buku manual crane faun atf 70
LINK 1 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
LINK 2 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
File Name:buku manual crane faun atf 70.pdf
Size: 3582 KB
Type: PDF, ePub, eBook
Category: Book
Uploaded: 27 May 2019, 16:15 PM
Rating: 4.6/5 from 778 votes.
Status: AVAILABLE
Last checked: 9 Minutes ago!
In order to read or download buku manual crane faun atf 70 ebook, you need to create a FREE account.
eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version
✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account.
✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use)
✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.
✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers
buku manual crane faun atf 70When done selecting products, click the checkout tab and complete the form.Next Day Air deliveries have been suspended until further notice. Covers general repair principles and procedures, repair of individual container components, safety Such areas include conditions where it is Color photos illustrate For each condition, the Guide recommends the action to be taken, if any, and the cleaning procedure to use. The refrigerated container cleaning section has been significantly enlarged and specifically addresses CO2 and ammonia contaminations amongst other conditions. Inspection, 6th Ed. The inspection and repair standards shown on this guide supplement the current inspection and repair IICL manuals. The Palletwide standards must be used in conjunction with the latest versions of the IICL inspection and repair manuals for dry freight containers complemented by the General Guide for Container Cleaning and the Gray Areas supplement. This guide was designed to facilitate the equipment interchange process during on and off-hire, however, it might also be useful for the assessment of the equipment during in-service inspections and repairs.The manual can be used by an auditor, factory or The manual also assigns an audit score to rate the process. Contains Inspection and Maintenance criteria recommendations for container chassis. The guide includes repair method recommendations and maintenance guidelines. The guide contains several photos illustrating various types of damages and repairs. The guide addresses both common types of generator sets, Clip-ons, and Underslung units. The sound produced by the point head when hitting metal or the flat head on floorboards assists inspectors to determine need for repair. Ruler has notches at 2 mm and 10 mm position.Stronger line is now protected from abrasion between magnet and steel surface.The set includes a pair of magnets and a reeling chalk line (100 ft). Spacers are 5mm thick. The set includes 4 x 5 mm magnets.http://gocmenotokurtarma.com/userfiles/advanced-accounting-hoyle-solution-manual.xml
- Tags:
- buku manual crane faun atf 70, buku manual crane faun atf 70 tahun, buku manual crane faun atf 70 2017, buku manual crane faun atf 70 2018, buku manual crane faun atf 70 1.
You may choose UPS Next Day Air for Domestic service if you wish. Next Day Air deliveries have been suspended until further notice. Groups Discussions Quotes Ask the Author To see what your friends thought of this book,This book is not yet featured on Listopia.There are no discussion topics on this book yet. The Institute was founded in 1971 and has its headquarters in Washington. Member companies own approximately 90 of leasingcontainers. In addition to other activities of IICL it is an active player in the technical development of container. Among other things IICL develops guidelines for checking the condition of containers. The sea container must be seaworthy, and it must withstand handling as good in terminal, container depot, as in transportation, regardless of the temperatures and climate changes. Sea Container standardized dimensions ensure effective functioning of the entire transport chain. Sea Containers undergo regular audits, where their condition is checked for damage detection. With repairs we ensure their safe use, usefulness and life expectancy. It is benefit of all parties to ensure regular inspection of sea containers, and repair of sufficient quality. The inspector determines damages and detritions to maximize the containers lifecycle, without forgetting the cost-effectiveness by determining the correct repair method. The inspector may perform IICL inspector certification exam, which will be held in 35 different countries. The certificate is valid for 5 years at a time. EIF (Equipment Interchange Receipt) can be replaced by party-approved inspection form (estimate). The inspector must be familiar with the form and the EIF or the electronic content of this report. The inspector should also be familiar with the ISO Cedex damage and repair codes (ISO Standard 9897 Part 1).Between enterprises (the owner of the container - the user) the container inspection takes important role on delivery or