Master of Science Thesis in Machine Design

Second cycle 30 credits

How Does Skid Design Affect

Transportability and Handling of
Heavy Machinery?
ERIC ELDENSJÖ
ISIDOR SÖDERMAN LUNDQVIST

Stockholm, Sweden 2022

 How Does Skid Design Affect
Transportability and Handling of Heavy
Machinery?
Eric Eldensjö
Isidor Söderman Lundqvist

Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2022:156

KTH Industrial Engineering and Management
Machine Design
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
 Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2022:156

Hur påverkar designen av en ram, transport

och hantering av tunga maskiner?

Godkänd Examinator Handledare

2022-06-07 Ulf Olofsson Ulf Olofsson
Uppdragsgivare Kontaktperson
Climeon Texas Melander

Sammanfattning
På uppdrag av företaget Climeon gjordes denna studie gällande transporterbarhet av rammon-
terade maskiner. Studiens mål var bland annat att hitta brytpunkter för dimensionering baserat
på väg- och sjötransporter, samt att ta reda på vilka funktioner som behövs för att tillgodose
lyft, hantering, surrning och säkring. En literaturstudie utfördes, med fokus på olika lastbärare
och logistik kring tunga transporter. För att få djupare insikt i hur transportkvaliteten kan ökas,
samt samla in information kring den nuvarande transporthanteringen, utfördes en intervjustudie
med anställda från företaget. En konceptuell design togs fram där lyft simulerades med hjälp
av FEM-analys i SolidWorks. En analys gjordes i Matlab där nödvändiga surrningspunkter un-
dersöktes för att verifiera säkra transporter på väg och till sjöss. En studie där dimensionella
begränsningars inverkan på transportpris gjordes, prisförfrågningar skickades då till en speditör
och ett försök gjordes till att kvantiera priset för olika dimensioner på ramen. Lastbil är ett bra
sätt att transportera tungt maskineri inom Europa. Roll on-Roll off och flat rack de bästa sättet
för transport till sjöss, för stora och ömtåliga maskiner. Maskinen kan säkras i surrningsöglor
med spännband eller kedja i direkt surrning i kombination med gummimatta för ökad friktion.
En rammonterad maskin i denna storleksordning kan lyftas via ett enkrokslyft om lyftöglor och
ramelement är placerade på ett lämpligt vis.

Nyckelord: rammonterad maskin, transporterbarhet, FEM-analys, surrning och säkring,

lastbärare

i
ii
 Master Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2022:156

How Does Skid Design Affect Transportability

and Handling of Heavy Machinery?

Eric Eldensjö
Isidor Söderman Lundqvist

Approved Examiner Supervisor

2022-06-07 Ulf Olofsson Ulf Olofsson
Commissioner Contact Person
Climeon Texas Melander

Abstract
At request of the company Climeon, this study was made regarding transportability of skid
mounted heavy machinery. The study aimed to investigate what constraining dimensions there
might be when transporting by road and sea as well as necessary features that would accommo-
date lifting, handling, lashing and securing. A literature study was done on the topic of common
load carriers and logistics with heavy transports. An interview study was conducted with em-
ployees at Climeon to learn how transports are done currently, as well as input on how transports
and handling of the machinery could be of higher quality. A conceptual design was made where
lifting was simulated with aid of the FEA tool in SolidWorks. An analysis of necessary lashing
points was done in Matlab to verify safe transports on road and sea. A dimensional constraint
study was made where dimensional breaking points were identified. Price inquiries for these
were sent to a forwarding agent to attempt to quantify the cost for transporting skids of various
sizes. Trucking is a good mean for transporting within Europe. Roll on-Roll off or flat rack
shipping are viable options for transporting large and sensitive machinery when transport by
sea is necessary. Lashing the skid could be done mainly with direct lashes in combination with
rubber mats for increased friction. A machinery in this order of magnitude can be lifted with a
single hook if the structural elements and the lifting eyes are placed positioned in a proper way.

Keywords: skid mounted machinery, transportability, FEA, lashing and securing, load
carrier.

iii
iv
 FOREWORD
First of all we would like to thank Climeon and the people and the RnD-department for providing
us with the assignment and letting us use their premises. Tord Karlin as the project owner
and Jonas Måhlén as head of RnD deserves many thanks for giving us this opportunity. A
special thanks to Texas Melander who pitched the idea and for his supervision during this project.
Finally, thanks to Professor Ulf Olofsson from KTH, for his supervision and guidance.

Eric Eldensjö
Isidor Söderman Lundqvist

Stockholm, June 2022

v
vi
 NOMENCLATURE
A list of common abbreviations used in the report is found below.

Abbreviations
CAD Computer Aided Design
CoG Center of Gravity
CS Calculated Strength
DfX Design for Excellence
FAT Factory Acceptance Testing
FBX Freightos Baltic Index
FCL Full Container Load
FEA Finite Element Analysis
HC High Cube
HSS Hollow Structural Section
LC Lashing Capacity
LCL Less than Container Load
LoLo Lift on/Lift off
MSL Maximum Securing Load
OOG Out of Gauge
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
PO-unit Portable Offshore Unit
RoRo Roll on/Roll off
Stf Standard Tensioning Force
STH Standard Hand Force
Hot rolled Structural Section (Varmformat Konstruktion-
VKR
srör)
WHP Waste Heat to Power

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SAMMANFATTNING (SWEDISH) ...................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................................... iii

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................................... v

NOMENCLATURE .................................................................................................................................................. vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................................................viii

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Waste Heat to Power ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Skid design ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Transportation ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Problem description ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Purpose and definitions .................................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Method description .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.7 Detailed schedule ................................................................................................................................... 4
1.8 Risk analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 4
1.9 Delimitations .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2 FRAME OF REFERENCE ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Design for transportability ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Skid elements ............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Fork pockets ................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Lifting ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.5 Lashing and securing ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.5.1 Container lashing ................................................................................................................... 7
2.5.2 Lashing cargo on load carrier .................................................................................. 9
2.6 Trade-off analysis .................................................................................................................................. 13

viii
 2.7 Land transportation .............................................................................................................................. 13
2.7.1 Truck ................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.7.2 Railway ............................................................................................................................................ 14
2.8 Maritime transport ................................................................................................................................ 15
2.8.1 Container shipping ............................................................................................................... 15
2.8.2 Flat Rack ......................................................................................................................................... 16
2.8.3 Roll on/Roll off shipping ............................................................................................... 16
2.9 Port transport and logistics ........................................................................................................... 17
2.10 Factors that could increase transport quality .......................................................... 18
2.10.1 Risks and damages ............................................................................................................ 19
2.10.2 Costs ................................................................................................................................................ 19
2.11 Out of gauge transportation (Project Cargo) ........................................................... 20
2.12 Constraining dimensions and weight .............................................................................. 21
2.13 Availability of transport equipment ................................................................................. 21

3 METHOD ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
3.1 Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Conclusions from interviews ..................................................................................... 23
3.2 Dimensional constraints study .................................................................................................. 24
3.2.1 Sizing ................................................................................................................................................. 24
3.2.2 Pricing ............................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Conceptual Design ................................................................................................................................ 26
3.3.1 Design layout ............................................................................................................................. 26
3.3.2 Design evaluation and verification ...................................................................... 28
3.4 Lashing study for secure transports ..................................................................................... 31
3.4.1 FEA lashing ................................................................................................................................. 38

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 40

4.1 Constraining dimensions study ................................................................................................ 40
4.2 Design verification ............................................................................................................................... 43
4.2.1 Meshing and weight ............................................................................................................ 43
4.2.2 Deflection ...................................................................................................................................... 44

ix
 4.3 Lashing ............................................................................................................................................................. 44
4.3.1 Road case ....................................................................................................................................... 45
4.3.2 Sea Area C case ..................................................................................................................... 51
4.3.3 FEA Lashing ............................................................................................................................... 57
4.3.4 General discussion about the lashing study ................................................. 57
4.3.5 Load carriers ............................................................................................................................... 59
4.3.6 Fork pockets ................................................................................................................................ 60

5 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 61

6 FUTURE WORK .............................................................................................................................................. 62

7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX A Detailed schedule .......................................................................................................... i

APPENDIX B Risk Analysis ..................................................................................................................... ii

APPENDIX C Sea Freight Containers ............................................................................................. iii

APPENDIX D Interview guide ............................................................................................................... iv

APPENDIX E Images from static simulations ........................................................................ vii

x
 1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents background information regarding the problem investigated. It also clari-
fies some technical terms that will be mentioned and used consistently in the report.

1.1 Waste Heat to Power

The increasing demand of electrical energy is a topic of great concern. An increase of 48 %
of energy demand in the following 20 years[1] is leading to innovations focused on saving or
converting existing energy. Industries, power plants and maritime are some areas in which a lot
of generated energy goes to waste instead of being used. The concept of Waste Heat to Power
(WHP) is focused on converting this energy into electricity[2]. The modules or systems used to
generate electricity are being developed to have as high efficiency as possible but still be handy
to be able to mount them in various environments. By using a heat power system, working
according to the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)[3], connected to a heat source it is possible to,
with high thermal efficiency, make use of the waste heat.

1.2 Skid design

Modular process skid is the general term for constructions that are built on a platform that in-
cludes all parts and components used in a system or process. As opposed to traditional assem-
blies, where individual parts might be shipped and assembled at location, a machinery con-
structed on a skid platform can be assembled and tested at the factory to assure sufficient quality
and lesser assembly costs. Skid design is used in a variety of sectors and applications, typically
when complex tubing and electrical wiring are involved and can vary for many different sizes
as well as materials depending on the application. Advantages of designing for skid are simpler
transportation chains, space savings, Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) among others[4].

Some drawbacks and/or challenges with skids are to design with respect for many variables
such as dimensional constraints, lifting and transporting as well as resonance and vibrations[5].
Other issues might be the ability for maintenance. The resulting design needs to be large enough
to support the components, while still leaving room for maintenance. It is important to find an
optimal design that can stand the loads of the machinery under different circumstances while
also not being over engineered to the point where it cannot be transported, as well as having
enough room for service technicians to maintain the machinery.

1.3 Transportation
There are several options available to handle worldwide transportation of heavy machinery. Be-
cause of the high weight, ocean freight is an alternative that fits well in many situations. One
big drawback compared to air freight is the duration of the transportation. However, the abil-
ity to handle heavier goods and the much cheaper price will in many cases give sea freight the
advantage. Air freight is typically 12 to 16 times more expensive than sea freight[6].

Cargo can be shipped and loaded onto a vessel in several ways. There are many types of load
carriers available, each of them has their own benefits and limits. Apart from standard contain-
ers being lifted onto the ship, trucks or lorries can be rolled onto certain vessels. This method is
called Roll on/Roll off, referred to as RoRo, and is a common way of sea freight[7]. Lift on/Lift
off (LoLo) ships are equipped with cranes on deck, meaning they do not require gantry cranes in
port to load and unload the goods as conventional container ships. The transportation methods
available, particularly for large cargo, depends on the price and route but also on geometrical

1
constraints which the goods has to be adapted to. Different types of containers and their spec-
ifications are presented in APPENDIX C. An image of a LoLo-vessel is presented in Figure
1.

Figure 1: LoLo vessel.

Regardless of mean of transportation, the cargo needs to be lashed securely. An iterative securing
analysis method, where the lashings are acting as springs, could give accurate forces in the
lashing points and provide information on the approximate movement for different strengths
and pre tensions of the lashings.

1.4 Problem description

The new generation of Climeon’s heat power system is under development and for the final
design it is important to get input from different areas to find external dimensions that all stake-
holders can get behind. Dimensional constraints for a given power output is obviously of great
concern and will provide a starting point regarding sizing of individual components such as the
turbine, pump and tubing and so on. However, there must be an outer dimensional ceiling for
practical reasons, this report deals with the ones found from transportation constraints. The goal
of this project was to find an optimal size for the module with regards to transportability, and to
design a skid that the construction is mounted on and can be lifted with a crane as well as a fork
lift truck. This means that the construction should be able to be shipped and loaded on trucks
in some standard load carrier. One issue for Climeon is that there is a lack of research done in
different shipping options, both regarding alternative containers but also what regulations might
apply when shipping across the world. The thesis attempted to analyze different options from a
logistical view and designed a mechanically sound skid that could be the base for the machine.
The machine should be shipped in one piece to allow for easier installation. As of late January,
the design was approximately 6.9x2.4x2.9 m with wishes to shrink it further. This project based
the research from these numbers and aimed to investigate if there is an optimal size with regards
to the different shipping options available.

1.5 Purpose and definitions

This project aimed to find suitable dimensions to Climeon’s new generation of heat converter
module with regards to transportability. Different cases were analyzed where the module was of

2
varying sizes and what happened when one wanted to ship it to various locations. The analysis
also considered different lashing and lifting options depending on the needs for the individual
designs. An attempt to measure the feasibility of the design when it comes to cost, safety, lashing
and lifting options/needs and delivery time was made. The findings from these were used to
create recommendations for an optimal range of dimensions.

The research questions that this project aimed to answer were:

• How do the dimensions and weight of a heavy machinery affect its transportability?
• Which transport option is best for some generalized routes?
• What are the gains of optimizing machinery for transportation?
• What are the important factors that needs to be taken into account when designing the skid
for transportation?

1.6 Method description

The choice of methodology was important and critical to be able to, in the most effective way,
find answers to the questions asked. Depending on the type of research, there were several
methodologies available but only one or a few were implementable in the specific cases. The
methodology in this project corresponded more to an engineering method than a scientific, based
on the absence of an hypothesis.

To achieve knowledge and be able to, in a structured way, find valid results, the project was
handled according to the following steps:

• Problem received from stakeholder

• Initial background study
• Delimitations
• Generation of research questions
• Planning and definitions
• Frame of reference
• Interview study
• Validation and compilation of information from interviews
• Transport case studies
• Skid design for lifting
• Lashing and securing analysis
• Compiling results and evaluating transport options
• Results

To be able to choose and evaluate transportation options, a thorough research study, that con-
cluded in a frame of reference chapter, was done to learn about transportation options, logistics,
lashing and securing of cargo. The literature review also provided some suspected dimensional
constraints that were used for the cases later on.

An interview study was done at the company to gain knowledge on: how the logistics of trans-
portation are done currently, what problems have arisen, main customers and their location, and

3
what solutions and outputs might be worth to consider. An attempt to answer what factors might
be valued more when choosing between different options was made.

We also aim to answer what factors might be valued more when choosing between different
options.

A Case study was done to find prices and modes of transportation used for a route that were of
interest. The route was chosen in a way such as road and sea transport could be competitive. The
idea was to use a 40’ container as a reference and find the difference in price for other options
and index them to find a general cost comparison. The reason for using an index was that the
container prices are highly fluctuating but difference between the containers relatively might
still be fairly similar.

To verify that a concept skid will accommodate lifting, simulations of different load cases were
done.

An analysis of what is required to securely lash a skid when using different transportation meth-
ods was done. The analysis attempted to be general in the sense that standard load carriers can
be used, and the results could be scaled for different weights.

