2.4.2
Subcontractor von Tell GmbH, Hamburg /
von Tell Trading & Co. AB, Gothenburg

As with DIANA II the Yard had also subcontracted for VIKING SALLY the supply and installation of the hydraulic arrangements and locking devices of among other things the visor and bow ramp to von Tell GmbH, Sophienallee 24, Hamburg.

Von Tell GmbH, Hamburg was founded in 1963 by the main shareholder of von Tell Trading & Co. AB, Gothenburg, Mr. Dahlien, and the E. Rottmann KG, Hamburg. The company basically acted as sales office for von Tell Trading & Co. AB, Gothenburg which was then acting as design/ construction office and spare-part supplier for hydraulic installations, hatch covers and the like. Based on a respective contract von Tell GmbH, Hamburg was obliged to order everything which they were able to contract in Germany exclusively with von Tell Trading & Co. AB, Gothenburg. Accordingly the technicians of von Tell Trading & Co. AB worked out quotations, took part in technical discussions - also at Meyer Werft - and carried out all necessary calculations, furnished the respective drawings to the relevant Classification Society and Maritime Administration, obtained the required approvals, etc. Once the installation phase had commenced, it was the duty of von Tell GmbH, Hamburg among other things to make available to the Yard a qualified technician who assisted the Yard in all technical matters concerning the equipment supplied by von Tell and who, at the same time, took care that the parts supplied by von Tell were properly installed.

As to VIKING SALLY, Meyer Werft ordered under order no. 3344/79-S 590 dated 27 September 1979 among other things:

»1 Hydraulic Installation for One Bow Visor
The visor has an assumed weight of 56 mts and is moved by 2 directly acting hydraulic cylinders. The cylinders have to be fitted with flexible bearings to compensate possible misalignments. The lowering speed is to be adjusted by 2 throttle non-return valves, 2 ice-breaking cylinders support the opening procedure at the beginning and are softening the closing procedure at the end.
Locking of the closed visor shall be hydraulically. The system has to be constructed in such a way that the locking devices remain in locked position even if the hydraulic is switched off. Contact switches have to be fitted to the locking devices which activate the lamps at the control panel and on the bridge when the locking devices are in closed position. An additional device has to be supplied for the Atlantic lock. An hydraulically operated fixing device has to be fitted which will be engaged at the end of the opening procedure. The bow ramp has to be hydraulically interlocked against the visor.
Your extent of supply for this installation is as follows:
......................

You are further supplying the hydraulic and, as far as required, also the electrical wiring diagram for the above explained movements of the visor, including drawings showing arrangements of hydraulic cylinders and locking devices, whereby the loads to be absorbed by vessel's construction have to be stated. At non-accessible locations or at locations accessible only with difficulties, automatic oil nipples have to be fitted.
.................

The above price includes the furnishing of 1 technician for structural engineering for 35 days at normal working time and travelling to the yard and back home. Further the furnishing of 1 technician free of charge for inspection and adjustment of the installation.«

The complete order no. 3344/79 - S 590 is attached as Enclosure 2.4.2.20.

Within the agreed time frame von Tell supplied the required drawings to the Bureau Veritas plan approval office in Hamburg as well as to the Yard and also supplied the ordered material to the Yard for installation.

The installations as such were supervised by two technicians on behalf of von Tell, i.e. Günther Todsen, an employee of HDW-Kiel, who was leased by von Tell whenever required, and Herbert Brand from von Tell Trading & Co. AB, Gothenburg. As the major part of the supervision was carried out by Todsen, his statement has been taken and is attached as Enclosure 2.4.2.21 together with an office translation. It explains in detail the installation of the visor hinges and locking devices up to the final acceptance of the visor documented by the so-called Receipt or Transfer Certificate signed by representatives of the owners, B.V., the shipyard, and von Tell (Enclosure 2.4.2.22). Consequently the following might be concluded:

According to Purchase Order No. 3344/79-S 590 dated 27.09.79, page 3, third paragraph, von Tell had to supply among other things:

».... also the control scheme for the above described movements of the bow visor including drawings showing positioning of the hydraulic cylinder and locking devices also quoting the loads to be absorbed by vessel's construction.«

As far as can be reconstructed von Tell calculated the loads developing during the opening and closing of visor and also the loads on the locking devices to be absorbed by vessel's construction.

