The Dockmasters Journal - Volume 1, Issue 2
November 2024
Editor: Waleed (Wally) Sayed, P.E., M. ASCE
A publication dedicated to Dry Docks for Dock Masters, Dry Dock Engineers, Operators, and Owners.
Our mission is to focus on the diverse world of dry dock facilities, showcase their successes and unique capabilities, disseminate industry specific knowledge, and share lessons learned from dry dock incidents with a positive presentation.
In this month’s edition:
A Note from the Editor
Questions for the Editor
Main Article: Dry Dock Certification Standards-What is ASCE/COPRI 77-22, Dry Dock Standard?
Community Highlight
So, this one time, I was on a dry dock...
A Note from the Editor:
It has been asked several times, “Is my dry dock facility required to be classed or certified?”. The short answer is, no. Classifications and/or certifications for dry dock facilities are mandated by contractual requirements only, either for investors and/or insurers, and/or to obtain a government contract. Which is why there are countless shipyards that design, build and operate their own dry dock facilities that do not require classification or certification.
There are no local, state or federal regulations for most dry dock designs as the designs are either proprietary (e.g. vertical lifts) or fall under international rules from an IACS organization (e.g. steel floating dry dock). United Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-213-10 covers graving dock design but no one in America builds graving docks anymore-it’s used for analysis and caisson replacement. In most circumstances local or state permitting is focused solely on the environmental regulations for installing marine infrastructure like dredging for a pier or a submergence pit. A dry dock design package will never be found at the local building inspectors office.
Which brings us to an odd point. It is one thing when someone builds a submersible in their backyard and uses it themselves, but a wholly separate issue when they build it in their backyard and then charge others to use it too. In the maritime industry crossing from personal use to public use should, but does not, trigger mandatory third-party design review. The Titan implosion is a tragic example of this. The major hinderance is the additional cost, which can be substantial, associated with a third-party design review.
Classification or certification of a dry dock is a purely economic decision and unless it is economic to do so, most dry dock owners and operators will choose not to.
“A ship in dry dock is safe, but that’s not what ships are meant for.”
-Waleed (Wally) Sayed P.E., M. ASCE, Editor
Questions for the Editor:
Q) What is the difference between a “dry dock” and a “dry dock facility”?
A) A dry dock is the individual component for bringing a ship entirely out of the water, specifically to fully expose the underwater hull and protuberances for repair and hull preservation. A dry dock facility is the site in which the dry dock is located, inclusive of the dry dock, and which provides vessel support services such as cranes, mooring, power and hotel services.
Dry Dock Certification Standards-What is ASCE/COPRI 77-22, Dry Dock Standard?
ASCE/COPRI 77-22 provides detailed requirements for the inspection and certification of commercial dry dock facilities by qualified registered Professional Engineers, including floating dry docks, graving docks, marine railways, and vertical lifts. Documentation is the main ingredient when working through compliance issues. The four major documentation components for ASCE/COPRI 77-22 compliance are: Condition Assessment, Dry Dock Calculations, Maintenance, and Operations.
The Condition Assessment is a comprehensive review of the facility and determines the current condition of the facility. The first assessment provides a baseline from which to work from. The certifying engineer should first gather all relevant design information which is generally contained in the original design package. While the original design package may only cover the structural design of the dry dock facility, design information regarding mechanical and electrical support equipment should also be provided. Modifications or upgrades made to the facility should be documented and the as-built design package updated to reflect the facility’s current configuration.
The Dry Dock Calculations validate the capacity of the dry dock facility. While these may be contained within the original design package, the calculations may need to be updated to reflect the facility’s current condition. For example, floating dry docks may have a reduced lift capacity due to excessive silting in the ballast tanks, or heavy corrosion of the pontoon deck of a floating dry dock or vertical lift. Calculations required by ASCE/COPRI 77-22 not provided in the original design package will need to be developed by the certifying engineer.