1.7 Detailed schedule

Based on the different stages in the methodology, a project GANTT-chart was created. It in-
cludes the general activities towards the final report but also interruptions that would occur
during the project as well as milestones. The chart is presented in APPENDIX A. The length
of the activities was estimated and sometimes ended up being longer or shorter. The project
duration was set to 20 weeks which led to a submission of the final report in the middle of June
2022. The writing of the report was an ongoing process during the whole project as activities
were checked off.

1.8 Risk analysis

A risk analysis was done to identify and rank potential causes of risks during the project. The
causes were ranked 1,3,9 in ascending gravity in two categories: Probability and Impact. The
resulting risk value was then equal to them multiplied. The causes of risk that were investigated
were mainly challenges that might be hard to foresee and possibly out of the authors control.
Action plans for each individual risk were then made to attempt to counter the impact and to
provide guidance if it would occur. The table with the risk analysis can be found in APPENDIX
B.

1.9 Delimitations
This project did not consider features within the module that might provide geometrical con-
straints, such as necessary pump height. A rough starting point was given and the dimensions
looked at were in the range of common load carriers. The project did not deal with the place-
ments of individual components within the module. The center of gravity would be assumed
to be in the center for most calculations. An approximate weight was used to provide basis for
design of lift ears and fork lift pockets among others. Dynamic loads induced from running
the machine was not analyzed. Welds and stress concentrations were out of scope, the analysis
rather focused on the design at large.

4
 2 FRAME OF REFERENCE
This chapter provides information about concepts and existing theory in the field being studied.
The content presented here will later be used in calculations and concept generation.

2.1 Design for transportability

In the design of a product there are several aspects that are affecting the end result by giving
limiting input and constraints. By using the DfX framework, the design is analyzed from dif-
ferent perspectives to generate well-functioning end result. Two examples of these aspects are
DfL and DfT (Design for Logistics and Transportability). The designer will try to optimize the
design of the product for easy handling and facilitate transportation[8]. The different aspects
could affect each other and in most cases the cost is directly connected to the other aspects.

2.2 Skid elements

Depending on what forces and loads a skid is intended to withstand, different types of beam
elements can be considered to make the design efficient when it comes to weight, strength and
price. All geometries has their pros and cons and should be used as intended. The moment of
inertia for elastic bending for idealized square and I-shaped cross section beams is shown below.

t2 h3 1
Iy,square = + t1 bh2 (1)
6 2

tl h3 1
Iy,I−beam = + tf bh2 (2)
12 2

Figure 2: Beam cross sections[9].

Let t1 = t2 = ts , tl = tf = tI and h = b = l.

2
Iy,square = ts l3 (3)
3

7
Iy,I−beam = tI l3 (4)
12

5
To compare the moment of inertia for the different geometry as a function och mass, the areas
are assumed to be equal. The following expressions present the area of each geometry.

A = 4ts (l − ts) (5)

A = 3tI (l − tI ) (6)

Below, in Table 1, an example is shown for a reasonable value of the area with resulting moment
of inertia’s, in this case l = 100 mm and A = 1900 mm2 .

Table 1: Thickness and moment of inertia for set dimensions.

Geometry t[mm] I[mm4 ]

Square 5 333
I-beam 6.8 396

This can be compared with table values for a VKR-tube, 100x100 mm, representing the square
shaped geometry and a HEA 100 beam representing the I-shaped. They have areas of 1840 mm2
respectively 2124 mm2 and moment of inertia of 279 mm4 and 349.2 mm4 . If the beam/tube
only has to carry bending loads in the y-direction it is more efficient to use an I-shaped model.
According to the data sheet[10], a square shaped model gives more all round properties due to
the same moment of inertia in both y and z-direction.

Historically it has been concluded that wide flange members always are cheaper per weight
unit compared to a HSS. This is for most cases true even today, but may not be a fair way
of comparing them since they have different advantages and disadvantages. One other way of
comparing the geometries is by considering their capabilities. Money and weight could be saved
by using HSS over other models if using it in a proper application[11].

One other option of beam element is the U-beam. The profile is similar to the common I-beam
but with the web located on one of the sides. This gives the beam good and consistent properties
of bending around the main axis. It is also often used in combination with bolts because of its
geometry with one plain side[12]. The UPE-beam (European standard) with the height of 100
mm has a moment of inertia of 207 mm4 around the main axis compared to 38 mm4 [10] around
the second axis, making it sensitive to bending around that axis. Below, in Table 2, a comparison
of three different beams is presented. With the H-shaped beam as a reference, the areas and
moments of inertia are presented to provide an insight in how the areas are contributing to the
moment of inertia.
Table 2: Areas and moments of inertia with H-beam as reference[10].

Element A [% of AHEA ] I [% of IHEA ]

HEA 100 100 100
UPE 100 58 59
VKR 100x100x5 mm 87 80

2.3 Fork pockets

Regardless of whether the cargo is supposed to be shipped in a standard container or as OOG-
cargo it is preferred to have many options to handle the item. One way to facilitate handling is by
adding fork slots to the skid. By doing this, the item can easily be moved during manufacturing,

6
shipping och maintenance. To ensure compatibility for various trucks and for safety, the fork
slots should be arranged in a proper way. When PO-units are arranged with fork slots, there
are some recommendations that should be followed. For instance, the dimensions of the cross
section of the slots should be at least 200 mm of width and 90 mm of height. Table 3 below
shows the recommendations for PO-units when it comes to design of fork pockets[13].
Table 3: Table 3-5 from DNV 2.7-3, Certification for portable offshore units[14].

The pockets can be open or closed at the bottom. When choosing the closed variant, more
rigidity in the construction can be achieved. The open one has less risk of being damaged by
the forks while sliding into place. They also have the advantage of being more easily inspected
during maintenance.

If designing the fork pockets to be compatible with heavy duty fork lifts, freight container pock-
ets could be used as a reference. DNV has guidelines for fork pockets on freight containers
which correspond to loaded or unloaded containers. To ensure the fork pockets are big enough
to handle large forks, the maximum size of fork pockets for freight containers from DNV 2.7-
4[15] can be used. They recommend a width of at least 355 mm and a height of 115 mm. The
center-center distance between the pockets should be 2050 ±50 mm.

2.4 Lifting
To have another handling alternative to fork pockets, lifting lugs can be added to a skid. The
amount of load the lifting lug can withstand is dependant on the angle the force is acting on
it with. Apart from the angle, the dimension of the lifting eye is of course of great concern
when it comes to its lifting capacity. Lifting lugs come in different styles and shapes. There are
models that are mechanically attached to the skid with bolts/screws or they can be welded onto
the construction. When looking on standardized containers there are also other mechanically
attached lifting lugs available that are fixed in the corner fittings, also called corner castings. In
Figure 3 a top corner fitting specific lifting lug is presented.

To avoid failure of the lugs it is important to choose a model specified to handle the loads but also
to use them according to its specifications. Not all lifting lugs are compatible with all shackles
types or with every type of material. Three common types of failures when it comes to lifting
lugs are: tension, shear and bearing failure. It can be concluded that it is important to use the
correct type of hook or sling with each lug. A too small hook can for example result in a too
high pressure in the contact area of he two elements[17].

2.5 Lashing and securing

2.5.1 Container lashing
Standard containers are lashed using various industry components connected to its corner fittings
which are also used when lifting them. Twist locks are commonly used between each pair of

7
 Figure 3: Container lifting lug mounted to top corner casting[16].

containers while stacking them. There are both manual, semi automatic and automatic models
that all has their own pros and cons. In addition to twist locks there is a component called mid-
lock which function is quite similar. The purpose is like twist locks to resist horizontal and
separation forces. What differs is that this device can be mounted on shore in the bottom corner
fittings, which will then lock into place while stacked on another container on the vessel [18].
Mid locks are used when placing 20’ containers in bays that are constructed for 40’ containers.
They are used in combination with two twist locks in the other two castings of the container.
As complement to the previously mentioned components, lashing rods are used to further fix
containers in place. The lashing rod is connected to a turn buckle which is used to tighten it. If
there is a need to extend the rod connection, an extension piece can be used. They can resist
tensile loads and should be mounted according to off shore regulations. The connection and
fixing of two containers is presented in Figure 4.

8
Figure 4: Top corner fitting connected to bottom corner fitting with semi automatic twist lock plus two lashing
rods[18].

2.5.2 Lashing cargo on load carrier

When transporting cargo in any load carrier they have to be lashed properly to avoid sliding in
all directions, as well as tipping. Lashings can be divided into two categories: direct lashing
and tie down lashings (friction lashings), with some variations. Typical direct lashing means
connecting the lashing eye to the bed directly with, for example, a wire, a chain or a belt. A
tie down or top over lashing means tying down the cargo which increases the normal force
and subsequently the friction force which will oppose inertial forces induced from acceleration.
Lashing eyes can be used to provide good points to secure the cargo on a load carrier and be
dimensioned for certain load cases. For European roads, cargo should be secured against sliding
and tipping when exposed to the accelerations shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Factors of gravitational acceleration the securing of cargo must withstand on European roads[19].

For sea shipping, similar conditions exist depending on the significant wave height in the region.

9
Area C, which has the toughest conditions, require the lashing to withstand 0.4g longitudinally
(Forwards and backwards) with a vertical component of 0.2g and 0.8g transversely (to the sides)
with a normal gravitational acceleration of 1g[20]. See Table 4:

Table 4: Case 2: Sea Area C conditions[20].

Direction of acceleration Longitudinal (cy ) Transversal (cx ) Vertical (cz )

Forwards 0.4 - 0.2
Backwards 0.4 - 0.2
Sideways - 0.8 1.0

There are different kind of lashing tools and equipment which can be used to secure goods. In
many cases, as described above, the purpose is to increase the normal force by lashing the goods
downwards and locking movement. Lashing equipment, regardless of type, is dimensioned and
marked with the tensile force allowed, commonly known as load capacity (LC) for road and
maximum securing load (M SL) at ships which must not be exceeded. The tool that is used to
increase the tension in the lashing has markings describing what standard tensioning force (Stf )
one gets while applying standard hand force (STH)[21] which is generally 50 daN = 50 kg.
Devices used for tensioning the lashes depend on the type of lashing, but belts or web-lashings
typically use a ratchet while chains are tensioned with a turnbuckle[19].

In the simplest lashing approach the resulting forces that counteract movement of the cargo is a
function of the angle of the lashing, the Stf , the friction coefficient between the cargo and the
floor and its tensile strength. More advanced methods will allow the lashings to act as springs, so
the effective spring constant and lashing length will play a bigger part. A direct lashing securing
the cargo longitudinally does not apply the same security transversely and thus a combination
might be required to secure it in all directions and against tipping.

Lashing eyes mounted on trucks are according to EN 12640 rated to secure 20 kN when the total
weight exceeds 12 tonnes[22]. For flat racks this number is typically 50 kN[23].

Direct lashing

The forces of a direct lashing can be derived from force equilibrium. With an acceleration in y
and using a direct lashing according to Figure 6 below.

10
 Figure 6: Free body diagram of a direct lashing.

One can derive the required strength of the lashing from the following expression:

cy mg < µmg + Fdl (µ sin α + cos α cos β) (7)

where:

• m is the mass of the cargo

• cy is the acceleration
• Fdl is the tension force in the lashing
• µ is the friction coefficient
• α is the angle between the lashing and the horizontal plane
• β is the horizontal angle between the lashing and y.

Note that these lashings are added in pairs along the cargo’s y-axis so the contribution of Ft
is effectively multiplied by 2. Direct lashing allow for small movements of the cargo, which
subsequently elongates the lashing and increases the tension force according to Hooke’s law[24].
The force in the lashing can then be written as[25]:

Fdl = k∆L + Stf (8)

The lashing will have a base pre-tension (Stf ) and be allowed to strain up to LC with k∆L.
Web-lashings can strain up to 7 % but the movement of the cargo should still be kept low. For
that reason it is important to ensure that the pre-tension is as high as possible but never above
0.5LC[19]. However, this means that the lashing can hold up to its specified LC which depend-
ing the friction coefficient can be a large contribution to the securing of the cargo.

Similarly, one can check the moment equilibrium to ensure the cargo does not tip over its axis
for a given acceleration on the mass of the cargo.

11
 Figure 7: Free body diagram of a lashing when the cargo is tipping.

The moment equilibrium around the tipping axis would be defined as the following:

cy mgCGz < mgCGy + F t sin αw (9)

Securing against tipping on roads is typically only tested if the center of gravity is positioned
in a way that the cargo is very unstable in which case the transversal acceleration factor will be
cx = 0.6g[24]. The right lashing will not contribute to a positive tipping moment i.e keeping it
stable when tipping around the right axle.

One can adjust the angles and positioning of the lashing points to counteract sliding or tipping
in different directions. To avoid sliding sideways, cross lashing - a type of direct lashing, can
be implemented and is assumed to be the most efficient way of doing this when having lashing
eyes. To avoid tipping and to increase the contact friction, vertical direct lashing can be used.
For lengthwise movement prevention, further direct lashing components in that direction can be
added. It is recommended to use the same lashing materials in all places because different mate-
rials have different elasticity which can lead to forces being unequally distributed[26]. Figure
8 shows an example of the method described above.

Figure 8: Lashing goods equipped with lashing eyes[23].

12
Tie-down lashing

In a tie-down lashing, only the vertical angle of the lashing will provide a securing effect on
the cargo in the sense that it ties down the cargo and creates a larger normal force, which in
turn creates a larger friction force. Typically the lashings are pulled over the cargo and tensed
to their Stf which ties it down. The standards diverge regarding the actual securing effect for
tie-down lashings. A study comparing cargo securing standards found that the same piece of
cargo could be secured safely with 4 lashings when lashing according to the NACSS, while
according to EN12195-1 (2003), the cargo required 57 lashings[27]. The results depend on
different simplifications and methodologies and typically one gets better and more exact results
when using different types of direct lashing. One concern is that when exposed to sliding, a tie-
down lashing cannot be tensed post pre-tension which result in far lower tension in the lashings
compared to direct lashings. A top over lashing can also become slack from dynamic effects
which might implicate partial loss of securing effect, particularly when lashing equipment with
small elasticity is used[28]. Tie-down lashings will provide a good security against tipping
however and will be able to resist the tipping moment with their full LC[25].

2.6 Trade-off analysis

Similar case studies have been done earlier, where different freight options have been assessed.
Quantitative factors that can be measured were used to create a model which was based on an
index score. This allowed for comparison between freight modes on different routes[29]. Some
qualitative factors were also taken into account but were not used in the model. In this model
a few routes were looked at and scored with the truck option being index 1. Cost, time, dis-
tance and CO2 were valued equally and short sea shipping options was compared to trucking,
all routes were in the south-east Asia region. Shipping performed better in most cases for these
routes. The exceptions were very short routes (Singapore-Malaysia, 380 km) or when the geo-
graphical constraints made the shipping route far longer (Thailand-Myanmar 3612 km compared
to 915 km). Depending on how these factors are valued one can obviously get different results,
Trucking is generally faster while CO2 footprint is larger.

2.7 Land transportation

Even if the main shipping method is supposed to be offshore, there is in most cases some kind
of land transportation involved. The cargo must reach the harbour in some way and the specific
destination may be located in the inland. To avoid damages and efficiency in a transport it is
good to overlook the number of transshipments that are planned. Each transship induces a risk
of handling failure and depending on where the goods is being handled, long handling times can
drastically increase the transport duration. It can therefor sometimes be better to arrange a road
transport all the way from factory to customer even if the freight density is low and the fuel cost
are higher than in an inter modal transports[30].

