Benjamin Franklin lived before the modern era of civil engineering, but from what we know of him, he likely would have made a splendid one.
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” he once wrote. That also could have served as a guiding principle behind the new ASCE/COPRI 77-22 Dry Dock Standard.
Emphasizing maintenance and inspection, the standard helps commercial dry dock owners and operators identify and address issues before they result in accidents or loss of assets. A special committee within the Ports and Harbors Committee of ASCE’s Coasts, Oceans, Ports, and Rivers Institute produced the standard. Dry Dock Standards Committee Chair Paul Harren, A.M.ASCE, talked with Civil Engineering Source about the new 77-22, how it came to be, and who will benefit.
Source: What inspired the start of work on the standard? Was there an incident, a growing trend, and/or a gap in knowledge in the dry dock industry?
Paul Harren: Several participants in the Ports 2007 Conference discussed the need for a standard for the commercial ship maintenance industry to improve the safety of dry docks. There had been several failures with floating dry docks and the caisson gate of a graving dock in recent years. Some of those failures were due to degraded material conditions, and some were due to improper operation. The goal of the proposed standard was to provide guidance for assessing the condition of the facility, performing adequate maintenance, and proper operation.
Shortly after that conference, the Dry Dock Asset Management Task Committee was formed under COPRI. In 2010, the task committee published ASCE Manual of Practice 121, Safe Operation and Maintenance of Dry Dock Facilities. Following the publication of the manual of practice, the committee decided to develop a standard to provide a basis by which facilities could be certified. There is no comprehensive standard available that addresses the material condition, maintenance, and operation of dry docks used for commercial ships. The U.S. Navy has a standard for facilities that build and drydock Navy ships, but it is not implemented for commercial yards.
Source: How involved was the process of drafting the standard? What were the biggest challenges? Were there any surprises?
Harren: The committee organized itself into subgroups to work on each section of the standard. Fortunately, we were able to recruit experts in each area of the field. We developed specific criteria for each type of dry dock: graving dock, floating dry dock, vertical lift, and marine railway. Each subgroup worked to develop its section, and we held periodic meetings with the full committee to ensure we were maintaining alignment and to discuss broader issues among the group.
One of the biggest challenges was that this was an entirely voluntary effort. Although everyone had the strongest intention to dedicate the time, delays occurred due to busy schedules. The balloting process required for standards was a bit of a learning curve since nobody on the committee had been through the process, but James Neckel [manager of technical advancement] at ASCE guided us through it so it went fairly smoothly. The biggest surprise was probably that the public comment process was pretty smooth. We knew other new standards struggled when they got to the public comment period, but we moved through that smoothly.
Source: Which specialists will benefit most?
Harren: Virtually all dry docks have historically obtained a “commercial certification,” although there was no definition of the basis for that certification. Dry docks obtained that certification because it was required by either their ship repair contracts or insurance provider. The commercial certification addressed the material condition and capacity to dry dock a ship.
This standard is more comprehensive in that it also addresses maintenance and operation to ensure the safety of the facility, ship, and personnel. This standard was written for dry dock owners, dockmasters, dry dock maintenance engineers, engineers engaged in dry dock inspection and certification, ship owners, and port engineers.
Source: How extensive and detailed is the standard’s guidance? How much is meant for more comprehensive, longer-term work, and how much applies to the day-to-day?
Harren: The guidance is detailed as to the requirements and applies to long-term and day-to-day activities. The first step in the certification process is to perform a condition assessment. This process is very detailed and results in comprehensive documentation of the material condition and certified capacity. The facility is required to maintain this documentation for comparison during follow-on inspections. The maintenance requirement is to support the material condition of the dry dock so that it can continue to operate to its certified capacity.
Finally, the standard provides operating procedures and personnel qualifications to operate the dry dock. The intent is that this standard will aid shipyards in identifying gaps in their processes, resulting in safer dry dockings.
Source: What is the most important knowledge practitioners should gain from the standard and apply to enhance their dry dock work?
Harren: The most important takeaway is that dry dock owners and operators must understand the condition and limitations of their assets. Without this knowledge, they cannot expect to operate the dock safely. That is the basis for starting with the condition assessment. This will give the dry dock owner and dockmaster an understanding of how the dock was designed and its limitations based on the current condition. This will then inform the maintenance program to ensure those limitations do not change due to degrading material conditions. If the material condition changes, it will be identified in the periodic certification inspections, and operating limits will be adjusted accordingly. Finally, developing written operating procedures and checklists will aid the dockmaster during drydocking evolutions.
ASCE/COPRI 77-22, Dry Dock Standard, is available in print and e-book formats in the ASCE Library.