receipt.http://www.demenagements-remond.fr/userfiles/20201002080253.xml The guide used in conjunction with the EIF (Equipment Interchange Receipt) or with equivalent electronic message for documenting the audit. The party who's in response of damage is defined in audit. In addition, IICL's purpose is to work with CSC (Convention for Safe Containers). IICL guides will help to separate the containers that need require repair. Our tools are designed to be used for all the common inspection criterias such as IICL, UCIRC, CIC and other seaworthy criterias. Report this Document Download now Save Save Inspection Tools -Container Damage Measurement, Su. For Later 0 0 found this document useful, Mark this document as useful 0 0 found this document not useful, Mark this document as not useful Embed Share Print Download now Jump to Page You are on page 1 of 3 Search inside document Cancel anytime. Share this document Share or Embed Document Sharing Options Share on Facebook, opens a new window Share on Twitter, opens a new window Share on LinkedIn, opens a new window Share with Email, opens mail client Copy Text Related Interests Transport Nature Business Footer menu Back to top About About Scribd Press Our blog Join our team. Quick navigation Home Books Audiobooks Documents, active. Please try your request again later. Why did this happen. This page appears when Google automatically detects requests coming from your computer network which appear to be in violation of the Terms of Service. The block will expire shortly after those requests stop. This traffic may have been sent by malicious software, a browser plug-in, or a script that sends automated requests. If you share your network connection, ask your administrator for help — a different computer using the same IP address may be responsible. Learn more Sometimes you may see this page if you are using advanced terms that robots are known to use, or sending requests very quickly. Our professionals certified by the Institute of International Container Lessors (IICL) use specialized criteria to define the conditions and damages done to the units usually overlooked by local port operators. The quality and detail of our inspections relies on certified terminology and detailed characteristics. This service is executed on site with high end technology that will provide information at every step. Veconinter will also calculate the estimated cost of repair and generate the corresponding invoice in order to collect the damages. All ServicesMAIN FEATURES OF OUR SERVICES 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Our team of professionals, with more than 30 years of experience, will provide you with specialized consulting focused on strategic solutions for your busienss, improving the turn-arounf time of units and maximizing your overall productivity. HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS Through a strict quality policy, stablished by the ISO 9001 Norm we assure you that our services will provide you with the best solutions on the market.Company Info VECONINTER, was established in 1988 with the purpose of serving Shipping Lines and NVOCCs as a billing and collection agent for container demurrage and damage caused to intermodal equipments. It is expected that the number of globally operating containers will increase in the near future. Despite a high technical modernisation of the logistic chain, the container still faces a risk of damage at any time and any place within the transport chain. In principle, a container is taken out of service, when a damage is recognized. Different causes of damage exist and various types of damage could occur to the container, ranging from minor to substantial major ones that do not permit the continued proper use of the container. Aside from technical aspects, it has to be decided from an economical perspective whether a repair should be performed. A profound decision should consider various criteria like, e.g., repair costs, lifespan of the container, future yields and possible sales price. Implemented in Microsoft Excel, this decision model is easily applicable. The user can deduce a first (limited) guidance for dealing with a respective damaged container based on its current state and general market conditions. Standard sizes of containers result in most efficient stacking and handling of containers with special equipment. Furthermore, the containerisation leads to cost savings mainly by reducing manpower and, therefore, labour costs. In addition, a steel cover provides a better protection against cargo damages. The global economic crisis with its peak in 2009 had a significant impact on the volume of international container transport as can be seen in Fig. 1. However, it is also apparent that a re-increase has taken place since 2010, but not as large as predicted some years ago (see, e.g., Heymann (2006) ). Here, for 2006 to 2015, an annual increase in container throughput in seaport container terminals of 9 was