These were apparently submitted by von Tell AB, Gothenburg to and discussed with the Bureau Veritas Hamburg office (see telex von Tell AB, Gothenburg to BV-Hamburg dated 18.03.80 - Enclosure 2.4.2.23).

In addition, the Yard made its own calculations to ascertain the load requirements for the locking devices and hinges of the visor, which were subsequently submitted to von Tell and obviously approved by them (see Enclosure 2.4.2.24 - 4 pages).

Since the then applicable B.V. Rules did not contain requirements for the calculation of sea-loads on visors, the Yard used the "pressure heights" stated in the so-called "Note Documentaire" issued by B.V. on 05.04.1976 for these load calculations.

The visor loads assumed in the calculations as well as the way of calculating the loads to be distributed to the fixing points of the visor were, however, in agreement with assumed loads and calculation methods applied at that time by other Classification Societies.

As far as it could be determined, the design load calculations were made by von Tell AB, Gothenburg, on the basis of the Lloyd's Register requirements, the results were submitted to BV-Hamburg (see Enclosure 2.4.2.23 - telex von Tell AB, Gothenburg to BV-Hamburg dated 18.03.80) and finally approved. It has not been possible to establish with certainty whether the calculations made by the design office of the Yard were submitted also to B.V. for examination because these calculations were just carried out as a sort of internal control of what the subcontractor von Tell had calculated. This is part of the standard procedure at Meyer Werft. As there is no date on any of the 4 sheets of the Yard's calculations, it is unknown whether these calculations actually reflect the last stage.

Also a recent check of what is left in the old von Tell AB files has only revealed that the respective folders with the calculations for the visor locking devices for both DIANA II and VIKING SALLY are empty. The memo concerning this file check is attached as Enclosure 2.4.2.25.

The development of the locking devices of the visor from design to production and assembly on board shall be made clear by explaining in detail the sequence of events from the design in Gothenburg to the production and assembly in Papenburg. When evaluating the comments stated below it should be borne in mind that they are based on the interviews of

- Karsten and Dieter Rottmann - von Tell GmbH, Hamburg (then von Tell AB, Gothenburg, sales office for Germany),
- Günther Todsen - von Tell representative,
- Günther Lohmann - Bureau Veritas surveyor,
- Eng. Lars Karlsson - Coordinator of owners' superintendent during new-building phase and subsequently chief engineer on board VIKING SALLY, SILJA STAR and WASA KING until 30.04.1992, i.e. for 12 years;
- Managers, foremen, fitters, and welders of the Yard responsible for: design and load calculations, shipyard drawings, distribution of von Tell and Yard drawings to the project manager, managers and foremen of different workshops and production areas of the vessel;
- Quality control and available documentation.

The result is summarised as follows:
A. von Tell AB, Gothenburg

- performed load calculations on basis of L.R. Rules requirements;
- submitted calculation results, i.e. load requirements to BV-Hamburg office for approval;
- obviously such approval was obtained after some discussions concerning cross-sections, number and arrangement of lugs, dimension and type of steel of bolt, etc., and von Tell AB, Gothenburg designed the locking devices accordingly;
- made drawings, large and in detail and sent them to von Tell GmbH, Hamburg;
- visited the Yard in addition to services rendered by their Hamburg office as found necessary.

B. von Tell GmbH, Hamburg

- submitted drawings received from Gothenburg to BV-Hamburg office for approval;
- submitted 2nd set to Yard for production;
- submitted 3rd set to von Tell representative G.Todsen for information and control;
- furnished the services of their representative G.Todsen to the Yard on basis of a separate contract, whereby Todsen rendered every assistance to the Yard in respect of building and assembly of the structural elements until final acceptance by owners, Classification Society, F.B.N.;
- regularly visited the Yard and subsequently reported to Gothenburg.