2.7.1 Truck
When moving on roads there are regulations in each country or union to consider. Based on
these regulations different kinds of vehicles and trailers have been developed to fulfill the re-
quirements. As an example the maximum width of a truck in Sweden is limited to 2.55 m with
some exceptions as busses registered before 2004 and refrigerated trucks[31].

One type of trailer which can be used for out of gauge cargo, bulky goods and sometimes con-
tainers is a flatbed trailer[32]. They can be equipped with twist locks to easily fit containers of
standard types or they can be used to move heavy vehicles such as a tractor. The goods on the
trailer will be exposed to weather and wind during transportation and it is therefor important to

13
cover it for protection.

A common configuration of a trailer is called semi-trailer. It can be fitted with a container,

rigid box or with so called curtains. A semi-trailer has one or several axles in the back and are
supported vertically by the truck while mounted onto it. If it is detached from the truck it is
usually held up by two supports in the front. This is visualized below in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Three semi-trailers parked for transshipping.

2.7.2 Railway
Shipping goods on railway is a bit similar to sea cargo but on land. The goods has to be loaded
onto the train, which is commonly done by lifting a container or a semi trailer and placing it on
the intended wagon.

Just like a container vessel there are wagons on which a container can be lifted on to. Flat
wagons come in different variant where some of the are equipped with twist locks to easily fix
containers while other tools to lash other types of goods. A container wagon is in fact a flat
wagon with container specific equipment. The type of bogie, length and capacity can be found
out by looking at the wagon code which corresponds to its specification[33].

Another model of wagon which is also compatible with intermodal transports is pocket wagons.
They are specifically engineered to be used with semi-trailers. The wheels of the trailer is fitted
close to the railway level giving the carriage a relative low maximum height. Some of these
wagons can even fit containers without a trailer[34].

One problem with intermodal transport when it comes to railway is the loading of the goods.
While using container- and pocket wagons, the container and trailer is usually lifted onto the
wagon. This means that there is a need for a crane or lift of some type and also somebody to
operate it. There may be a lot of time lost in these lifting actions causing the whole transport to
be less cost and time effective. Due to these issues some companies have focused on designing
wagons that removes the lifting from the loading.

The company Flexiwagon has focused on creating a solution for intermodal transports when it
comes to road and railways. Their carriage allows the vehicle to load themselves to the wagon
without any reversing needed. The twists and folds out ramps to connect the wagon to the
surrounding solid ground that is needed. This automatic railway carriage has a load capacity of
52 tonnes which, according to the company, is more than similar innovations which usually can

14
hold 38-44 tonnes[35].

2.8 Maritime transport

2.8.1 Container shipping
Containers revolutionized shipping of general goods in the 50s and the transportation industry is
standardized around the use of containers today. It allows for better productivity by faster load-
ing and unloading at port as well as a maximized amount of space used on the ships compared
to general cargo. The container ship system is based on the 20 ft equivalent unit (TEU) which
stems from 20 ft containers. Today the most common container is the 40 ft container so capacity
is also measured in 40 ft equivalent units (FEU) which is simply 2 TEU[36]. High Cube (HC)
containers are the same width and length as their standard counterparts but have as the name
implies a larger height. Broadly speaking about containers one might also add flat racks but
those are dealt with in 2.8.2. ISO 668 specified dimensions of common containers can be found
in Table 5.
Table 5: Dimensions of common containers[37].

Length Width Height

Container type 20’ 40’ All Standard HC
External Dimensions 6058 mm 12192 mm 2438 mm 2591 mm 2896 mm
Min Internal 5898 mm 12029 mm 2350 mm 2350 mm 2667 mm
Min Door opening - - 2337 mm 2261 mm 2565 mm

Note that these are the standards for shipping containers, there are exceptions to the width and
length of containers used in some industries and for inland transports.

Containers below deck and occasionally on deck are stored in fixed cell guides that align the
containers in rows, which can be seen in Figure 10. The entry guide is flared to make it easier
for the crane operator to align the containers into their slots.

Figure 10: Containers aligned in cell guides[38]

Cell guides allow for faster loading by the crane, reduction in damaged containers and more
utilized space[36]. Shipping containers are specified for stacking at least 6 containers vertically
but higher stacking loads are common in modern containers. Large ships are capable to stacking
up to 12 containers in the hold vertically which means that the vertical load capability needs to
be greater or flaps separate the stacks in the cell guides[39].

15
2.8.2 Flat Rack
Flat rack containers are built on the same horizontal dimensions as standard containers (20’
and 40’) but are mainly used for out of gauge cargo. Flat racks have no (long) side walls or
roof and have reinforced platforms. They are therefor regularly used for project cargo that are
wider, taller and/or heavier than what standard containers can accommodate. Depending on the
manufacturer, the max payload weight could vary but they can typically carry more than the same
sized standard container. The weight distribution of the load on a flat rack is important since
it needs to be distributed over a large area to safely carry the permitted and specified payload.
Lashing options might vary for different manufacturers but are usually found in the corners and
lengthwise along the edges[37]. For Hapag-Lloyd containers, cargo that is over width should
not reach more than 30 cm from the corner posts, see Figure 11[26].

Figure 11: Hapag-Lloyd flat rack stuffing[26].

Adhering to this means that the cargo can be loaded under deck which is desirable as it could save
costs and protect it from the rougher environment on deck. They also state that cargo could be as
wide as 244 cm at its widest to still be in gauge since that’s within the width of the corner posts.
The ISO-3874 guide for handling and securing containers state the nominal external width for
all shipping containers as 2438 mm (8 ft)[40], which could be the considered the constraining
width for in gauge cargo, this might differ slightly between shippers and manufacturers and
might have to be assessed on a case by case basis. Other considerations when shipping with flat
racks is that they are capable to take the specified load only when the cargo is resting on the
main girders along the sides. If the cargo is too narrow, timber laid across the rack will have to
be used to properly distribute the weight of the cargo. Anti-slip material is commonly required,
specifically with metal-metal contacts[26].

2.8.3 Roll on/Roll off shipping

Roll on/Roll off (RoRo) are ships that are loaded and unloaded by rolling the cargo on/off a ramp
on the ship. This shipping type is mainly used for vehicles that are able to drive themselves such
as cars, trucks, semi-trailers but also other types of cargo can be loaded such as containers and
project cargo on trailers or racks[41]. The cargo taken on a RoRo ship could vary greatly, and
stowing the cargo needs to be done with great care to maintain stability of the ship. RoRo ships
are divided into several decks divided into lanes. Ramps between the decks allows for transport
on and off in a first in-last out fashion. As containers has been standardized for common cargo,
it has outgrown the number of RoRo ships significantly resulting optimizations necessary to stay
competitive. RoRo ships might in that regard have to be selective in how much of each cargo
they are taking on, which might be particular problematic with heavy and bulky cargo[42]. To
maximize profits and efficient loading/unloading, the shippers need to consider which cargo
should go where to minimize shifting the cargo when unloading at port[41]. For cargo that
can’t be driven by itself there are a few different options of loading depending on weight and
dimensional constraints. A lorry can leave its trailer on the ship with the cargo. Commonly used
in RoRo are roll-trailers and cassettes that come in various sizes and can carry heavy loads and
are driven by fork lifts or tug masters[43].

16
 (b) MAFI-trailer

(a) Marine Cassette

Figure 12: Loading options for non-rolling cargo[44].

2.9 Port transport and logistics

For long distance transports, there is usually a need for pre-hauling of the goods. It is common for
the cargo to first be transported via road transportation to a terminal, where it changes modality.
When this first transportation is accomplished, the cargo can be put on a vessel or a train where
the long-haul is executed. Long-haul covers longer distances and is therefor often done by other
means than road transports due to cost reduction, but also to save time in some cases while using
air transportation.

If the cargo has been transported on a vessel, it will end up at a port where it is unloaded. To fulfill
the the whole transport, end-hauling is usually needed to move the cargo to its final destination.
Like pre-hauling this is commonly done with a road transport because the distance is shorter and
the final destination may be located a distance from the sea[45].

To arrange a long distance transport, customer often uses a freight forwarder who coordinates
everything from the pick up location until the final destination. The freight forwarder commonly
have contacts within the field which makes it easier for them to handle large volumes and also
several actors within the same transport chain. Depending on the freight forwarder, the transport
can be handled with different modes, rail freight, air freight and others. It is good to contact a
forwarder who is known to be familiar in the field where the goods is most likely to be sent
in[46].

The logistics within a port could be a complex system. In many cases goods is going in multiple
directions at different locations at the port. A vessel is loaded and unloaded simultaneously
and in parallel to that, trucks are carrying new good into the port which has to be unloaded and
stored in the yard. There are a lot of dependencies taking place and a delay at one stage will most
likely affect another event and eventually the whole operation. Modern information systems are
monitoring the events occurring momentously and take actions based on the information they
get from the systems[47]. Below a typical port logistic system is presented in Figure 13.

17
 Figure 13: An example of goods flow in a port[47].

2.10 Factors that could increase transport quality

Deciding which mode of transportation to use is not a one dimensional issue, The classic eco-
nomical model of comparing transportation options is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Classic economical model of freight choice [48].

The model compares the freight costs as a function of distance between two freight options. A
service disadvantage is added to Mode 2 and subsequently resulted a new break even point where
Mode 2 could be dominant. It has been criticised for not taking into account non transportational
costs. 11 quantitative studies where investigated and McGinnis found several variables of impor-
tance that played a part in choice of modes of transportation. Reliability, transit time, damages,
shipper market considerations, carrier considerations, product characteristics could sum up what
shippers valued, along with cost. The study found that freight costs were accounted for as an
important factor but most of the surveys found another factor be of greater importance [48].

A study where Swedish carriers were interviewed about transport efficiency, four major cate-
gories that could contribute to efficiency were assessed with several variables that might affect
them[30]. Filling rate, carbon foot print, delivery precision and damages. They agreed that the
categories were important to various degrees but were not agreeing completely on the reasons
behind what affected them. The carriers agreed that the delivery window plays a big part in
delivery precision, dependence on others, route, structure, trace-ability where important in this
regard. To minimize damages, reloading and packaging were seen as the most important factors.
Factors affecting carbon footprint could not be found conclusively. Filling rate seemed to be
most affected by region of delivery. Reasoning for why the carriers disagree on these factors

18
might be because they are specialized in different cargo types and routes, which means that it
might be highly personalised what factors are important to take into account.

2.10.1 Risks and damages

A study made at by MariTerm in cooperation with KTH and TFK, the risks associated with
intermodal transportation methods. Different risks were identified along with their frequency
and their consequence. The risks were mapped for each mode of transportation and were also
categorised as damages associated with handling, transportation or other sources. The study
concluded that handling damages amount for 47 % while transportation damages amount for
18 %. Other sources were reasons that couldn’t be concluded based on lack of information
of where in the chain the damage occurred among other things. The damages sourcing from
different modes in the chain of transportation can be found in Table 6.

Table 6: Sources of damages in the study for different modes of transportation[49].

The main takeaways from the study are that handling mainly in terminals but also from the
dispatcher is a large source of damage on freight. Damage sourced from transportation is roughly
a third of causes. The most frequent damages from road freight are mainly lack of securing the
cargo, damage from vibrations, lack of packaging, moisture in the container. Similar causes from
maritime and railway transportation are also shown. Damages sourced from handling are mainly
occurring at terminals or dispatcher/receiver caused by lack of care when handling the cargo.
The type of container correlates with consequence here, a standard container is protected from
all sides while the cargo stands freely on a flat rack. These statements are based on quantitative
studies and are general guidelines, it is stated that more exact data could be found by analyzing
specific transportation chains[50].

In part 2 of the report a case was done at StoraEnso paper factory where the transportation chain
was analyzed over 2005-2008 which was basis for this research. The authors concluded that
about half of damages are sourced from handling during load/off loading. Road freight seems to
show a larger amount of damages than expected and an explanation for this could be that many
damages are found at the end of the transport chain which is usually preceded by road freight
but no final statement can be made without more information. However, it was also shown that
transportation chains that only include road freight without transshipment are least frequent in
damages[49].

2.10.2 Costs
Costs between different transportation methods depend on distance but also different transporta-
tion methods and the needs that come with them. A thesis looking at intermodal options, gener-
ally meaning using maritime or rail shipping where it is possible. Lorries are cheaper at shorter
range than combining transports with rail/sea but there’s no clear general line, the thesis points
at multiple studies stating 300-500 km being where the breaking point exists. Figure 15 shows
a model where the break even point is when comparing lorries and intermodal options, as a
function of cost per distance.

19
 Figure 15: Model showing how a break even cost is found in as a function of distance[51].

The variable costs depend mostly on wages and fuel and are go up as time and distance go by.
Fixed costs are generated from handling the cargo and the transshipment at the terminals[51].

Case studies made by Sjöfartsverket have been done where different modes of transportation
are compared for a few routes[52]. The studies were based on that the ships would sail in time
table system with stops on the way, like a bus route. The costs used are based on actual price
indications of transhipments, fuel, handling fees of a 40’ container but do not take in account
pre-haulage to port. For longer distance transports such as Sundsvall-Göteborg sea shipping and
rail was found more cost effective than trucking. For shorter distance (100 km) it was at best
about equal but trucking was generally cheaper. Port related costs amounted for an average of
51 % in these cases but differed between the ports. For example, Rotterdam was considered
a transhipment port for trans oceanic shipping and only took a fee worth 3 % of the total port
related costs compared to Göteborg which amounted to 36 %. Trucking was also the fastest
alternative in all cases and has by far the highest frequency of departures. Ship related costs is
mostly accounted for by bunker (fuel) which amounted to 18 % of the total costs on average. For
a longer route this would obviously be larger as it is part of the variable costs and is proportional
to distance[52].

Internalised costs are ones that the individual takes into account as it directly affects the price
payed, this would include things such as cost of fuel and vehicle maintenance. Externalised costs
affect society at large and are generally not taken into account fully when calculating the pricing.
Externalised costs could include noise levels, traffic jams and pollution. One can internalise
these costs by taxing or adding a fee that correspond to this cost, which in turn makes it more
obvious for the individual to take it into account as it directly affects their profits. Internalization
rate is a way to measure the amount of internalization compared to externalization and could give
a hint about what taxes and fees might be in the future. Lorries have both larger internalized and
externalized costs compared to rail and ships, which could be subject to increase further in the
future[52].