forecasted. This would result in an increase of 83 for the years 2008 to 2015, but this has never occured to that extent. Usually, companies are moving within the environment of buying, long-term leasing, short-term leasing and repair including the question where to bring in or phase out containers and manage empty container repositioning and usage (see, e.g., Stahlbock and Vo? (2010 ); Varshavets et al. (2013) ). These developments are associated with a spatial adjustment of production site locations and manufacturing structures. In this context, e.g., the cost structures in the global division of labor in manufacturing processes can change significantly, in particular with regard to work shares in the low-wage sector. Others see AM only in a niche role in logistics and do not expect a huge disruptive effect (see, e.g., Millar (2016) ). However, these changes might have a considerable influence in the future. These reshoring initiatives would aim at building up own production capacity again in the own country as well as keeping know-how. This reverse globalization would then result in a decreasing world-wide shipping of goods. In order to counteract decreasing freight rates and continued uncertainty in maritime transport, shipping lines form alliances or cooperative agreements ( Clott et al. 2018 ). On the other hand, the container vessel size is continually increasing to meet economies of scale at sea, but creating capacity and operating problems on the port-side ( Jeevan and Roso 2019 ). The size of the global shipping container fleet (standard containers) is not exactly known. There are no exact records because nobody is responsible for counting containers, but it was estimated in 2013 that about 34 million TEU Footnote 1 existed with approximately 93 dry containers, 6 reefers, and 1 tanks ( World Shipping Council 2019 ). A more elaborated estimate with some explicit and commented calculations is provided by Consultantsea Ltd. (2016 ), resulting in a total of 43 million shipping containers or approximately 72 million TEU (23 million shipping ’in service’ containers or 38.5 million TEU, 14 million ’ex-service’ shipping containers or 23.3 million TEU, 6 million ’new’ shipping containers or 10 million TEU). It is pointed out that many published estimations only consider ’in service’ containers. That might explain some distortions between all the circulating figures and estimations. In van Leeuwen (2016 ), the estimated total fleet in 2016 is 40 million TEU, or over 26 million individual units, whereas in Drewry Maritime Advisors (2017 ) the estimated number of containers is 20 million TEU in 2016. In relative terms, it is said that around 90 of the world trade (in terms of weight) is carried on seaways either by bulk carriers, tankers for liquids, or container vessels ( International Chamber of Shipping 2019 ). Sizes, types and construction of containers Up to the present, generally accepted principles have been developed with respect to outline dimensions, construction forms, and materials ( Strauch 2018 ): The ISO R-668 fixes the container dimensions to a width of 8 ft, a height of 8 ft (or even 8.5 ft ’standard’ and 9.5 ft ’high cube’), and a length of 20 ft, 40 ft or 45 ft. Footnote 2 The majority of containers complies with those ISO standards. Different construction forms like, e.g., open top, open side, flatrack for out-of-gauge cargo, or tanks for liquids exist. They reflect different interests of forwarders and ship-owners. As it would be beneficial for the ship-owner to transport only standard containers, it is necessary for the forwarder to use means of transport fitted to different types of goods, so that stacking is safer, quicker and, therefore, more economical. The basic frame, as the weight-bearing element of all standard containers, is made up of steel. Depending on the quality and planned lifespan, it consists of weathered, corrosion-resistant construction steel (COR-TEN) or of SPA-H (’superior atmospheric corrosion resistant steel’). The frame provides the stability and stacking capacity (see, e.g., Containerbasis (2016a )). However, the walls and the roof panel of the container are rarely faced with strains and contribute only to the protection of the goods inside. Due to the cost advantage of steel, 85 of the containers worldwide are made of steel. A plate on the container displays information about the used construction materials, which is important for later repair decisions ( Strauch 2018 ). The container floor is mostly made up of wood. Although the material is rather expensive, it offers the advantage of being more resistant and elastic which enables a cost-effective repair only in subdomains. A disadvantage exists in its open pores, which makes soiling and infestation of parasites occur more easily. Therefore, the wooden surfaces are impregnated or sealed, and the quarantine regulations of the country of destination can dictate certain rules for impregnation ( Transport-Informations-Service 2016a ). For safety reasons, the ISO sets minimum requirements to loading capacity and stackability. Stacking of at least six ISO containers of full maximum weight must be possible. In fact, up to 8 or 9 modern containers can be stacked. The approved stackability of each container is declared on its information plate ( Strauch 2018 ). Costs The costs of purchasing a container depend on the type and construction form. The price is related to the current price of steel, to supply and demand in the world market, as well as to the individual purchase conditions of each buyer. The price for a steel container was not constant over the years. In 2011, the average price for a 20 ft container was approximately 2,700 USD. In 2015, it was about 1,900 USD, in 2016 about 1,450 USD. KG 2017; Drewry Shipping Consultants 2018a ). Figure 3 shows data from July 2017 to February 2019. The fleet size of shipping companies increased by 2.4 whereas the leased fleet size increased with 6.7 so that lessors owned about 52 in total in 2017. This trend is going to continue. It is estimated that the lessors will own 54 by 2020 ( Drewry Shipping Consultants 2018b ). Similar figures are mentioned by Haralambides (2016) (about 50 are owned and managed by container leasing companies) and ( Poo and Yip 2019 ) (lessors own about 50 to 60 of the global container fleet). Shipping lines Footnote 3 regulate their container pool based on their current financial situation and their planned growth. Large companies handle a container stock of hundreds of thousands or even several million TEU (see, e.g., Hapag Lloyd AG (2019 )). Damage of a container Manufacturing equipment or any other product of a certain grade of quality and price should be or is designed and built to ensure successful operation through the anticipated service life. However, deterioration principally commences as soon as it is commissioned ( Muchiri et al. 2014 ). Like manufacturing equipment, containers can also be damaged for different reasons. One cause is material overstressing in which the container is folded or bent if the material characteristics are exceeded. Although the cargo inside of the container is mostly safeguarded by sufficient wedging at the horizontal level, the vertical component is entirely neglected ( Knott 2000 ). The vertical force component due to ship movements can reach values up to 2 g and is, therefore, substantially larger than the horizontal force component with values up to 0.8 g (see Fig. 4 ). Against regulation, heavy containers are placed on the top of the stack when it is planned to unload those before the lower stacked ones on the route. Due to the costs, the securing system has become downgraded over time with inferior components being used ( Knott 2000 ). This results in the risk that lower containers may shift or become clinched together. Furthermore, damages can be incurred due to varying outside temperatures during maritime transport among different climate zones. Finally, damages caused by human error can never be ruled out. Possible damage patterns are differentiated into scratches, buckles, cracks, breaks, and leaks ( Germanischer Lloyd 1978 ). All classified damages can differ, of course, in location, orientation, and degree and can effect walls, roof panels, floors, cross-rails, and side-rails, as well as corner posts. There is a lack of publicly accessable damage statistics for containers. According to ( Hjortnaes et al. 2017 ), failure rates for empty containers are high with 20 to 25 (based on Maersk Line data). In Fransoo and Lee (2013), it is calculated that a container was on average handled about 3.7 times in 2008 (including empty handlings; the authors divided the world container throughput of ports, 506 million TEU, by the worldwide containerized liner trade, 137 million TEU). Handling (picking, moving, delivering) means potential risk for container damages, i. e., the more often a container is moved the higher is the risk for damage of the container. However, some statements to the damage frequency may be derived from cargo claims. If the cargo is damaged, in most cases the container is damaged, too. For containerships, the frequency of all cargo claims increased from 8 in 2005 to 26 in 2014 for claims above USD 5,000. However, the frequency for claims below USD 5,000 decreased from 50 in 2005 to 33 in 2014. Table 1 provides an overview for frequencies per different loss codes, meaning different fractions, which are more or less related to container damages ( The Swedish Club 2016 ). The main figures above a frequency of 3 are presented (the shown percentages do not sum up to 100 because only partial data is presented). Large classification societies like ’Germanischer Lloyd’ developed repair recommendations for containers together with shipping companies, leasing societies and repair companies quite early. With these fundamental guidelines or de facto standards for repair, the safe and