C. Meyer Werft

- performed own load calculations to ascertain that locking devices to be installed had sufficient strength;
- compared von Tell design requirements with own results;
- transferred the von Tell design requirements into vessel's structure, i.e. incorporated von Tell design requirements into the respective load calculations and constructions for the structural surrounding;
- submitted respective drawings to B.V. for approval and obtained such approval;
- distributed respective drawings, where necessary in detail, called 'sketches', to the project manager of the vessel to be built, to the department heads responsible for the different parts to be built respectively installed, to the fitters and foremen of the different workshops and on board.

D. Welding Seams

The von Tell detail drawings contain remarks about the welding seam thickness in general or in reference to particular parts to be welded. The Yard drawings do not contain such remarks as to the thickness of welding seams for the following reasons:

1.) Meyer Werft designers do not state the required thickness of welding seams individually on the respective drawings, but draw up a so-called "welding table" for each newbuilding. In this table the minimum thickness of welding seams for particular structural parts is stated. The table is approved by the Classification Society and available to all welders/foremen.
2.) In case the particular structural part to be welded does not fall under the categories listed in the welding table, the welder follows the Yard's general welding standard.
3.) The Yard's general welding standard requires for the welding of structural parts, accessible from both sides, a seam thickness of minimum fifty to seventy per cent of the thickness of the part to be welded. This assures that the structural part to be welded to another part is connected by welding seams with a thickness of at least 100% of its own cross-section. As to the welding seams connecting the bushings with the lugs of the Atlantic lock on the forepeak deck they were 7-8 mm thick on each side because the thickness of the lugs was 15 mm.

E. Production

As far as the locking devices and the hinges of the visor are concerned the line of production was:

1.) 1:10 shop:
Based on the original drawings, 1:10 scaled "burning sketches" were made and fed into the photo-electric scanner steering the cutting machine, which subsequently cut-out lugs for Atlantic lock, hinge plates and side locks, which thereafter were transported to the locksmith shop. Atlantic lock lugs were 15 mm and 60 mm, side locks and hinge plates 60 mm. The parts of lugs and hinge plates subsequently to be welded to the vessel's structure were oversized.

2.) Locksmith shop:
Holes with diameters according to drawings supplied were drilled into lugs and hinge plates, and transported to the

3.) Welders shop:
One bushing supplied by von Tell was welded into the centre and port lugs, and another smaller bushing was welded into the starboard lug supported by a bracket. Both bushings were welded into the lugs by means of 7-8 mm seams from both sides in accordance with Yard standard and according to the von Tell drawings whilst the lugs were lying flat. Performance was closely supervised by the von Tell representative G.Todsen, who specifically stated that he would never have accepted the 3 mm welds visible on the pictures showing the remains of the Atlantic lugs after the casualty.

After welding the parts were again transported to the locksmith shop for cleaning and grinding of the welds.

4.) Fitting on board:
After the visor had been properly adjusted and fitted to its hinges, the lugs of the Atlantic lock were adjusted by cutting off the oversize part as required to obtain alignment with the hydraulic cylinder and closing bolt, and, also with the big visor lug.
Welding of the lugs and the supporting plates (also 15 mm) carrying the hydraulic cylinder was performed by 7-8 mm seams at each side according to the testimony of the welder and his foreman, which is confirmed by the von Tell representative G.Todsen. For further details please see 2.4.6. below.

F. Acceptance

According to the attached pages 5a), 7, and 9 (Enclosure 2.4.2.26) of the time schedule concerning the final building phase of VIKING SALLY the following remarks regarding the bow visor are of relevance:

 

Checking and testing of the bow visor, its functions, and watertightness is further confirmed by the "Receipt or Transfer Certificate" dated 20.06.80,

 

(Enclosure 2.4.2.22)

Based on the above it has to be concluded that the welds connecting the bushings with the lugs of the Atlantic lock were made full load-carrying joints by using appropriate manufacturing techniques, and that therefore the load carrying cross-section of this locking device did satisfy the applied design and was incorporated into the actual installation.