2.11 Out of gauge transportation (Project Cargo)

Out of gauge cargo or project cargo is non standardized cargo that does not fit in regular con-
tainers and could be anything from large generators to wind turbines. Beyond not being able to

20
fit in standard containers, project cargo is usually categorized as large dimensions, heavy, tough
to handle, lift and secure to some degree[8]. Flat racks can be used when cargo is over-width
and length due to flat or collapsible sides that allow for out of gauge cargo, they are typically
also specified for higher loads than standard containers as well. They also allow for lifting the
cargo on the side with a fork lift. Open top containers can be used when the cargo is over height
but fits length and width wise in standard containers, it requires lifting the cargo from the top.
Shippers require special knowledge when dealing with project cargo, certain factors that affect
the transportability and subsequently the cost include[53]:

• Largest dimensions of the cargo(length x width x height)

• Weight and drawings with centre of gravity
• Lifting points
• Location of loading and discharge

The cost of transporting project cargo depends generally on the space it takes up, for instance too
wide cargo on a flat rack takes up space to the sides as well as the top as the shippers cannot stack
containers above it, leading to a lost slots where other cargo could be stored. Cargo requiring
special lifting equipment could also add on costs and waste time. Cargo positioned on a flat rack
in a way that obstructs the corners can not be lifted by the cranes used so packaging needs to be
planned and correctly.

If container shipping of any kind is out of the picture, RoRo can still be an option. What has to be
considered when choosing this option is that not every port handles RoRo-vessels. Compared to
container vessels they does not sail as regularly, which can sometimes lead to longer deliveries.
Sometimes the cargo is way out of gauge for containers, or too heavy for putting on a rack,
leaving RoRo and special project cargo ships as the only options[54].

2.12 Constraining dimensions and weight

Deciding the exact constraining dimensions on the skid frame can be a complex task since regula-
tions might differ between countries but there are general guidelines that are worth to follow. For
public road transport, the maximum dimensions are based on standard 40’ container size, listed
as approximately 12x3x3 m[55]. Larger goods can be transported but special arrangements and
permits might be required. Weight requirements are typically based on road constrictions and
the countries’ regulations. On Swedish roads, the maximum gross weight are 37,5-74 tonnes
depending on the bearing capacity class for the road in particular, the number can be lower
depending on the axle and bogie loads for the vehicle or road train, which defines the actual
allowed gross weight. Longer distance between the axles and more axles relieves the load and
allow for higher gross weight. Roads classified bk1 and bk4 are the approved for the highest
loads and make up 95 % of the Swedish road network[56].

2.13 Availability of transport equipment

It is not only the capacity and dimensional constraints that should be considered when designing
a machine. One can save both time and money if the product can fit in a more common shipping
container than a more rare model, a 40’ DC vs a 20’ HC is one example. Since the machine is
designed to be installed into the ship during building, there is a need for timing the deliveries. A
Vessel is built from the bottom to the top, and if a bulky product is supposed to be mounted on
level 2, it has to be there before level 3 is constructed. One of the most common containers on
the market is the 40’ standard container and is therefor more likely to get hands on compared to
another model. With a critical delivery slot this could be crucial for a successful transport.

21
During the years 2020-2021 there has been an increasing shortage of shipping containers in
some big key ports in the world. The Container Availability Index(CAx) tells how many fully
loaded containers of a specific type are imported compared to how many that are exported at
one port. A CAx of 0,5 shows that the import vs export is balanced. If the index is above 0,5
more containers enter the port and vice versa[57]. The index does not include re-positioning of
empty containers, sales of containers in specific locations or the precise manufactured number
of containers. This index could also give a hint regarding the prices for renting containers due
to ports having too many or to few for their daily business. There are also indices measuring the
cost of container shipping at various routes such as the Freightos Baltic Index (FBX) which can
give insight in the cost for transporting cargo on certain routes. The global container index is a
weighted average from all major trade routes. It takes the median of all prices and collects 10s
of millions price points per month[58].

When planning the transport of a product from production to site, it is of value to analyze if any
special equipment is needed. If the product is loaded onto a flat rack at a factory it will also
need to be unloaded when reaching the final destination. If, for some reason, there is no crane
och fork lift available at that time, there will be trouble. Another case could be that the cargo is
transported on a trailer to a rare location with limited infrastructure, there may only be a couple
of fork lifts available, and they could be fully booked. Therefor it is of great importance that the
whole transport chain is investigated from the beginning, either by the supplier or by a second
or third party freight broker.

22
 3 METHOD
This chapter describes the main methods used throughout the project. It is a combination of
different approaches that together build a pool of information which will lead to the results.

3.1 Interviews
As general knowledge regarding logistics and transports were gained during the initial literature
study, a more specific perception regarding these subjects was desired. Even though a lot of
valuable information could be found in articles and on websites, a more in depth look in the
logistics of Climeon were of interest. There have been problems with earlier models when
it comes to the logistics of transportation which the employees have insight in from different
perspectives. Many employees also have great practical knowledge from earlier employments
about logistics and what defines good transport which also was of interest.

The purpose of this qualitative interview study was to find and identify important factors and
features that could impact transportability, and also find sources of problems and how one might
avoid them. It was of great importance to find out how the module had been transported earlier
and what the desired transportation chain might look like. It is also important to know what
potential customers there are and their locations as well as the range of dimensions the module
that is of interest based on company and customer needs.

Together with the supervisor from Climeon, interview questions were generated. These ques-
tions are available as an interview guide in APPENDIX D. The questions correspond to areas
where literature study could not fulfill the gap of knowledge. They were also constructed making
it easy for the interviewee to freely speak about the subject. This resulted in a semi-structured
model with mostly qualitative content.

Seven people at Climeon with various occupations were interviewed. This included delivery
managers who are involved in dispatching and and receiving the deliveries, engineers who are
involved in the technical requirements and design of the machine, logisticians who order and
plan transports and service engineers who perform maintenance. Each individual interview was
designed in a way so the interviewees would be able to speak about their respective areas of
knowledge.

For privacy reasons the summary of each individual interview cannot be published but a list of
conclusions from the interviews can be found in 3.1.1.

3.1.1 Conclusions from interviews

• Everyone agrees on features that allow for lifting from above. No consensus regarding
lifting lugs on top to accommodate lifts without spreader beams or not is found.
• The opinions are split regarding what type of load carriers should be used but containers
are not optimal for large machinery as it is hard to stuff, unload and lash properly. There
are tools that allow for sliding the machine into the container.
• Regardless of load carrier and mode of transportation, the module will have to endure some
harsh conditions as inside storage is not a certainty at the shipyards, the frame will have to
accommodate protection against weather.
• A smaller freight forwarder should be used for the case studies, and they should be special-
ized in moving large cargo.

23
• Intuitive options for lashing, lifting and general handling of the machine are important.
Communication barriers is a factor when shipping to foreign countries.
• Damage minimization, total costs and simplicity of handling are important factors. Trans-
portation time does not play a huge part as the time from sale to installation is comparably
very long. It is critical that the delivery is on time however, a window of delivery might be
decided on a case by case basis.
• The most concerning dimension constraints originate from road haulage which will have
to be done regardless if the cargo is loaded onto a ship or not, maximum road limits will
provide dimensional constraints the load carrier wont (such as flat racks).

3.2 Dimensional constraints study

To be able to quantify the effects of different dimensions of the machinery, transportation quotes
to a shipping destination were requested. The destination was chosen based on the fact that a
road transportation could be used as well as different sea freight options. A location which
fulfills these factors is a shipyard about 80 km east of Istanbul in Turkiye. Because the company
Climeon is based in Sweden, the dispatch location was chosen to Gothenburg because of its
many vessel departures. Based on the information from Chapter 2, a table with different sizes
of the goods was created and is presented later in this chapter. Several freight forwarders were
contacted regarded inquiries, but only a few responded and only one volunteered to contribute
with price information.

3.2.1 Sizing
In Figure 16 below, limiting dimensions for different transport modes are presented. The figure
shows hard limiting values of the different trailers and containers. The hard limits are based
on what was learned during the literature study about containers and trailer sizes. For 40’ con-
tainers and platforms the length is rarely the constraining dimension but it is particularly for 20’
containers and platforms, for that reason only height and width are presented here.

Figure 17 below has adjusted dimensions of a cuboid cargo that reasonably could fit inside
each respective load carrier. For example, there is a need of space for a person to lash inside a
container, therefore 600 mm are taken away from the internal dimensions of a container to allow
a person to squeeze past and lash on the rear.

24
 Figure 16: Hard limit constraining dimensions of different transport means visualized.

Figure 17: Constraining dimensions of different transport adjusted to allow standard lashing.

3.2.2 Pricing
The table with dimensions, which was made for the freight forwarder is presented below in
Table 7. The values put in the table are derived from Figure 17. Different dimensions for the
same type of transport mode were sent to investigate whether it could affect the prizing. The
options with OOG cargo were chosen to see how much the price would be increased going
outside critical dimensions.

25
 Table 7: Dimensional data sent to freight forwarder.

Transport method Length [mm] Width [mm] Height [mm]

Truck/trailer 6000 2400 2800
Truck/trailer 5750 2250 2200
Container 20’ 5750 2250 2200
Container 40’ HC 6000 2250 2400
Flat rack 20’ 5400 2400 2800
Flat rack 20’ OOG 5400 2500 2800
Flat rack 40’ 6000 2400 2800
RoRo 5400 2400 2800
RoRo OOG 6000 3000 2800

Note that all transports are considered to be FCL and it is assumed that the weight of the cargo,
which was 15 tonnes is the same for all.

3.3 Conceptual Design

This chapter deals with the methodology of choosing a skid layout, dimensioning of it and also
what construction elements to consider during design of a heavy machinery skid.

3.3.1 Design layout

It is assumed that the shape of the machinery will correspond to a cuboid built of steel members
and columns, or a platform of rectangular shape with the components on it. The internal com-
ponents, in this study, consist of three similar solid cuboids, with the maximum allowed mass
to make the most material consuming design weigh in at 15 ton. The three bodies are placed in
such way that their contribution to the center of gravity aligns with the skids center of gravity.
The internal components shall in this case correspond to three heavy components within the real
ORC-module to make the analysis more realistic. The design shall allow for lifting from above
in lifting eyes mounted somewhere on the skid. The lift should be able to be done with a single
hook, therefore a spreader have to be used in some cases.

To compare different skid designs, three cage style skid concepts were generated in discussion
with the stakeholder. In addition to these three designs, two more platform shaped skids were
generated, both sharing the same geometry but uses different kinds of beams. All the concepts
share the same platform design, but do in some cases have different amount of additional mem-
bers and columns added to it to create a cage shaped frame. The concepts are visually presented
in Figure 18 and 19. The top picture in every configuration has the lifting eyes mounted in the
corners while the bottom picture has them 2 meters in from the short ends.

26
 Figure 18: Platform shaped concepts. From left: Design 1 (HEA), Design 2 (UPE).

Figure 19: Cage shaped concepts. From left: Design 3, Design 4, Design 5.

Based on the knowledge gained in 2.2 regarding different tubes and members, the concepts
were decided to be constructed by HEA 260, UPE 330 and VKR 100x100x5 elements. The
specification that were reasoned about while choosing these are presented below in Table 8.
Pictures of the members used are visualized in Figure 20.

27
 Table 8: Table data of the elements used to create skid concepts[10].

Element Weight [kg/m] I [104 mm4 ]

HEA 260 68.2 10450
UPE 330 53.2 11000
VKR 100x100x5 14.7 279

Figure 20: Members used to configure concepts. From left: VKR, HEA, UPE.

The H-shaped HEA 260 offers good bending resistance per length unit and were the first choice
for the base platform of the concepts. To be able to compare the bending properties of the
test skid, another platform were generated using UPE 330 members in combination with VKR
100x100, same as in the first version. To get a fair comparison in bending behaviour between
the to platforms the UPE 330 were chosen because of its inertia being close to the inertia of the
H-beam chosen.

All concepts were generated using the structural member feature in the software SolidWorks,
which adds member elements to sketch lines. Both the HEA and VKR elements were able to
find within the software but the UPE had to be sketched manually and then added to the member
library. This sketch were based on a drawing from the data sheet which also provided the correct
material, S355J2. The dimensions of the sketch used to create skids were decided to be 6x2.4x2.8
m, LxWxH after a discussion with the industrial supervisor. These dimensions are simplified
benchmark values used early in the project. With a length slightly longer than the aimed for
dimensions, the external forces should have even more impact on the deflection making the
simulations more conservative and trustworthy for a shorter skid. When the members are added
to the sketch, they get positioned with its center line co-linear to the sketch line, leading to some
minor outer dimension differences between the concepts.

One of the reasons for creating concepts for a skid was to see how it behaves during lifting,
which requires something to lift in. A solid lifting eye with arbitrary but reasonable dimensions
was created. Depending on the lifting case, the eyes are placed either as far out as possible or
two meters in on each side. This can be seen in the figures available in Figures 18-19.

3.3.2 Design evaluation and verification

To evaluate whether the different concepts are versatile when it comes to lifting, the resulting
deflection is searched for while simulating a lift in a static situation using SolidWorks. It is of
interest to determine where the lifting points should be located to approve lifting performance,
hence all concepts are lifted in two different ways as described above. Lifting slings are modelled
as sketching lines in SolidWorks in order to simplify the placement of the forces mimicking the
sling reaction forces. To avoid any twisting of the lifting eyes, which could affect the simulation
results, they are aligned with the sketched slings. All the lifting cases for the concepts having an
upper frame, results in lifting eyes not being parallel to any of the sides of the skid. In Figure
21, two setups of the sling orientation are presented.

28
 Figure 21: Visualization of two lift setups described above.

In all setups, the vertical component of the sling was set to be 5 meters, which resulted in different
lengths of the slings and a sling angle depending on the lifting eyes orientation. The resulting
angle between the sketch lines and the horizontal plane was obtained through SolidWorks and
was later used to be able to find the correct force acting on the lifting eye, which is a function of
the total mass and the angle. The angles and the forces added to the simulations are presented
later in the report.

Apart from the sling forces acting on the lifting eyes, gravity and geometrical fixtures had to
be added to the model to be able to run simulations. It is of great importance to make sure that
these constraints are correct since the results may differ a lot from the reality otherwise. The
implementation of fixtures and reaction forces was a process of trial and error where the outcome
from each test was the basis for further simulations. It was at an early stage realized that the
simulated model should be vertically constrained in the lifting eyes for the gravity to be able to
act on and affect the rest of the skid plus weight assembly. This fixture is strictly set to only fix
the model in the vertical direction because movement in longitudinal and transversal direction
should be possible. The reasoning behind this is that the sling force components acting along
the horizontal plane should be able to affect the deformation of the frame in those directions. It
is assumed that the change of sling angles due to these horizontal movements are negligible.

To ensure the skid would not move along the horizontal plane, it had to be constrained along
it. This is done by locking three points of the bottom platform, located in the center, because
it is assumed it will bend symmetrical around that point. Pictures of the fixtures used in the
simulations are presented below in Figure 22.

29
 Figure 22: Constraints and forces on concept elements.

Because of the simulations being done on concepts, design details as lifting eye geometry and
beam connection geometry is not considered. This is also the reason for evaluating deflection
instead of stresses. Due to discontinuations in the geometry, stress concentrations may occur,
but not necessarily reflect the overall result when it comes to frame rigidity.