economic repair of a container should be guaranteed in terms of transport security, dimensional accuracy, weathertightness, and customs seal ( Germanischer Lloyd 1978; 1995 ). As a consequence, rusting, corrosion, buckling, or light scratches will not be classified as repair-requiring damages if the proper use of the container remains guaranteed. Heavier damages to the container, which do not permit the continued proper use of the container, require a mandatory repair, for which detailed instructions are described by Germanischer Lloyd (1978 ). As an exception, a density check is always performed for tank containers after an executed repair (see, e.g., Germanischer Lloyd ( 1978 ), ( 1995 )). There are other societies, companies or services such as ’DNV GL’ providing container certification for ensuring that containers meet requirements for safety, stability, and usability. Repair standards To sustainably grant a certain level of repair quality, it requires the consideration of both economic and security-technical aspects ( IICL Technology Committee 2000 ). To make this individual decision-making process as simple as possible, the following repair standards have been developed committing a trade-off between the lowest repair effort and the highest operational safety:On the 1st of November 1996, the 5th version of IICL was published and remained in place until the 1st of August 2016 when the updated 6th version with a few changes was released ( IICL-ICS 1996; Container Owners Association 2016 ). This standard is written in tabular form to provide a good overview and explains for every single part of the container how to perform a proper repair. Here, damages of a container are estimated according to their severity and differentiated between acceptable and unacceptable damages. The given tolerances in terms of deformation and buckles are chosen in a way that the container remains operational with the least amount of effort. This standard is also written in tabular form. Arranged according to assembly and written in tabular form as well, this standard gives an overview of different damages and respective repair recommendations without describing concrete repair procedures. Compared to the guideline in IICL 6, CIC has a higher damage tolerance. Overall, the aim of the harmonization approach was to enable shipping lines to benefit from an elimination of unnecessary repair resulting in reduced repair costs, and to provide a more environmentally friendly approach by reducing container handling. It was announced that starting with the IICL 6, the CIC would follow future updates and revisions adopted on the IICL inspection criteria (see, e.g., Container Owners Association (2016 ); IICL-ICS (2016 )). According to this arrangement, containers are checked in terms of their condition and operational safety which is then documented by issuing a CSC plate ( Germanischer Lloyd 1995 ). The CSC plate has a standardized structure (see Fig. 5 ) and is attached to every container ( Germanischer Lloyd 1995 ). Containers get the plate after their first classification, e.g., when new production series are approved and introduced.Therefore, the convention involves returning statutory audits comparable to the MOT test for motor vehicles. Every contracting state is responsible for having effective procedures in terms of examining, visiting, admitting and maintaining the container in a proper way and regulates these issues in its respective federal law. The plate for a new container is valid for 5 years at first. Afterwards, the plate’s validity can be extended by 30 months each time. A container with a valid CSC plate is supposed to be safe according to the convention ( Titan Group 2019 ). This program substitutes the fixed returning statutory audits according to the CSC. In this program, the members are obligated to check their containers in regular maintenance procedures independently and to perform repairs as may be necessary ( Strauch 2018 ). The evidence of a participation in this program is noted on the CSC plate (see Fig. 5 ). Due to the continuous control of the container, possible damages should be detected and removed earlier than in the usual fixed returning statutory audits ( Transport-Informations-Service 2016b ). Through this, the quality of the whole container fleet is influenced in a positive way and possible expensive repairs can be avoided in the future. If a container with an invalid CSC plate or improper application of an ACEP-note is still transported, the container owner will have committed an administrative offence and will incur a fine according to respective federal law. Used containers Used containers can be differentiated into four grades according to their condition. In general, the grade depends on the degree of damages. Table 2 shows the different criteria for each grade. Nowadays, the decision about where and how to repair the container is up to the owner and is more characterized by economic