It furthermore has to be concluded that based on the above outlined evidence the ca. 3 mm welds visible on the remains of the Atlantic lugs do not originate from the Meyer Werft production and must have been laid at some later occasion.

As stated above, the order from Meyer Werft to von Tell GmbH, Hamburg is dated 27 September 1979. As the relevant parts of the visor and bow ramp were meant to be identical to the DIANA II design, the first drawings were ready at an early stage and sent by von Tell AB, Gothenburg to von Tell GmbH, Hamburg and from there to the BV-Hamburg office for approval and to the Yard for subsequent production.

Thus the von Tell drawing 49111-330 - 'General Arrangement of Visor and Bow Ramp' - was already approved by B.V. on 5 November 1979, however, with the following remarks in red handwriting:

"Arrangement of locking devices subject to the approval of the National Authorities."
(The other remarks will be dealt with in the following chapter.)

Due to this remark von Tell AB wrote to the Finnish Sjöfartsstyrelsen (F.B.N.) on the 14 December 1979 informing them about the newbuilding and requesting details of the drawings to be submitted for approval. (Enclosure 2.4.2.27.)

F.B.N. replied that they assumed that B.V. would examine the drawings of, among other things, the visor and bow ramp and that only in case the Classification Society should be in doubt about the interpretation of the SOLAS Convention details by F.B.N. should drawings be sent to their office. In such case the problem should be clearly defined.

It is not exactly known what von Tell AB did as a result of these comments from F.B.N. In any event, according to the F.B.N. there was no more correspondence in this respect in their files.

It has, however, to be assumed that von Tell AB spoke thereafter to B.V. Hamburg, who apparently were prepared to do the approval of the locking devices as well as of the surrounding ship construction. This is confirmed by the exchange of communication between von Tell AB / von Tell GmbH / BV-Hamburg as stated below:

(1) Telex von Tell AB / BV-Hamburg dated 18.03.80:
»attn. mr. desouza// we refer to phone conversation with mr desouza. in lack of B.V. rules we have used the LR rules and got
total horizontal force abt 230 tonnes
total vertical force abt 470 tonnes
we have calculated with the two side cleatings and the atlantic securing device and will then have a load of abt 80 tonne for each device. // calculated shear stress will be 800 kp/cm2 and bending stress 2400 kp/cm2. // we think we are slightly above the stress permitted by LR and we could change the present steel with min breaking strength of 50 kp/mm2 to a material with a breaking strength of 90 kp/mm2. please advise++ regards // von tell // a eriksson«

Note: For clarification purposes attention has to be drawn to the following:

1 kp/cm² = 0,1 N/mm²
1 kp/mm² = 10 N/mm²

(2) von Tell AB/ von Tell GmbH on 24.03.80:
»According to Desouza the yard is using 20 mm instead of 60 mm lugs as required by us. Have spoken to Desouza who will come back with his final wishes tomorrow.«

(3) von Tell GmbH / von Tell AB on 28.03.80:
»Have visited the yard on 26.03.80. BV requires strengthening of locking devices of bow visor. The yard is not convinced that the class requirement has to be complied with. It has to be borne in mind that upon strengthening the bolts to ST 90 the then necessary strengthening of lugs cannot be carried out. Your statement that the yard is using 20 mm instead of 60 mm lugs is not understandable. The yards states to use 60 mm lugs. In case the bolts should be changed to ST 90 the yard is afraid that the lugs will have to be changed to 120 mm and more, which in regard to the connection to the vessel is anyway not possible.
In case the class should insist on the strengthening the yard is of the opinion that von Tell should bear the extra costs. It would thus in any event be useful to change the class's opinion.«

(4) von Tell AB/ von Tell GmbH on 08.04.80:
»Have spoken to Desouza. Our locking bolts are sufficient as well as our other parts. He has requested drawings of the surrounding from the yard and is as yet unable to state whether alterations shall be necessary.«

(5) von Tell GmbH/ von Tell AB on 10.04.80:
»Desouza is requesting drawings 372/2 and 373/2. Ok?«

Gothenburg gave green light and he got the drawings.