To verify that a proper meshing was used during the simulations, a meshing quality study was
done. Because of the deflection being the relevant outcome from the simulations, different de-
flection results were plotted against the number of elements used in the meshing. According
to SolidWorks[59], the aspect ratio should be less than 5 for 90 % of the elements, to be clas-
sified as a ”good-quality mesh”. In an iterative way, the element size was gradually increased
by decreasing the minimum and maximum allowed length in the meshing options. By checking
the meshing data after each iteration, a number of elements which gave a good mesh was found.
From this number the element size was both increased and decreased to find data quality study.
The meshing data is presented below in Table 9. The information one can retrieve from Solid-
Works regarding the aspect ratio of 90 % of the elements is how many percentage having an
aspect ratio under 3. This was the value used to find the first mesh classified as ”good-quality
mesh”, which is also marked in green in the table.

Table 9: Meshing parameters

Case Number of elements Max deflection [mm] Elements with aspect ratio <3 [%]
1 407646 5.457 63.8
2 725366 5.473 85.1
3 1369746 5.491 93.6
4 1853391 5.509 95.7
5 3219500 5.521 98.1
6 4229371 5.528 98.7
7 12458995 5.533 99.5

As mentioned previously, the quality study should verify how fine the meshing has to be to still
give a proper value of the deflection. The deflection plotted against the number of elements is
presented below in Figure 23.

30
 Figure 23: Resulting deflection plotted against the number of elements used in the meshing procedure.

As the meshing elements increase the difference in deflection between the cases are getting
smaller. The value converges towards a number somewhere between 5.52 and 5.54 according
to the figure above. While the number of elements is increased, both the meshing time and
especially the solving time for the static simulation, are increasing rapidly. It can be discussed
when the mesh is fine enough for the application based on the difference between a certain mesh
and its deflection and finer mesh and its deflection. By checking the difference between the
green marked case and the finest mesh and also consider the solving time a conclusion can be
drawn. The increase in deflection between case 3 and case 7 is only 0.76 % while the increase in
meshing time is 1135.7 %. With these numbers in mind one can decide whether it is necessary
to use such a fine mesh while loosing a lot of time in meshing. For this application, it was
decided to go for case number 3 because it gave a good deflection without consuming that much
time meshing and solving. Same input for the meshing were used on all concepts during the
simulations.

3.4 Lashing study for secure transports

Since the use of direct lashings is the most effective way to secure cargo, the positions of lashing
points should be determined. The focus will be on two load cases, road and sea area C. Road
conditions will have the largest acceleration in the longitudinal direction while sea conditions
will have larger accelerations transversely. For that reason, different lashing set ups might be
required for different modes of transport. As such the following cases will be looked at, found
in Tables 10 and 11.
Table 10: Case 1: Road conditions.

Direction of acceleration Longitudinal (cy ) Transversal (cx ) Vertical (cz )

Forwards 0.8 - 1.0
Backwards 0.5 - 1.0
Sideways - 0.5 1.0

31
 Table 11: Case 2: Sea Area C conditions.

Direction of acceleration Longitudinal (cy ) Transversal (cx ) Vertical (cz )

Forwards 0.4 - 0.2
Backwards 0.4 - 0.2
Sideways - 0.8 1.0

The parameters and variables used in this analysis can be found in the tables below.

Table 12: Parameters for the cases.

Parameters Symbol Value Unit

Skid Length L 5800 mm
Skid Width W 2400 mm
Skid Height H 2800 mm
Mass m 15000 kg
Horizontal angle Cross lashing βcly 80° -
Horizontal angle Direct lashing βdly 1.3° -
Vertical angle Cross lashing αcl 30° -
Vertical angle Direct lashing αdl 30° -
Pairs of friction lashings n 2 -

For these cases, the center of gravity will be assumed to fall in the geometrical center of the
machinery.

Table 13: Variables used for the analysis.

Variables Symbol Unit

Friction coefficient µ -
Standard tension force Stf kN
Lashing capacity LC kN
Elongation at LC p %

The variables in Table 13 are dependent on each other and will subsequently change when the
friction does.

A principal figure of how the lashings might be placed, as well as angles and lengths defined,
can be found in Figure 24. Important to note is that lashings will always come in pairs over at
least one symmetry axis, typically four lashings in total to secure cy for instance both negative
and positive directions.

32
 Figure 24: Free body diagram of the lashings.

Lashing and component length

The lengths of the lashings were parameterized with some constraints depending on the angles
and mainly the positioning of the x-coordinate where the lashing was connected on the load
carrier. With a skid width of 2400 mm the x-component could be roughly 2450 mm or 50 mm
depending on the side of lashing. The y-component can be calculated as:
x
y= (10)
tan βy

z can be described by:

z = L sin α (11)
and subsequently L: √
L= x2 + y 2 + z 2 (12)
If z is decided by α and independent of the x, y-coordinates, a substitution in 12 with 11 gives
the expression: √
x2 + y 2
L= (13)
1 − sin2 α
z can then be calculated with 11.

The length of the lashings and its components for the angles presented in Table 12 can be found
in Table 14.

33
 Table 14: Length of lashing components used in the analysis.

Component Length [mm]

xcl 2450
ycl 432
zcl 1436
Lcl 2873
xdl 50
ydl 2203
zdl 1272
Ldl 2545

Sliding risk

To find a sufficient lashing set up to secure against sliding, an iterative method was used where
the lashing forces could get incrementally larger according to Hooke’s law by elongating the
lashings. This would then be plotted for different µ. The formulas used in the analysis are
explained below.

The friction force that is applied by the cargo itself is:

Fcargo = cz µmg (14)

Vertical lashings cannot reach higher values than their pre-tension and are added to create more
friction force asserted by the cargo. The lashing points are typically divided on the long side of
the cargo in n pairs.
Fvertical = 2µnStf sin α (15)

For a general direct lashing, the force it can be loaded with in the direction of the lashing is
based on two components, the pre-tension and the elongation of the lashing which under yield
force or LC can be written as a spring according to Hooke’s law:

Fdl = k∆L + Stf (16)

A spring constant kn for an arbitrary length of lashing can typically be calculated from the
markings on the lashing device based on LC and the percentage of elongation where LC is
reached as:
LC
kn = (17)
%P
Subsequently the spring constant k for a particular piece of lashing with the length L is calculated
as:
kn
k= (18)
L

If multiple lashings with different lengths and angles are used, one needs to check the compati-
bility to assure which lashing reaches LC first and that no lashing surpasses it. For acceleration
in the longitudinal y-direction one can iteratively add a small length ∆y and recalculate the
forces in the lashings. The one lashing that reaches LC first is constraining and the total ∆y this
lashing can elongate will be the maximal allowed elongation for all lashings.

Comparing two direct lashings with different component lengths is possible by comparing which
one is shortest at LC, this will be the constraining lashing and the other one will never elongate

34
further than this ∆y. When the lashing is elongated, the new length can be calculated with
Pythagoras theorem in three dimensions:
√
L + ∆L = (x + ∆x)2 + (y + ∆y)2 + (z + ∆z)2 (19)

The new ∆y and ∆L can now be used to continue the iteration and re-calculate the new Fdl
according to 16. Note, for pure sliding, only x or y will be subject to movement independently
of each other depending on direction of acceleration. Effectively meaning that if sliding is oc-
curring in y-direction, ∆x, ∆z = 0 and vice versa. ∆z ̸= 0 if tipping occurs.

If ∆y1 is constraining, the elongation of y1 will dictate the new length of L2 as well as L1 . If
more direct lashings are required, a similar methodology can be used, whichever requires the
smallest elongation in the direction of acceleration to reach LC.

The force the lashing is able to assert on the cargo depends heavily on the LC of the lashing de-
vice, its pre-tension and spring constant but also on the lashing angles and the allowed movement
in the direction of acceleration.
µz + y
Fy = 2Fdl (µ sin(α) + cos(α) cos(βy )) = Fdl (20)
L

When iterating the forces in the lashings, it is easier to write it in terms of component lengths
since y, L will be getting larger. 20 could also be written as:
µz + y1 + ∆y
Fy = 2Fdl (21)
L + ∆L
The sum of all lashing forces needs to be greater than the inertial acceleration in that direction to
properly secure the cargo. Additionally any single lashing element may not be larger than LC
of the weakest link. One must also verify that tipping does not occur. The total securing effect
with a single pair of direct lashings and vertical lashings will now be:

Flashings = Fy,L + Fcargo + Fvertical (22)

To be sure that the cargo is secured properly one must check that the lashing forces are larger
than the force originated from the inertial acceleration with:

cy mg < Flashings (23)

The same things can be done for x-direction by swapping y for x in the formulas above.

A first check to see if two pairs of identical but mirrored direct lashings with a horizontal angle
βy = 45° is sufficient was done. This set up takes up a lot of space longitudinally since one
needs to cross each lashing transversely over the width of the skid and similarly the same length
longitudinally. If one adds two pairs of lashings they can instead be positioned close to perpen-
dicular to the skid at each side, each pair of direct lashings will now mostly take up forces in
their respective directions. The system is now statically indefinite and the constraining lashing
element will decide the forces in the other elements. Vertical lashings might be added along
the sides of the skid to create a larger friction force and are not considered to act as springs. A
principal sketch of how the lashings might be placed can be found in Figure 25

35
 Figure 25: Principal sketch of how lashings might be placed.

The orange dotted lines symbolize lashings behind the skid. The lashings on the long side will
take up more direct force in the longitudinal direction and will be referred to as ”direct lashings”,
the ones on the short side, will mainly take up forces in the transversal direction and will be
referred to as ”cross lashings”. The short vertical lashings in each corner, ties down the skid and
mainly contributes to the friction force. When another pair of direct lashings or cross lashings
are added, one needs to take in to account the elongation of the lashings to calculate what force
is asserted in each pair of lashing. The system is statically indeterminate, so a relation between
the two needs to be found with with help of the spring formulas in equations 16 and 18 with the
geometric relationship as input from equation 19. A Matlab script was written where the forces
were calculated by incrementally letting the lashings elongate in x, y by a small ∆x and ∆y
respectively. The elongation continued until they could secure the cargo with the mass m = 15
tonnes in each direction with a safety factor of 1 at which point the loop was broken. This
was then done for friction coefficients µ = [0.2, 0.6] and some different types of lashings with
different LC, pre-tension and percentage elongation. In the first iterations, the cross lashings
with a smaller βy was used to help take up forces longitudinally, which were larger than the
transversal forces on the road. This lashing set up takes up a lot more space so another approach
was used. The direct lashings will almost exclusively be loaded by longitudinal forces. The
cross lashings will similarly mostly be loaded by transversal forces.

The approach of iterating until the total mass was secured would allow the lashings to have larger
forces than LC, these solutions were plotted but discarded since they were not secure lashing
setups.

Tipping risk

A simpler approach was used for analyzing the tipping risk. As a long and wide cuboid with
a geometrically centered center of gravity, wont tip. However, a check to verify this was done,
the formulas and method are explained below.

A check to analyze if a risk for tipping were present could be done by checking if the transverse
or longitudinal force acting on the cargo could tip it over its axis. The inertial accelerations will
be acting in the center of gravity in each component, x, y respectively as well as the downwards

36
force in z. CoGz will be the lever arm for the forces in x, y and vice versa.

cx,y CoGz < cz CoGx,y (24)

The risk of tipping is typically low in road conditions unless the center of gravity is very off
relative to the geometrical center. In sea conditions there might be an elevated risk as the vertical
component which acts against the tipping motion is smaller when looking at the longitudinal case.
This will however be controlled with all lashing forces acting as well to assure that the cargo
wont tip.

A higher z-component for the center of gravity will affect its leverage and assert a larger mo-
ment on the skid which will induce a larger risk for tipping. A check for all height’s with the
lashings described above were done to verify that the skid does not tip with these cases. A sim-
ilar approach could be done where the lashings are iteratively lengthened with ∆z and ∆y, ∆x.
Another approach could be checking if the pre-tension in each lashing would be sufficient. The
method chosen to calculate the forces was using the Maximum Securing Load M SL adjusted
safety factor which gives the Calculated Strength (CS):
M SL
CS = (25)
1.5
It is typically used for statically indeterminate lashings where it is not reasonable to calculate
that each lashing will reach LC or M SL which are generally interchangeable. The lashings
used in the sliding calculations were used and and LC = 20000 N were used which results
in a CS = 13333 N. For transversal tipping, the resulting moment were checked for all pos-
sible z-components of the center of gravity CoGz . The transversal CoGx was deemed to be
positioned in the geometrical middle. For longitudinal tipping, all CoGz was looked at along
with some different positions for the CoGy component as it is more likely the machine wont be
perfectly balanced around this axis. Geometrical middle, and one meter in from each side. The
force equations in the sliding chapter can be used to derive the contribution from each lashing
configuration. Some simplifications were done for the calculations which will lead to a bit con-
servative calculations such as for tipping calculations around x, the direct lashing will have a
very little contribution ≈ 0 and vice versa for cross lashings and tipping around y. The skid will
not tip if the sum of all lashings’ moments are larger than the tipping moment induced by the
acceleration, or the resulting moment but be larger than 0.

The cargo’s tipping moment induced from acceleration in x, y respectively is:

Mx,y,acc = cx,y mgCoGz (26)

The cargo itself will resist the tipping in x, y respectively with:

Mx,y,cargo = cz mgCoGx,y (27)

For a cross lashing positioned transversely, only the z-component will contribute when tipping
around the x-axis:
zcl Lskid
Mx,cl = 2CS (28)
Lcl
Around the y-axis the cross lashing will resist with:
xcl zcl −xcl zcl + zcl Wskid
My,cl = 2CS + 2CS (29)
Lcl Lcl

37
For the longitudinal direct lashings the opposite is true, around the x-axis the direct lashings will
resist with the moment:
ydl zdl + zdl Lskid −ydl zdl
Mx,dl = 2CS + 2CS (30)
Ldl Ldl
and around y, only the z-component of two lashings will provide moment:
zdl Wskid
My,dl = 2CS (31)
Ldl
Depending on the longitudinal position of the vertical lashings they might assert different mo-
ments around x. If the lashing positioning is mirrored longitudinally meaning the same distance
Lvert to each corner the moment formula can be written:

Mx,vert = 2CS sin αvert Lvert + 2CS sin αvert (Lskid − Lvert ) (32)

Around y, only one side will provide a positive moment:

My,vert = 2CS sin αvert Wskid (33)

In x, y respectively, the sum of all lashings are:

Mx,y,lashings = Mx,y,cl + Mx,y,dl + Mx,y,vert (34)

Similarly, the resulting moment is:

Mx,y,rest = Mx,y,cargo + Mx,y,lashings − Mx,y,acc > 0 (35)

A positive resulting moment will result in a non tip for the skid.

3.4.1 FEA lashing

To have further input to the lashing study, one simplified load case was applied to Design 5 from
the conceptual designs. A static simulation study in SolidWorks were used, and the meshing pa-
rameters were the same as in 3.3.2. The skid was vertically fixed at the bottom and longitudinally
and transversely in the bottom center. Lashing eyes were placed according to Figure 26 below,
with measurements, angles and forces according to Table 15. The lashings are placed in the
same way as in Figure 25 but has the vertical lashings attached to the two inner columns on
each side instead. For simplification, the lashing elements are modeled to only act along the
planes parallel to the columns. The green arrows are fixtures or geometrical constraints, while
the big red arrow is the gravitational force and the purple arrows are the lashing forces.

38
 Figure 26: Forces and fixtures in static simulation.

Note that the longitudinal forces only are applied on one side to simulate an acceleration in that
direction.
Table 15: Input data for static simulation.