considerations. Thus, the lowest effort is always compared with a possible yield. In this context, a very interesting task for future research could be the formulation of an optimization problem deciding the place and time of repairing a damaged container (taking the model proposed by Hjortnaes et al. (2017) into account, which deals with the repositioning of damaged empty containers in order to reduce pollution, resources, and costs). At this stage, focusing on the following possible cases should be sufficient:After the repair these containers can be used with low profit margins at other locations again. Additionally, a reefer requires special handling because on top of physical and temperature-related damages also electrical damages can occur due to the electrical components responsible for cooling the container. Action must be taken immediately in such cases, because otherwise the goods will be harmed (e.g., nucleation in foods) ( Transport-Informations-Service 2016c ).The container is examined completely, and all damages are registered on the checklists. Special attention is paid to the floor of a container due to contamination, splintered wood or protruding nails, all of which can harm future cargo. If the estimate is accepted, the container owner or local agents will check (in about 60 of all cases) whether all damages listed in the cost forecast really exist and must be repaired necessarily according to a certain repair standard. The client is kept informed by daily status reports during the repair process ( Destefano 1983 ). Furthermore, an additional test can be recommended in some cases, e.g., after extensive repairs, before the repaired container is returned to the owner. There, safety factors compared with different failure types, e.g., material fatigue, are checked. The safety factors constitute minimum requirements for materials ( Germanischer Lloyd 1995 ). In general, responsibility and payment in the case of damage are directly connected, whereby it can sometimes be very difficult to definitively establish responsibility in a long logistic chain. Therefore, it is first decided following the exclusion principle which part of the logistic chain can be released from responsibility. Thus, it is narrowed down to who is (most likely) responsible ( Strauch 2018 ). To determine responsibility, the ’Equipment Interchange Receipt’ (EIR) is significant. This receipt shows the date, owner, container number, type, color, and the size of a container (usually written in English). Regarding reasons for responsibility, a visual test of the container for damages is performed at every interchange within the logistic chain. If a damage that is not already listed is detected during interchange, the repair cost for this damage must usually be paid by the one who has had the responsibility of the container before. It is assumed that the damage has happened during that time. However, sometimes the definite identification of the origin of the damage is possible due to certain circumstances, e.g., if goods inside of a container have not been loaded and secured in a proper way and the damage has occurred during transport. Naturally, there is the opportunity to insure the container against damages. With respect to container damages there are two commonly used insurance types to be distinguished. The differentiation depends on the viewpoint as to whether a container is merely packing material for goods (cargo insurance) or a good in itself and represents tangible value to the owner (container hull insurance) ( Strauch 2018 ). Damage prevention From the analysis of container damages, different ways of damage prevention can be deduced. The essential advantages of damage prevention are the smooth transport of the goods without complaints, the avoidance of high repair costs, and the reduction of the potential danger to people, goods, and vessels. The container side is an area with a huge damage potential which can be reduced preventively by always checking a container using a checklist before entering or leaving the container depot. A special focus should be given to containers with apparent repair signs.Test method: stand inside the container, close all doors tightly and examine for any light coming through cracks, holes, door gasket, etc. Wipe out all condensation or white frost to avoid corrosion and moisture damage to the cargo. However, the best developed stowing and stacking rules will not pay off in practice, if the rules wind up being used in the wrong way by a human being. Therefore, the professional training of staff is very important. This can involve, e.g., training programmes, workshops, or internet-based training videos ( IICL-ICS 2016 ), as well as Augmented Reality devices. The container on a vessel is affected by vertical and horizontal forces during transport. The vertical force can be absorbed by using cell guides (vertical guide rails) so that a container is only affected by the horizontal force.