationship presented within the paper; particular between vessel operational / design emphasis is given to the relationship characteristics and the applicable between vessel operational characteristics / Classification and Statutory requirements. design and the relevant Statutory and The paper moves on in Section 3 to consider Classification requirements. the use of dynamic positioning during cable laying and the proprietary DP systems which are available to facilitate these operations. Figure No. 1: HMTS Monarch Dynamic Positioning Conference September 18-19, 2001 Page 2 of 10 Andrew McKinven, Lloyd’s Register Cable laying vessels Return to Session Directory 1.0 BACKGROUND Figure No. 1 illustrates the almost A good example of an earlier design of cable symmetric arrangement of the ship: sheaves; laying vessel was His Majesty's Telegraph paying out gear; and dynamometer located (HMTS) Monarch (Figure No. 1) fwd. and aft. Much of the equipment e.g. constructed in the early 1940s at the Swan cable gear would have been steam driven – Hunters shipyard for the British Post Office. almost all vessel loads / systems are now At the time of build, it was the largest cable either completely or partially dependent layer in the world (8,056 gross tons), with upon some form of electrical power supply. the capability to lay and repair submarine Of course, the older vessels would not have telegraph cables, utilising a total cable had any form of DP capability. The capacity of 2,000 miles. Historically, a introduction of the first LR Rules for distinction was made between cable layers Dynamic Positioning in 1982, does however and cable repairers – purely based upon size. provide us with an indication as to when Most cable repair ships could lay vessels started to develop dynamic approximately 500 miles of cable when positioning capabilities. With respect to the repairing a cable fault, whereas cable laying structure of the vessel, it can be seen that the ships could lay up to 2,000 miles of new accommodation and wheelhouse decks are cable and also, if required, perform cable located above the cable tanks – introducing repairing functions on existing cables. the possibility of racking. In contrast with modern cable laying vessels, deck loads The complement of the HMTS Monarch would have been small in comparison. The comprised the master, thirty officers and one recent boom in the telecommunications hundred and seven men - laying and sector has resulted in a sharp increase in the repairing cables was a very labour intensive number of newbuild cable laying vessels and activity. conversions from other Figure No. 2: Maersk Recorder (Courtesy of Maersk Shipping) Dynamic Positioning Conference September 18-19, 2001 Page 2 of 10 Andrew McKinven, Lloyd’s Register Cable laying vessels Return to Session Directory suitable ship types. Over 28% of the world’s • additional generating capacity to fleet of cable laying vessels are classed by supply the large electric loads, e.g. Lloyd’s Register (113 ships – 746,269 GT). thrusters, which are necessary for Ongoing newbuilding projects include a dynamic positioning; vessel for Asean Pacific at the Jurong • dynamic positioning controller – the shipyard in Singapore, with the possibility use of position referencing systems of a second. Four newbuild cable laying and the controlled use of active vessels (constructed for Maersk in thrust help to ensure that cable Germany) entered into Lloyd’s Register tension is not exceeded and that the Class between the end of 2000 and the intended cable route is followed to beginning of 2001, the Maersk Recorder within precise limits. (Figure No. 2) was the first in the series. The DP(AA) notation (IMO Class 2) is Perhaps the first feature for comparison increasingly becoming the notation of between old and new cable laying vessels is choice for DP vessels. The various DP the cable tank capacity. Modern vessels configurations will be discussed later in have a capacity of up to 5,000 kilometres; Section 3, illustrations are provided in this is due, in part, to the fact that old Figure No. 4. It is apparent from Figure 2 submarine telegraph cables were bulkier and the above list that the deck loads have than today’s fibre optic cables, but also due increased dramatically. Therefore, not only to the increased number and size of cable will the deck plating and supporting tanks. structure have to be selected accordingly but the effects of the large open spaces (cable The following features are typical for a tanks) on the vessel's racking strength will modern cable laying vessel: have to be carefully considered. Having • A-frame for deploying the plough developed an appreciation as to the design (ensuring that in shallow waters the of modern cable laying vessels, we can now cable is dug into a trench); examine the differences which exist between • cranes for general loading / cable laying vessels and their nearest cousin: unloading and moving the cable general cargo ships. The primary differences tank hatch covers; are operational, and by implication design. • winches: o large linear winch for controlling Operation the cable, From an operations point of view, it is o towing winch for controlling the necessary that cable laying ships carry a plough; large number of special personnel, in o capstan winch for retrieving the addition to the crew, performing specialised cable. activities: laying and repairing (joining) • containers on deck to house the cables, testing cables and controlling the cable repeater boxes; plough, far more than would be found on • purpose built rooms for joining any normal general cargo ship. The cables, testing cables and implications of this will be examined in controlling the plough; Section 2. • one set of sheaves: pick-up/laying of the cable is from the stern only; • less crew – far less labour intensive (Maersk Recorder had a complement of 60 (14 crew and 46 special personnel); Dynamic Positioning Conference September 18-19, 2001 Page 3 of 10 Andrew McKinven, Lloyd’s Register Cable laying vessels Return to Session Directory Design whilst facilitating operations specific to that With respect to the general structure, the ship type. In the event that a cable laying major difference relates to the large cable vessel (500 gross tonnage and above) were tank spaces which raise potential problems to carry more than 12 special personnel concerning not only racking strength, but (personnel required for particular operations: also localised strength issues at the double cable loading / laying / repairing / testing / bottom, and with respect to the vessel's ploughing) then it can be categorised as a global longitudinal strength. As for the special purpose ship - provided the National engineering design, where the vessel is to be Authority decide to invoke the IMO SPS assigned the DP(AA) notation, engineering Code. However, the SPS Code has, as yet, systems are to be tolerant to a single fault in only been adopted by a few National any active component. For this to be Administrations. demonstrated, it is required that an FMEA be performed. The FMEA should be The SPS Code does not treat special conducted at a stage which allows the results personnel as passengers; they are expected to be taken into account when finalising the to be able bodied, knowledgeable of the ship vessel’s design. A more detailed account of layout and to have received some training in the operational and design aspects particular safety procedures. Therefore, the ships upon to cable laying vessels will be discussed in which they are carried need not be Section 2, along with a summary of considered or treated as passenger ships. It is notations often associated with cable laying worth noting that a special purpose ship can vessels. carry up to 50 special personnel before having to consider: (i) the stability effects of flooding the 2.0 OPERATIONAL/DESIGN machinery space (as a result of damage CHARACTERISTICS vs. impact); or (ii) the SOLAS fire protection and life CLASSIFICATION AND saving appliances requirements for STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS passenger ships. This section discusses in more detail how the operational and design characteristics of At present, some cable layers comply with a cable laying vessel influence the the Offshore Supply Boat Code; the damage applicable Classification and Statutory stability requirements of which are less requirements. onerous. In the event of heavy weather, there is the potential for significant Statutory quantities of sea water to enter a cable In general, a cable laying vessel would be laying vessel via penetrations in the weather subject to the normal cargo ship deck - this would adversely affect the requirements of SOLAS, provided it was loadline (reserve buoyancy of the ship).