Lashing Distance from ground [mm] Angle from horizontal plane Lashing force [kN]
Longitudinal 1300 30° 20
Transversal 1400 30° 10
Vertical 1000 90° 10

39
 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Constraining dimensions study

The table from 3.2.2 was sent to a freight forwarder and the prices were indexed with a 40’ HC
container as the reference. The results can be found in Table 16 below.
Table 16: Indexed cost for sending different cargo with the weight of 15 tonnes from Sweden to Tersan Shipyard,
Turkiye.

Transport method Length (m) Width (m) Height (m) Price Indexed
Truck/trailer 6 2.4 2.8 1.33
Truck/trailer 5.75 2.25 2.2 1.33
Container 20’ 5.75 2.25 2.2 0.53
Container 40’ HC 6 2.25 2.4 1
Flat rack 20’ 5.4 2.4 2.8 -
Flat rack 20’, OOG 5.4 2.5 2.8 -
Flat rack 40’ 6 2.4 2.8 5.79
RoRo 5.4 2.4 2.8 -
RoRo, OOG 6 3 2.8 -

The reasoning behind the indexing was to safeguard the privacy of the freight forwarder but for
context; the lowest option is in the order of magnitude of the lower €1000s. There are freight
options here without price indications which unfortunately is a result of the communications with
the forwarders lacking. Freight forwarders will have to look up the price and when assisting a
thesis there is no profit involved which means they might be less inclined to help. There are also
indications from freight forwarders that the prices are highly inflated currently in the spring of
2022 as a result of the war in Ukraine and the Corona pandemic. This means that the prices might
be inaccurate in the future which is another reason for using indices. It is assumed however that
they are fairly accurate relative to each other. This needs further research over a longer time to
confirm however. The sample size is small as well, but the numbers tell a story that has been
indicated from the interviews and other sources, but perhaps not to this magnitude. The price of a
flat rack is almost 6 times higher than a standard 40’ container. The dispatch location in Sweden
varies for the cases, the flat rack is shipped from Kista while the others leave from Gothenburg,
subtracting the pre-haul there could mean a index cost of about 5 compared to the reference.
This is still significantly more costly than a container. A flat rack will however accommodate
a much larger machine that could be lashed in an standard fashion. One could physically fit a
machine with the width of 2330 mm machine in a container but there is literally no room for
securing it. It is also important to take pre and end haul to and from port into account for the
transportation options by sea. This would likely make all sea transport options more expensive
than truck even for real long distance hauls such as this case which differs from sources found in
the literature. 300-500 km has been seen as a breaking point where other transport options are
more feasible[51], others found the breaking point even higher at around 600-900 km compared
to rail[60]. They mention that low price trucking companies might be a reason for the lowered
prices. The results from this fairly short study suggests that the breaking point can be even
higher than that compared to sea options. Road transports also have the added benefit of no
transshipment which reduces the risk for damages[49]. Fairly common and serious sources of
damage applicable here, is insufficient lashing and damage from moisture. Obviously a severe
road accident is also a source of damage that is rarer in other means of transportation. The
machine could likely be sensitive to moisture, so a load carrier that can help keep moisture out

40
could be a good option in combination with protection with tarp or another mean that seals out
water. A mega trailer would allow a height of 2.8 m and a width of 2.4 m with some marginal
while also providing some additional protection from the environments.

If the machine is to be shipped by sea, it is clear that standard container is the cheapest option,
but the machine would have to be shrunk considerably from the desired dimensions to fit. It
might also require some special solutions to properly lash and secure. The dimensions in Table
16 for 20’ and 40’ containers are just about the largest the machine could be. To lash it properly
one needs approximately 300 mm of space on each side to reach in on the back which would
mean a width of about 1700 mm. One recommendation[61] of fork lengths, is that they should
be at least 2/3 of the total length of the cargo, which for a skid of 6 meters would mean 4 meter
long forks. While investigating various sizes and lengths of heavy duty forks, none longer than
2440 mm was found. Forks longer than this would probably need to specially made, which leads
to less versatile handling and stuffing. Other options could be machine skates to roll it in but for
a proper securing effect the friction should be maximised so these would have to be removed
or locked inside the container which might still require the smaller width to reach in properly,
lashings are explained further in 4.3.

No public research that goes in depth in the sizing of machinery from a transportation perspective
could be found. A good guess is that companies that make products that are sized similarly and
requires shipping, conduct their research in house and does not publish it for public knowledge.
There are some sources citing that other approaches could be done such as dividing the skid
in smaller modules for easier transports[54], this needs further research to verify in Climeon’s
case.

The study aimed to quantify quality of the transport options particularly from a cost perspective.
After a discussion with a freight forwarder, there was indications that the prices are highly in-
flated compared to pre-covid levels. They stated that one might still be able to compare different
options to each other which also was intended. Using Freightos container index with the route
North Europe-East Asia, one gets the price of shipping containers this route. The price index
can be found in Figure 27.

Figure 27: FBX North Europe-China/East Asia during spring 2022[62].

41
This graph only goes back to late February 2022, a longer timeline requires a subscription to the
service. The data can be compared to the reverse route, China/East Asia-North Europe which
can be seen in Figure 28.

Figure 28: FBX China/East Asia-North Europe during spring 2022[62].

The index is significantly larger and it is more expensive to send freight by container this route
compared to the reversed. If one wants to get information further back the global container index
might provide some info but it is merged with all big trade routes and the Euro-Asian route only
amounts to 10.16 % of the total[63], it is also impossible to know if it is above or below the
average further back than February this year. Freightos global container index from October
2016 - May 2022 can be found in Figure 29

Figure 29: Freightos Global container freight index[62].

The graph is very stable up until the pandemic outbreak where it slightly went up and in 2021,

42
skyrocketed to levels 7 times as high as before. The current global FBX can be compared to
the FBX for Europe-Asia and from this data it is evident that transports going eastbound are
cheaper than the reverse. This could be accounted for to the shortage of containers, lockdown
in key ports in China among other things. It is also important to take other factors into account.
From the interviews it was learned that seasonality can play a part in both the availability of
containers and subsequently the price. The absolute price indications gathered during this study
might not be accurate in a year but the relative difference in price between the methods might
still be quite accurate. However, the data gathered here is quite limited so that is debatable as
well. The FBX is a tool to check the current trends and is not absolute either in any way. It only
measures the movement of 40 ft containers but one might be able to extrapolate these trends
quite well on other container types and load carriers. Many of the factors that are included in
the index are general for all cargo type such as fuel charges, seasonality, canal fees and more[63]
so this is a reasonable guess which of course needs to be confirmed. Flat racks for instance might
still be much more expensive but still follow similar trends because they are still loaded on the
container lines. It can be concluded though, that exporting cargo out of Europe currently is
favourable compared to the reverse.

4.2 Design verification

In this chapter, the results from the static simulation of the generated concepts are presented.
The deflection which is presented is the resulting deflection in any direction. The tables in this
chapter do only present the values of the deflection, but pictures of the different load cases are
presented in APPENDIX E.

4.2.1 Meshing and weight

The differences in design affects both the weight and the meshing outcome of the simulations.
Table 17 shows these results.
Table 17: Weight and meshing results from the simulations of the five different concepts.

Design Weight reduction from max [kg] Elements with aspect ratio <3 [%]
1 780.64 93.6
2 1092.87 95.3
3 130.22 86.3
4 172.45 86.7
5 0 85.8

The reduction of weight is most significant for design 2, which is a platform based concept.
While the weight is reduced the required total lifting force acting on the lifting eyes is also
reduced, which is shown in the next chapter. It can also be concluded that the overall meshing
quality is reduces while the concepts have more elements and along with them, a more complex
geometry. Since the aspect ratio is still high compared to the recommendations for meshing
quality, it is concluded that the results are still trustworthy.

Is is also worth to note that the platform based concept require an addition component to be able
to be lifted with a crane with only one hook. This component, a spreader, also has a noteworthy
weight in the scale of a couple of hundred kilograms up to a ton depending on the model. If the
spreader has to be shipped along with the skid, the actual weight reduction of the shipped goods
might not be as significant as expected. One other thing to consider is the cost of the spreader.
If it can be reused in several deliveries, the cost per shipping may be much lower than having
a cage shaped skid. If leaving the spreader with each skid the cost may still balance with the
reduced cost for having less material in the skid.

43
4.2.2 Deflection
The concepts marked with * has the lifting eyes mounted 2 m in on each side. The angle between
the sling and the horizontal plane is presented in Table 18 along with the forces and the deflection.
The deflection named δV implies a lift with vertical forces applied on the lifting eyes, while δA
implies an angled lift. The vertical lift correspond to a lift with a four point spreader. The
simulations giving a value above the set threshold value of 5 mm are marked with red.

Table 18: Sling angles, forces and resulting deflections for the simulations.

Design Sling angle Sling force [kN] δV [mm] δA [mm]

1 58.99° 40.69 5,126 5,489
1* 78.69° 35.56 1.800 1.722
2 58.99° 39.79 5.298 5.689
2* 78.69° 34.78 2.071 1.999
3 56.94° 43.51 4.472 4.527
3* 72.19° 38.30 1.870 27.86
4 56.94° 43.39 4.692 4.737
4* 72.19° 38.20 7.935 8.129
5 56.94° 43.89 4.554 4.497
5* 72.19° 38.64 1.817 1.854

The vertical lifts are modeled mostly for comparing their outcome to the angled lifts, which
are the interesting results. As mentioned previously in the report, it is desired to be able to do
a single point lift with one hook, which means that the slings will be angled. From the table
above it can be concluded that having a moved in lift on design 3 leads to a large deflection of
the frame. The other results are in the same order of magnitude even though a few of them are
above the set limit of 5 mm.

While analyzing the values in Table 18 and the images in APPENDIX E, some of the distin-
guishing results is can be to derived to the specific design. Design 3* does not have any structural
element in the transverse direction at the top of the skid. This leads to large deflections in that
direction while only using a VKR tubes. If the lift is done in the corners instead, the maximum
deflection is limited to 4.527 mm which is below the set threshold value. If design 4 and 5 com-
pared, it is clear that the weight is about 172 kg less for the first one of them. The maximum
deflections are 4.737 respectively 4.497 mm while executing an angled lift. It is an increase of
5.3 % in deflection going from the most heavy design to design 3 and the weight is reduced by
1.1 % going from design 5 to 4. As expected the deflection depends more on the topology than
the actual weight of the skid. Without using any digital tools to perform a topology study, these
results can give a hint on which designs to avoid for applications like this.

A conclusion that can be drawn based on the results and reasoning above, is that depending
on the lift points it is necessary to add structural elements in the force direction to ensure low
deflections along them. It is also worth to elaborate with different kinds of beams like in design
1 and 2 to be able to save material and also weight without increasing the deflection remarkably.

4.3 Lashing
The results from the lashing calculations are presented in this section. Note that the cases will
have the same input data except for the accelerations specific to the the respective cases. Also
note that the D-rings which the lashings are connected to are not typically the same on road
load carriers as on sea containers (flat racks and platforms particularly). For trucking the LC

44
of lashing points might not exceed 20 kN unless else mentioned, for heavy duty sea containers
such as flat racks the lashing point might have an LC of 50 kN.

4.3.1 Road case

For a few given friction coefficients, the resulting lashing forces and the distance traveled in
the direction the acceleration was acting can be found in Table 19. The forces are based on the
lashings securing 15000 kg of cargo with a safety factor of 1.

Table 19: Resulting lashing forces and sliding distances for different µ and lashing types, road transport.

Input Parameters Road case

µ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6
LC [kN] 20 20 20 30 30 30 50 50 50
Stf [kN] 2 2 2 6 6 6 10 10 10
p [%] 4 4 4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Output
Acceleration x
FCL,x [kN] 21.58 5.03 2 19.78 6 6 17.7 10 10
FDL,x [kN] 3.16 2.09 2 6.44 6 6 10.21 10 10
∆x [mm] 131.04 20.42 0 23.18 0 0 7.78 0 0
Acceleration y
FCL,y [kN] 9.46 5.82 3.17 11.5 8.26 6 14.37 11.01 10
FDL,y [kN] 41.16 23.91 9.33 39.95 20.39 6 37.72 16.57 10
∆y [mm] 227.5 127.93 42.98 49.76 21.13 0 24.41 5.79 0

Ignoring hypothetical LC of the D-rings a few of these cases can be discarded as insufficient.
µ = 0.2 never gives enough securing effect while still keeping the lashings under LC. A larger
coefficient of friction will result in smaller forces in the lashings and a smaller movement of
the cargo. Taking the D-rings into account would leave the case where a LC = 30 kN shackle
and µ = 0.4 insufficient as well. The amount of sliding in in the longitudinal and particularly
transversal directions are important as well. With this set up of lashings, the transversal direction
will not be constraining, one could even up the horizontal angle on the cross lashing if possible
to provide more securing effect in the y-direction. Another representation of how the lashings
forces changes with friction can be found in Figures 30-32 below.

45
Figure 30: Lashing forces with an LC = 20 kN.

Figure 31: Lashing forces with an LC = 30 kN.

46
 Figure 32: Lashing forces with an LC = 50 kN.

The forces in the lashings begin at a maximum where the friction is low and reduces as friction
get larger. They find their minimum when the pre-tension in the lashings is sufficient to secure
the cargo.

Note that the calculations assume an elastic behaviour in the lashings above LC which is un-
reasonable but those lashings will at the same time not be approved to secure the cargo at those
friction coefficients.

Another thing to note here is that the lashings will be able to take up more load when under LC
which could be higher accelerations or dynamic effects which cannot be found in this analysis.
For that reason choosing a stiffer lashing with a lower elongation at a higher LC will always
secure more. This is evident from Figure 32 where the constraining lashing reaches an approved
securing effect at a lower µ compared to the other lashings. The main thing that will determine
lashing strength will then be allowed movement in x, y as well as maximal factor of security, i.e.
the load the lashings will secure when one of them reaches LC.

The horizontal angles of the lashings are for spacial reasons fairly locked, mainly the x-component,
since the skid would be equipped with lashing points on the sides and corners. There is a pos-
sibility to provide a larger y-component, particularly for the cross lashing, however depending
on the size of the trailer one can only go so far. βcl,y = 45° would yield a y-component of 2450
mm for instance which would require a trailer length with lashing points at a 10700 mm distance.
However, the z-component could definitely be changed to look to see the robustness of the po-
sitioning of lashing points. With the same lengths and angles in the xy-plane, it is possible to
have approximately an αcl = 47° and αdl = 50°. This will yield z-components zcl = 2668 mm
zdl = 2626 mm. The forces in the lashings can be found in the Figures 33-35.

47
Figure 33: Lashing forces with an LC = 20 kN, α ≈ 50°.

Figure 34: Lashing forces with an LC = 30 kN, α ≈ 50°.

48
 Figure 35: Lashing forces with an LC = 50 kN, α ≈ 50°.

The forces are slightly higher compared to an angle of 30° but are below LC for higher friction
coefficients which is recommended regardless. Using a friction mat and at least high grade
web lashings with this configuration will secure the machine appropriately against the road load
cases when looking at sliding. Shackles with lower percentage elongation will lead to lesser to
none sliding at a similar µ compared to web lashings and also have a higher lashing effect if the
acceleration is larger than the recommended values.