Note: Both drawings are detail drawings showing enlarged details of the master drawings 49111-372 resp. 373, for production purposes, i.e. 372/2 shows the bushing of the hydraulic side locks in detail (see Enclosure 2.4.2.28) and 373/2 the bushing of the Atlantic lock to be fitted between the port and centre lugs (Enclosure 2.4.2.29). Thereby it turns out that 373/2 is obviously the same as 372/2, i.e. the bushings of the Atlantic lock and the side locks have the same dimensions and are of the same steel quality.

(6) von Tell GmbH / von Tell AB on 11.04.80:
»Have visited the yard and spoken to Desouza. BV is not pre-pared to follow the tightened up requirements of Germanischer Lloyd. Lloyd's Register is said to have taken over the tightened up requirements of GL without own research, whilst BV is of the opinion that the GL calculations contain elements which have to be considered in a different way.«

Apparently Desouza was satisfied after the final checks and submission of the requested additional drawing because von Tell AB completed the drawings 372 and 373 and did send them to BV-Hamburg for approval by letter of 20.04.1980, whilst the drawings were sent back - with remarks - only by letter of 02.07.1980 - See Enclosure 2.4.2.30 and Subchapter 2.4.3 - where these remarks are being discussed.

G. Manuals

Finally it should be mentioned that von Tell provided the vessel with a Manual containing :

OPERATION INSTRUCTIONS
SPARE PARTS
SPECIFICATION HYDRAULIC CYLINDERS

for, among other things, the bow visor and the bow ramp, which is attached as Enclosure 2.4.2.31.

Attention is drawn to the extracts from the Manual stated below which are of relevance to the investigation and refer to the visor/bow ramp.

> BOW VISOR :

• CONSTRUCTION:

  »The visor has a weight of abt 54.5 tons and forms the (watertight) W.T. front closure of the ship. The bow visor is pivoted at the upper deck. It opens in upward direction.«

• MAINTENANCE :

  »Under circumstances when temperature reaches 0°C or below check that the limit switches and other equipment on weather deck are not getting covered with ice.«
  Conclusion:
  According to the manual the inside of the visor was to be kept watertight, i.e. in the same condition it had been delivered by the yard. The same refers to the remark that the limit switches should not be covered by ice (limit switches = sensors of Atlantic lock).

• RUBBER PACKINGS :

  »The rubber packings should be treated with Tellin or similar mixture containing graphite and tallow in order to reduce the wear of the rubber. When a defect rubber packing is going to be replaced the packing channel has to be sufficiently cleaned before the new packing is fitted with glue. von Tell UK 2 glue or glue of the same quality has to be used. In closed position the rubber packing is compressed by the sole weight of the bow visor. The rubber packing is fixed with bolts.«
  Conclusion:
  According to the manual rubber packings should be maintained in good condition, i.e. treated with Tellin or grease to reduce wear and, if nevertheless damaged, the packing elements should be replaced to ensure watertightness, in particular in winter.

• LOCKING DEVICE :

  »In closed position the visor is locked by two locking pins which are operated by one hydraulic cylinder each. As a reserve the visor can also be locked by two manually operated locking devices. There is also one hydraulic operated "atlantic locking device".
  In open position the bow visor is locked by 2 locking pins which are hydraulic operated with one hydraulic cylinder each.«
  Conclusion:
  Attention is drawn to the 2 manually operated locking devices - called "reserve" - which might be used in addition to the hydraulically operated locking pins and the Atlantic lock.
  Note:
  Representatives of von Tell, Hamburg have explained that "reserve" has to be understood as "additional", i.e. these manual securings should be used in heavy weather as "additional" locks.