Maintenance that occurs after equipment failure which usually happens during a drydocking evolution is reactive, not preventative. A well implemented maintenance plan is preventive in nature and should have a regular performance schedule with a system of maintaining records. Most machinery maintenance is specified by the manufacturer. Part of the maintenance plan should include labelling of all pertinent equipment to aid in the identification of equipment for both the performance of maintenance and inspection of equipment. Continuous logging of maintenance may also serve to highlight persistent issues with a particular piece of equipment.
The Operations plan has two parts: Drydocking of the vessel, and manning of the dry dock. Having a systematic plan on how to operate the dry dock facility as well as docking plans regarding a specific drydocking are generally complied with as they are necessary to the performance to the task. What usually gets missed is the part of the operations plan that includes manning requirements. Have the various positions of your facilities drydocking operations been identified? What are the qualifications for each position? Who are the required personnel and how are they qualified? Does the position require special training or instruction? Has this information been documented? Is it maintained?
Community Highlight
David Von Schmidt is the Managing Director of Von Schmidt Maritime and Co-Founder of the Association of American Dock Masters.
As a USCG Licensed Master Captain and NAVSEA Certified Dock Master, Von Schmidt has spent the last 20yrs focused on ship-handling and providing service to domestic and foreign shipyards.
David obtained his Bachelor of Science in Maritime Business Management from Norwich College while pursuing an education in Nautical Science from the Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies.
After spending 12yrs in the maritime commercial sector, he moved to the defense sector to work for General Dynamics in their dry docking program where he completed his studies with a Diploma in Naval Architecture from Llyod’s Maritime Academy. He later founded Von Schmidt Maritime with the goal of supporting shipyards with qualified dry dock professionals and the solutions they require.
So, this one time, I was on a dry dock...
during an inspection to determine the buoyant capacity of the floating dry dock, which is conducted at each inspection interval. This differs from the structural capacity as it is solely reliant on the ability of the floating dock to, well, float. The buoyant capacity is the volumetric difference between the dock draft at its operating freeboard and its light draft. Light draft is achieved by dewatering a floating dock until the dock’s main ballast pumps lose suction. During the internal tank inspections, the crew required chest waders as the level of silt in the ballast tanks was above their knees, thus greater than 18-inches. At the conclusion of the inspection, it was determined that the light draft was more than the original design documentation and the buoyant capacity was less than the structural capacity. This meant the certified capacity had to be reduced to match the lower governing value of the buoyant capacity. On a floating dry dock, if the vessels load exceeds the docks buoyant capacity it will not get lifted of the water. There was skepticism that silting was the root cause of the reduced capacity as the view was that silt is the same as residual ballast.
However, salt water has a density of 64 pounds per cubic foot versus silt/mud which has a density of 108 pounds per cubic foot - almost 70% denser. It was determined that the buoyant capacity would likely be improved by removal of the silt by using an eductor system hooked to the fire main system to generate the required flow. During the re-inspection of the dock, the light draft and buoyant capacity matched the original design plans which was greater than the structural capacity, returning the facilities certified capacity back to its original design parameters where the structural capacity governed.
Next edition:
What is US Coast Guard SFLC Standard Specification 8634, Drydocking?
Do you have questions or comments?
Do you have a success story you’d like to share?
Do you have lessons learned from a dry dock incident you’d like to share?
Would you like to advertise in future publications?
Please email wally@tritondrydock.com
Disclosure: Disclosure: Waleed Sayed, P.E. is a co-author of “ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 121, Safe Operation and Maintenance of Dry Dock Facilities” and a co-author and voting member of “ASCE/COPRI Standard 77-22, Dry Dock Standard”. Mr. Sayed is not compensated for presenting any information related to these publications.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this publication is general in nature and not prescriptive to any specific dry dock facility. Always consult a qualified professional when developing any site-specific plan.
Looking to dive into the November Journal at your own pace?
Just enter your name and email, and it’ll open up for you. It's packed with insights and tips we know you'll love. Enjoy!