This case study has not taken into account the longitudinal acceleration rearwards and the rec-
ommendation is to lash the same as forwards acceleration but reversed. The lashings should be
symmetrical along each axis in the plane.

Tipping

49
 Figure 36: Tipping around the x-axis.

Figure 37: Tipping around the y-axis.

There is a quite low risk for tipping on the road for all reasonable heights of the center of gravity

50
as shown in the graphs. It is worth to mention that even if Macc would grow so large that it’d
overcome the lashing force, it is possible to pick stronger lashings, an LC = M SL = 20 kN
is quite low for a large machine so the risk for tipping on road is minimal, even for potentially
higher accelerations. However this method does

4.3.2 Sea Area C case

Similar as in 4.3.1, for a few given friction coefficients, the resulting lashing forces and the
distance traveled in the direction the acceleration was acting can be found in Table 20. The
forces are based on the lashings securing 15000 kg of cargo with a safety factor of 1.

Table 20: Resulting lashing forces and sliding distances for different µ and lashing types, Sea Area C transport.

Input Parameters Ship case

µ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6
LC [kN] 20 20 20 30 30 30 50 50 50
Stf [kN] 2 2 2 6 6 6 10 10 10
p [%] 4 4 4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Output
Accleration x
FCL,x [kN] 43.38 25.39 10.02 42.54 22.01 6 40.58 18.29 10
FDL,x [kN] 5.96 3.54 2.32 7.52 6.52 6 11.03 10.23 10
∆x [mm] 274.87 156.29 53.9 61.33 26.93 0 30.85 8.38 0
Acceleration y
FCL,y [kN] 5.96 4.85 3.99 8.62 7.43 6.47 11.59 10.2 10
FDL,y [kN] 24.59 18.82 14.02 22.63 15.17 9.07 20.29 11.33 10
∆y [mm] 131.87 98.35 70.43 24.41 13.47 4.52 9.07 1.18 0

Similar to the road case, µ = 0.2 only provides enough securing effect for the largest LC. The
load distribution in the lashings are essentially switched compared to the road case, the cross
lashings take up most of the load, particularly when loaded in x which is expected. The load in
y is quite high for low µ mainly since the vertical acceleration is lower than otherwise.

51
Figure 38: Lashing forces with an LC = 20 kN.

Figure 39: Lashing forces with an LC = 30 kN.

52
 Figure 40: Lashing forces with an LC = 50 kN.

The graphical representation is found in Figures 38-40. Typically the forces are quite high
but still well below LC for the higher capacity lashings (chains), however, there’s still risk for
considerable movement at lower µ. Similar to the road case, a higher vertical angle α was looked
at, the results can be found in Figures 41-43.

53
Figure 41: Lashing forces with an LC = 20 kN, α ≈ 50°.

Figure 42: Lashing forces with an LC = 30 kN, α ≈ 50°.

54
 Figure 43: Lashing forces with an LC = 50 kN, α ≈ 50°.

The difference is marginal to α = 30°, the lashings reach LC at a bit lower friction coefficient
comparably. The vertical positioning of the lashings do not affect the securing effect particularly
at higher µ. This can be explained by the friction force having a greater effect at higher µ so
a larger vertical angle which creates more down force will yield a higher friction force which
inhibits sliding.

Tipping risk

Similarly to the road case the risk of tipping was looked over, the resulting moment when tipping
around x, y can be found in Figures 44-45.

55
 Figure 44: Tipping around the x-axis.

Figure 45: Tipping around the y-axis.

The resulting moment will be negative only for CoGz > 2100 mm which is considered quite

56
unlikely. Worth to mention here is that the actual resisting moment the lashings could assert
is even higher if one allow them to elongate even further or use even heavier gauge lashings
which definitely is a case on sea shipping. An important point particularly for RoRo shipping
is that the skid would be placed and lashed to a platform trailer. It must then also be lashed and
secured to the deck so the platform does not slide around on deck. For that reason one might
need additional lashing points or stronger D-rings to allow more lashings mounted in the D-ring.

4.3.3 FEA Lashing

With the input data from 3.4.1 a deflection according to Figure 46 is achieved. One can see
that even though the longitudinal forces are set to zero in the left short side, there is still some
deflection caused by the transversal lashings. A maximum deflection of 3.32 mm is still below
the threshold value of 5 mm, if using the same reasoning as in the chapter about lifting. For
larger transversal forces, the deflection would most likely increase a lot due to few structural
elements along that direction. The reason for having no elements on the short ends is to ensure
space for placing components inside the skid as well as serviceability. If it was found out that
the frame had to be more stiff transversely, removable plates, or similar, could be attached after
assembly and removed after shipping. This would ensure serviceability but also stiffness during
transportation.

Figure 46: Deflection of skid in lashed condition.

4.3.4 General discussion about the lashing study

Depending on what constraints one might have regarding elongation distance of the lashings one
will have to decide if web-lashings are sufficient or not. Even for high friction, the cargo will be
allowed to slide up to 71 mm with a web lashings at sea. A fairly small chain lashing will allow a
sliding distance of 27 mm and with a heavy duty chain the pre-tension simply might be enough to
completely keep the cargo from moving. This is a simplification however and dynamic factors
as well lower/higher pre-tension might impact the securing effect. For that reason a heavy duty
chain should be used and it is reasonable to match the chain with the lashing point strength. Flat
racks will have lashing points with LC = M SL = 50 kN and RoRo platform trailers can have
lashing points with M SL = 150 kN. The lashing points on the skid should therefor have an
M SL of at the very least 50 kN but for safety reasons more. If only one lashing is used per
lashing point, D-rings with M SL = 100 kN should be sufficient and if RoRo is of interest,
additional or heavier duty D-rings could be an option. Anti-slip or rubber mats should always

57
be used to up the friction coefficient, its impact is large on the securing effect and the resulting
forces are much lower for larger µ. The lowest friction coefficient used in these calculations
were µ = 0.2 which barely secures the cargo at harsh sea conditions, the opinions are divided
regarding what the actual coefficient might be for certain material combinations and for greasy
surfaces one could even discard the effect of friction. This would theoretically result in the
vertical component of the lashings having no impact in the lashings as it is entirely dependent on
the friction. To counteract tipping motions, the vertical component is key so lowering the vertical
angle of the lashings and relying fully on the horizontal component for sliding is unreasonable,
particularly if the center of gravity is high or shifted towards a side.

Another option for lashing could be utilizing the container corner fittings and securing the skid
with twist locks or similar. These should take up all the forces associated with the two load
cases but will effectively lock the machine in a set length and width (6.06x2.44 m) to allow for
securing in the corners. There are flat bed trailers that allow for the container corner interface as
well as standard lashing. Commonly however, container chassis are used which require the set
length and width to accommodate the weight of the cargo. A skid with these dimensions might
still require lashing points for other shipping types such as flat rack containers and RoRo and a
width of 2.44 m excluding lashings will be slightly out of gauge for flat racks. Shipping the skid
as a container is not dependable either as the ship might dismiss containers that aren’t rented by
the shipping company. It might also require extensive certification from DNV to be allowed to
be handled as a container.

This lashing methodology can be scaled for other skid mounted cargo with fixed lashings points
that fit on a single load carrier whether it is a flat rack, truck bed and so on and within reasonable
constraints. Extremely large cargo with tougher geometry such as wind turbine propellers might
need a more specific analysis to ensure the securing effect is sufficient.

Earlier literature has mentioned the iterative methods but no research was found that showed
the implementation of it. This method could be used to look at more specific load cases and
analyze the movement of cargo dynamically as well. From a practical point of view, using the
same strength in the lashing eyes for all points on the skid, is good for logistical and also for
safety reasons. For instance, slightly different lashing set ups should yield a similar securing
effect that is safe according to the rule of thumb methods that are commonly used. For that
reason one should also verify that the methods used yield a realistic lashing set up. It is good
to understand the individual forces that will be present in the lashing points, as the skid could
require strengthening of the construction elements as shown in figure 46.

This study has not taken into account what happens with the lashings on the other side of the
skid, which ”compress” and lose tension force proportionally to Hooke’s law. They can be
added into the calculations and will contribute to a positive friction force and a slightly negative
horizontal force. Removing them from the calculations will yield slightly higher lashing forces
when Stf − k∆L > 0 and be undefined when it is less than zero see Figure 47.

58
 Figure 47: Adding negative component in the opposite lashings.

The change in inclination in Fdl,y is the negative contribution from the opposite lashing which
will slightly diminish the securing effect for lower µ when above 0. At higher friction coeffi-
cients this will have a smaller effect as the vertical component always contributes to a positive
securing effect if present. There’s a case for doing calculations with this effect but since it is un-
defined when too much sliding occurs it is better to check after to verify when more parameters
are set and a sufficient µ is used.

This lashing setup does imitate what is recommended by Maersk which can be seen in Figure
8 and for good reason. The lashings do not take up much unnecessary space and provide good
securing. Securing by blocking has not been looked at but could be added by using a similar
methodology. The blocking wood will have a spring constant and allow a certain amount of
elastic deformation, this will likely be far lower than the deformation in most lashings and one
will have to adjust for that to reach a proper securing effect[24]. Risks here could be buckling
of the blocking material since an elastic lashing only will secure with a force slightly above
pre-tension at this elongation. This analysis has been done with fairly long lashings, the length
of the lashing is inversely proportional to the spring constant thus a shorter lashing might be
preferable to inhibit movement as the lashing force will reach a sufficient securing effect faster.
The pre-tension used is also fairly low compared to the maximal allowed which is 50 %LC, used
here is between 10 − 20 %LC. A higher pre-tension will similarly give a sufficient securing
effect earlier and inhibit more sliding.

4.3.5 Load carriers

Different load carriers have been thought of and considered for the transportation of a heavy
machinery skid. Since containers are very common and the infrastructure is widely spread, a
solution incorporating the machine in a container was first considered. Building the skid into an
existing container or manufacturing it to a PO-unit could make it behave like a container and use

59
the same type of equipment for handling. After the interview and literature study, the authors
found it both complex and uncertain to completely design the skid to act as a container. One of
the interviewees mentioned that shipping companies sometimes refuses load carriers that are not
rented from them, which could make the transport troublesome and far more expensive. One
other aspect is the documentation and cost that will be added when certifying a skid as a PO-unit
or as a container. These factors were not further looked in to, but the impression that was gotten
from the base info search was that it would not be worth it. Using an existing container was
another option considered, however, it was found out that if something is changed in the design
of the container, it has to be re-certified. Other lashing equipment than regular web and chains
lashings were considered during the project to be able to use containers but still allow for wider
dimensions of the cargo. The interviews provided information about possible damages of the
floor of the containers which makes it hard to pull och push something inside it. This would
also exclude the possibility of bolting the cargo to the floor or similar. Almost all the other load
carriers investigated allows for reaching the cargo from all directions while loaded. This makes
it easy to secure it, which also save time and money.

4.3.6 Fork pockets

No calculations or simulations were done for the load case where the skid is lifted by a fork
lift. As mentioned in Chapter 2.3, the distance between the forks can vary, and there is a range
for the distance between the pockets. If the recommendations for container fork pockets are
implemented, 2050 mm between each pocket, the load case is almost similar to the simulated
lift for the platform skids with lifting eyes mounted towards the center. This could give a clue of
how the skid would deflect when lifting it in that position. Adding holes for fork pockets could
affect the rigidity of the skid negatively. Material in the base members would have to be cut out
and this would probably lead to a need of strengthening the base frame in another way.

60
 5 CONCLUSIONS
Trucking is the cheapest option when transporting distances inside and slightly outside of Europe.
The main constraints will be widths over 2.50 m and heights above around 3 m. The width mainly
because of road regulations. The height depending on trailers available since the combined
height is constraining. A height of around 3 m will allow trailers with a height up to 1 m which
allows the skid to be transported by road in EU in gauge. The weight and length of the machinery
is of less concern, because the different transport means usually allows for more weight and
length in the plausible size and length range of the product. However, the position of the center
of gravity is still an important factor which could affect the maximum length.

Transporting the machine safely by container with standard lashing options dealt with in this
report require a width of no more than 1.7 m. For larger width within door limits, more specific
securing options will have to be looked into such as blocking and bracing. Maximum weight is
specified by container manufacturer, typically between 20-25 tonnes of cargo weight.

For larger machinery that requires shipping by sea, flat rack and RoRo are the only viable options
for skids larger than (WxH) 2.4x2.5 m. More work is required to further quantify which of them
is superior from a cost perspective.

RoRo might be a better option than flat rack if the width is larger 2.44 mm because it will be
considered out of gauge. RoRo does not have any upper limits that is not already constrained
by road haulage.

RoRo departures might be less common than container liners to some locations which requires
planning ahead, less ports available might also make it a worse option, so it needs to be looked
at in a case by case basis.

For flexibility with transport options, the machine should not be larger than at its maximum
(WxH) 2.44x2.8 m which will allow transport by mega trailer as well as Flat rack. Center of
gravity should be centered in the transversal direction for stability. CoG matters less in the
longitudinal direction but the length should allow the weight of the skid to be centered on the load
carrier. Lifting eyes mounted on the top of the frame that allow for a single hook lift is desired.
The size of the lifting eyes should accommodate large lifting equipment for easy handling with
heavy duty cranes. Fork pockets located under the CoG makes it easier to load the machinery
on trailers. As for the lifting eyes, large dimensions are desirable to ensure compatibility with
large fork lifts. While designing the skid, place the lifting and lashing components where there
is rigidity in the frame, or design the frame with the components positioning in mind.

A platform based skid could be used without exceeding the deflection threshold, however , this
type of design does not allow for a single hook lift which is highly desirable.

Lashing traditionally without blocking is a viable method for a skid weighing roughly 15 tonnes.
High friction is a necessity though, which can be achieved with anti-slip or rubber mats. Lashing
points should hold up for at least 50 kN of lashing force but for safety reasons one should reason-
ably use something along the lines of 100 kN. A total number of 12 lashing points, 4 designed
for direct longitudinal lashing, 4 for transversal cross lashing and 4 vertical lashings are suffi-
cient. If the skid is being transported by RoRo, additional or even stronger lashing points should
be considered to properly secure the roll trailer as well. To minimize movement and allow for
higher loads/larger factor of safety, chains should be used to lash and secure the machine.

61
 6 FUTURE WORK
The methodology in this report is purposely general. When designing the actual skid, one should
lock some parameters such as the dimensions and calculate the lashing and lifting requirements
for instance for the specified machine. This also applies to specific markets or regions which
the machine should be shipped to. There might be regional disparities regarding dimensions and
weight for instance that do not conform to the general rules. This typically applies to certain
roads for instance which do not allow heavy traffic. Duties and tax for different countries could
also play a big part in the final design and this should be looked over for the areas of interest.
Strength of welds and stress concentrations has not been analyzed in this report and needs to be
looked at for the final design. A more extensive cost analysis has to be done to further conclude
which transport options are best and one should also be more specific towards the shipping
locations of interest.

62
 7 REFERENCES

[1] Suresh Kumar Krishnan, Senthilkumar Kandasamy, and Kavitha Subbiah. “Chapter 32 -
Fabrication of microbial fuel cells with nanoelectrodes for enhanced bioenergy produc-
tion”. In: Nanomaterials. Ed. by R. Praveen Kumar and B. Bharathiraja. Academic Press,
2021, pp. 677–687. ISBN: 978-0-12-822401-4. DOI: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 /
B978 - 0 - 12 - 822401 - 4 . 00003 - 9. URL: https : / / www . sciencedirect . com /
science/article/pii/B9780128224014000039.
[2] Chuan Zhang et al. “Implementation of industrial waste heat to power in Southeast Asia:
an outlook from the perspective of market potentials, opportunities and success catalysts”.
In: Energy Policy 106 (2017), pp. 525–535. ISSN: 0301-4215. DOI: https://doi.org/
10 . 1016 / j . enpol . 2017 . 03 . 041. URL: https : / / www . sciencedirect . com /
science/article/pii/S0301421517301854.
[3] A.M. Alklaibi and N. Lior. “Waste heat utilization from internal combustion engines for
power augmentation and refrigeration”. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
152 (2021), p. 111629. ISSN: 1364-0321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2021.111629. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1364032121009047.
[4] P.Eng Sulogna Roy. Consider Modular Plant Design. May 2017. URL: https://www.
aiche . org / resources / publications / cep / 2017 / may / consider - modular -
plant-design. Accessed 2022.01.28.
[5] Skid Design and Analysis. URL: https://www.betamachinery.com/services/skid-
design-and-analysis. accessed 2022.01.28.
[6] Air Freight: A Market Study with Implications for Landlocked Countries. https://www.
worldbank.org/en/topic/transport/publication/air- freight- study. Aug.
2015. (Accessed on 01/28/2022).
[7] Shipping Heavy Machinery: A helpful guide. Aug. 2021. URL: https://www.flockfreight.
com/2018/11/08/shipping-heavy-machinery-a-helpful-guide/.
[8] Thorsten Wuest et al. “Challenges of Heavy Load Logistics in Global Maritime Supply
Chains”. In: Advances in Production Management Systems: Innovative Production Man-
agement Towards Sustainable Growth. Ed. by Shigeki Umeda et al. Cham: Springer In-
ternational Publishing, 2015, pp. 175–182. ISBN: 978-3-319-22759-7.
[9] Bo Alfredsson. Handbok och formelsamling i Hållfasthetslära. Institutionen för hållfas-
thetslära KTH, 2016.
[10] Tibnor. Konstruktionstabeller - Rör, balk och stång. 2018. URL: https://abrahamssonsjarn.
se/app/uploads/2019/09/Tibnor_Konstruktionstabeller-2018.pdf.
[11] PE Kim Olsen. HSS - Saving you money. May 2016. URL: https://steeltubeinstitute.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/HSS_Article_HSS_SavingYouMoney_0516_
060120.pdf.
[12] BE Group Sverige AB. Byggståls Handboken. 2016. URL: https://www.begroup.se/
storage/9A19F538948B1D3F406053FC922BAB55CF88E97F3F1BE804B4A5A757C1D4B29E/
df96bb95a69848b28898ff128687ae3b/pdf/media/ede80f10d305418f9b4e8b537afb6917/
BE_Byggstalshandboken_okt_2016.pdf.
[13] Det Norske Veritas AS. “Offshore Containers”. In: (2013), pp. 385–394.

63
[14] Det Norske Veritas AS. “Portable Offshore Units”. In: (May 2011), p. 5.
[15] Det Norske Veritas AS. “Freight containers 2.7-4”. In: (June 2011), p. 47.
[16] Corner casting lifting lug. URL: https://www.navacqs.com/products/container-
lashing- equipment/mk- 2- container- lifting- lugs- set- 4- pcs/. Accessed
2022.02.25.
[17] Samuel Stebin. Lifting Lugs. URL: https : / / www . punchlistzero . com / lifting -
lugs/#:~:. Accessed 2022.01.28.
[18] David Tozer Eric Murdoch. A Master’s guide to: Container Securing. NNPC, 2010.
[19] European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility, and Transport. Cargo securing
for road transport : 2014 European best practices guidelines. Publications Office, 2015.
DOI: doi/10.2832/80373.
[20] MariTerm. Quick Lashing guide. URL: http://en.mariterm.se/publications/
publications-cargo-securing/qlg/. 07.04.2022.
[21] Forankra. “Lathund för lastsäkring”. In: 11 (Dec. 2019).
[22] Transportfackens Yrkes- och Arbetsmiljönämnd. Tya branschnorm.
[23] Maersk Line. Maersk Line Lashing Guide: Loading and Lashing Cargo.
[24] Kaps Hermann. Securing cargo in road transport - Who knows the truth? Aug. 2011.
URL: https : / / www . tis - gdv . de / tis _ e / ls / ls _ im _ strassenverkehr _ die _
fakten/vorwort-html/. 23.03.2022.
[25] Kaps Hermann. Securing cargo for the road - the facts. May 2013. URL: https://www.
tis-gdv.de/tis_e/ls/ls_im_strassenverkehr_die_fakten/ladungssicherung_
im_sv_die_fakten-html/. Accessed 17.05.2022.
[26] A Guide for the Loading and Lashing of Cargo on Hapag-Lloyd Flatracks. June 2016.
[27] J.JAGELČÁK P. ANDERSSON S. SÖKJER-PETERSEN. DIFFERENCES IN CARGO
SECURING REGULATIONS. HOW COULD WE ACHIEVE HARMONIZATION? June
2012. URL: https://www.mariterm.se/publikationer/fou-rapporter/rapporter-
inom-lastsakringsomradet/. Accessed 17.05.2022.
[28] Friction lashing. URL: https://www.containerhandbuch.de/chb_e/stra/index.
html?/chb_e/stra/stra_04_03_06.html. Accessed 2022.05.18.
[29] Chia-Hsun Chang and Vinh V. Thai. “Shippers’ Choice Behaviour in Choosing Transport
Mode: The Case of South East Asia (SEA) Region”. In: The Asian Journal of Shipping
and Logistics 33.4 (2017), pp. 199–210. ISSN: 2092-5212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ajsl.2017.12.003. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2092521217300597.
[30] Lindmark M ; Effektiva godstransporter: kartläggning av bakomliggande faktorer på
transporters utförande (Dissertation). 2010. URL: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-132984.
[31] Transportstyrelsen. “Lasta lagligt”. In: TS201616 (May 2018).
[32] DSV. What is a flatbed or open trailer? URL: https : / / www . dsv . com / en / our -
solutions / modes - of - transport / road - transport / trailer - sizes / open -
trailer. Accessed 2022.02.18.

64
[33] European Rail Rent. Our types of wagons. URL: https://railrent.com/en/. Ac-
cessed 2022.02.22.
[34] Intermodal info. Our types of wagons. URL: https://www.intermodal-info.com/
en/means-of-transport/. Accessed 2022.02.22.
[35] Flexiwaggon. The fully automatic Railway Carriage. URL: https://www.flexiwaggon.
se/. Accessed 2022.02.23.
[36] Thomas Lamb. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME), 2003 -
2004. Chap. 36. ISBN: 978-0-939773-40-4 (Vol. I); 978-0-939773-41-1 (Vol. II). URL:
https : / / app . knovel . com / hotlink / toc / id : kpSDCV0001 / ship - design -
construction/ship-design-construction.
[37] Niklas Ohling Frank Nachbar. Container Specification. URL: https : / / www . hapag -
lloyd.com/en/services- information/cargo- fleet/special.html. Accessed
2022.02.08.
[38] Cell guide systems on deck and in the hold. URL: https : / / www . macgregor . com /
Products / products / container - stowagesecuring - equipment / cell - guide -
systems-on-deck-and-in-the-hold/. Accessed 2022.03.01.
[39] Container design. URL: https://www.containerhandbuch.de/chb_e/stra/index.
html?/chb_e/stra/stra_03_01_00.html. Accessed 2022.03.01.
[40] Series 1 freight containers - Handling and securing. Dec. 1997.
[41] Romanas Puisa. “Optimal stowage on Ro-Ro decks for efficiency and safety”. In: Journal
of Marine Engineering Technology 20 (Sept. 2018), pp. 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/20464177.
2018.1516942.
[42] Bernt Olav Øvstebø, Lars Magnus Hvattum, and Kjetil Fagerholt. “Optimization of stowage
plans for RoRo ships”. In: Computers Operations Research 38.10 (2011), pp. 1425–1434.
ISSN: 0305-0548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.01.004. URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305054811000086.
[43] Martynas Jonkus. Ro-Ro transport management in the southern Baltic. 2000.
[44] Thomas Lamb. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME), 2003 -
2004. Chap. 35. ISBN: 978-0-939773-40-4 (Vol. I); 978-0-939773-41-1 (Vol. II). URL:
https : / / app . knovel . com / hotlink / toc / id : kpSDCV0001 / ship - design -
construction/ship-design-construction.
[45] Claudia Archetti, Lorenzo Peirano, and M. Grazia Speranza. “Optimization in multimodal
freight transportation problems: A Survey”. In: European Journal of Operational Re-
search 299.1 (2022), pp. 1–20. ISSN: 0377-2217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2021.07.031. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0377221721006263.
[46] FreightForward. URL: https : / / www . dsv . com / en / support / faq / what - is -
freight-forwarding. Accessed 2022.03.16.
[47] Riska Sutrisnowati, Hyerim Bae, and Jaehun Park. “Bayesian network learning for port-
logistics-process knowledge discovery”. In: The International Journal of Industrial En-
gineering: Theory, Applications and Practice 21 (Jan. 2014), pp. 141–152.
[48] MICHAEL A. McGINNIS. “A Comparative Evaluation of Freight Transportation Choice
Models”. In: Transportation Journal 29.2 (1989), pp. 36–46. ISSN: 00411612, 2157328X.
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20713033.

65
[49] Andersson N. Utvärdering av intermodala transportkedjor - Djupanalys av skadestatistik
från FORS. MariTerm AB, June 2009.
[50] Andersson N. Utvärdering av intermodala transportkedjor - Riskanalys av transportked-
jor. MariTerm AB, June 2009.
[51] Stanislawska C ; Intermodala godstransporter i Sverige: En kunskapsöversikt av hinder
och tekniska lösningar. 2019. URL: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:
kth:diva-259379.
[52] Garberg Björn. ANALYS AV UTVECKLINGSPOTENTIALEN FÖR INLANDS- OCH KUST-
SJÖFART I SVERIGE. Tech. rep. dnr 16-00767. Sjöfartsverket, Dec. 2016.
[53] Hari Menon. What is OOG or out-of-gauge cargo? URL: https://www.marineinsight.
com/maritime-law/what-is-oog-or-out-of-gauge-cargo/. Accessed 2022.02.23.
[54] Out of gauge cargo shipping: flat rack or RO-RO? URL: https://www.icetransport.
com/blog/out-of-gauge-cargo-shipping. Accessed 2022.03.01, Published 2020.10.22.
[55] Seán Moran. “Chapter 17 - Construction and Layout”. In: Process Plant Layout (Second
Edition). Ed. by Seán Moran. Second Edition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2017,
pp. 251–265. ISBN: 978-0-12-803355-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0- 12- 803355- 5.00017- 2. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/B9780128033555000172.
[56] Legal Loading. Transportstyrelsen, Oct. 2018.
[57] Container Availability Index. URL: https://www.container-xchange.com/features/
cax/. Accessed 2022.02.28.
[58] Sebastian Button. Insights into indices. URL: https : / / www . marinetraffic . com /
blog/insights-into-indices/. Accessed 2022.05.23, Published 2020.02.10.
[59] SolidWorks. Mesh Quality Chacks. URL: https : / / help . solidworks . com / 2021 /
English/SolidWorks/cworks/c_Mesh_Quality_Checks.htm. Accessed 2022.05.10.
[60] Kordnejad B. Nelldal B.-L. Hinder och möjligheter för överföring av godstransporter
från väg till järnväg. Tech. rep. Avdelningen för transportplanering KTH, Sept. 2020.
URL: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-290798.
[61] ANSI INDUSTRIAL TRUCK STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION. SAFETY
STANDARD FOR LOW LIFT AND HIGH LIFT TRUCKS. 2009.
[62] North Europe to China/East Asia. URL: https : / / fbx . freightos . com / freight -
index/FBX12. Accessed 2022.05.23.
[63] Guide to Freightos Baltic Global Container Index (FBX). Dec. 2019.

66
APPENDIX A DETAILED SCHEDULE

i
APPENDIX B RISK ANALYSIS

ii
APPENDIX C SEA FREIGHT CONTAINERS

iii
APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDE

iv
 GENERAL QUESTIONS
● Background, tell us about yourself (Years at the company, position, a little
about your work tasks, previous positions within the company)

○ How familiar are you with transport and logistics at Climeon?

● Do you have experience from previous workplaces regarding transports?

○ What have you brought with you from that workplace, what were good
and bad respectively?

● What problems / challenges do you think may arise during the transport of new
Climeon products?

○ What can be done from a design perspective to simplify transports?

● What do you think are the most important factors that measure the quality of
transport; (damage minimization, cost, delivery time, number of
transshipments, carbon footprint, availability, etc.)?

○ What requirements do you and / or customers place on the transport of

the module?

TRANSPORT QUESTIONS
● How has the transport of previous modules taken place?

○ (actors etc.)

● What problems / challenges have been encountered before, when transporting

previous modules? (Please describe in detail)

○ What did you think this was due to and how could it have been avoided?

● How do you want the transport of new Climeon products to take place?

○ Actors, transport alternatives…

○ Which companies do we have / want agreements with in the transport

chain? (freight forwarders, shippers, etc)
○ Including various containers; waiting time, price, packaging, etc.

● Expected / maximum / minimum lead time, from order to desired delivery?

○ What is the impact of transport here?

● What size restrictions do you see and what do they depend on based on your
position? (logistical, sales)

● What volumes are we expecting? (year / week / per customer etc)

DELIVERY
● What is included in your work tasks?

● In what step are you involved in the business?

● How involved are you in the transport of the product?

● What components have been missing on previous product lines to facilitate

your work?

○ What would you like to add if possible?

● How would an optimal product be designed to make your work as hassle-free

as possible?

● Do you have examples / pictures of successful or less successful installation

attempts?

SALE
● Have the dimensions and weight of the module impacted a sale going / not
going through before?

○ Example of this

● Does function / robustness precede the aesthetic factors in all situations?

● How would a typical easy-to-sell product be designed?

● Biggest customers now and in the future (and where)?

SERVICE
● What clear problems do you see with previous generations of the product?

● How to avoid this in future products?

○ What is wrong or missing to simplify your work tasks?

● How would an, for you, optimal product be designed to make your work as
easy as possible?
○ Dimensions, properties, equipment
 APPENDIX E IMAGES FROM STATIC SIMULATIONS

Figure 48: Amplified deflection of platform skids. The unit of the value is [mm]. From left: Design 1, Design 2.

Figure 49: Amplified deflection of cage skids. The unit of the value is [mm]. From left: Design 3, Design 4,
Design 5.

vii
TRITA – ITM-EX 2022:156

www.kth.se