Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    PIANC Journal 142 Jan2011 Briggs Squat

    Uploaded by

    Scribd1427
    Ship Squat Navigation waterways

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    PIANC Journal 142 Jan2011 Briggs Squat

    Uploaded by

    Scribd1427
    49 views12 pages
    Ship Squat Navigation waterways

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ship Squat Navigation waterways

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    49 views12 pages

    PIANC Journal 142 Jan2011 Briggs Squat

    Uploaded by

    Scribd1427
    Ship Squat Navigation waterways

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 12
    SENSITIVITY OF PIANC SHIP SQUAT FORMULAS IN UNRESTRICTED CHANNELS »y McHAEL J. BRIGGS PhO, PE, DE, D.OF, Research Hyraulc Engineer Coast ar Hyéauies Later US Army Enger Restate and evelopment Conte ‘3009 Halt Fory Ra, CEERD-HN ech ce Poconos Stes ‘hip squat. PIANC emptica formulas, under-koa Clearance, deep craft navigation, sensitivity study, ‘nested enranoa channels MOTS-CLEFS. ‘suranfoncoment do naviro, famules empiriques navigation avec un 4. INTRODUCTION PIANC has many empiieal formulas fr pedt- Ing ship squat in entrance channels. Some ofthe most widely used are by Barass (2008), Eryx ‘tal (1984), Huuska (1876), Risch (1889) and ‘Yoshimura (1986). Those formulas aro based on Imited laboratory and els measurement, but re Used forthe newer generaton of larger tankers, Containerships and bulk carers. Mest are func ‘ons of a bmted numberof ship and channel ps ramatersin anor to minmase the number ot Foe rameters and increase the eae of Use. Typcal Ship parameters Include ship speed V, (ot), block cosficient C, and ship dimensions oflngth between perpendicularsL beam B and draught T. Ship speed is speed lave tothe water and Is one ofthe most important parameters, as one ‘can usually slow down to reduce squat Channa parameter incude water dept type of channel {ros-secton A, side slope n and bottom chan- nel with W. Channel types are unrestricted (U) 2 trench and canal (C) with sides that extend to ‘he surface. Symbols are defined in Appondhx 8 No ano formula works best fr all ypes of vos: ‘sal nal yes of channels. Thus, tis necessary {o examine the squat predictions with more than ‘one formula aed compare the results based onthe ‘ype ef ship. channel and formula constants. |when pecorming deslgn analysis for ship squat, ‘many ship and channel parameters ae not known ‘with ceri. Chanel cross soctons and cmon Sons ean vary considerably along the length of the channel and are usualy not as simple a the thvoe idealised shapes. The C, is often Justa best ‘estimate based on the ship displacement and d- mensions, since ship bulders do nt usualy ro lease ths proprietary information, In this paper, 2 sonstvty analysis for the ve PIANC squat formulas listed above is performed (on th effect of ship spood, draught, block coet- {clent and water depth or an unrestricted or open channol cross-section. These squat results are ‘recente fr ful ad condtons forthe post Pan ‘max Susan Maersk containership in an entrance ‘channel similar tothe Por of Savannah. Adaton ‘al sonstvty comparisons for rested and canal ‘channel ypes were presented by riggs (2000) “The fist secon inthis paper describes the Pot of Savannah entrance channel andthe Susan Maersk ‘ontainership. The next section desorbes the PIANC empirical squat formulas Dota ofthese for mls ae contained in Appendix A. The sensty 413 PIANC E-Magazine n 142, Janvarylanier 2047 study organisation and constraints are described Inthe next section, Finally, results and dscussion are presened in the ast secton. 2. SHIP AND CHANNEL PARAMETERS 24 Portof Savannah, Georgia ‘The Portof Savannah, Georgia, planning for fi ture accommodation of newer and larger design vessels. The outer rach of this enzance channel is subject to waves, has a length of 14 nm and a with varying rom 173 to 240 m. tis planned to Increase the existing depth fom 13.4 to 15.2 [MLLW. Harbour lots wal continuo to take advan- {age ofthe 11 m high tie and overdredge alow ‘ance, as necessary, fo accommodate larger craft ships. The ofshore 5.8 nm section canbe repe- sented ae an unrestricted channel crose-section 2.2 Susan Maersk Containership ‘The doco afr pot a ne pot Param Susan Mork contaersip (Pur). kas ompltd in 1007 wi a TEU copay of 8680 Sed along vera a of 347 mT fliyloaed Shiphas an = 39184, B= 420m P= 14s man, 085.Iypial sip speeds V cabo fastos {4 sin ne ctr chanel. Belgn der ot cearance(UKC) i 12 min the oer con nal Note tht UKE 0 sed in is paper means tron under koa! arance ands equvalert © the prjet dnt mana the sp drut ‘Figur 1: Susan Maersk containrship iw Containernto) PANG E Magazine” 42, smuayfanvir 201 414 3. PIANC SQUAT FORMULAS. In 1987, PIANC Working Group 30 (W330) in- ‘ded leven empincal squat formulas in thar ‘design guidance for deep daft channels. n 2008, PIANC: G49 was formed to Update the WG30 report on ‘Horizontal and Vercal Dimensions of Falways. WG89 consists of representatives from ‘woWve counties and isin the process of updat- ing this guidance. Curent thinking ito reduce the ‘number ofthese squat formulas fo seven that are the most ‘user indy and ‘popular in the doo raft navigation community. Five ofthese squat formulas are evatited in this paper They inide those of Barrass (2008), Exyuru et a. (1994), Huuska (1976), Romisch (1889) and Yoshimura (1906) Briggs (2006) programmed these formulas Ina FORTRAN program and Biggs etal (2010) ‘provided updates based onthe WG49 recommen Salons Historically, maximum squat S,. occured atthe bow (S,), especialy fr fulfotm ships such as, tankers: For newer, more slander fn-form ship, ‘uch 0 containers and passenger Inors ‘Sig, sometimes occurs at tho stom (Ss) Allo the PIRNC formulas give predictions of S,, atthe bow a stom, but anly th ROmisch mated gives Protons for S, forall channel (yes. Barras (ves S, for unrestricted channels and for canals ‘nd resvites channels, depending on te valve (fC, According to Barass, tho valve of C, dotor- ‘mings whethor the maximum squats atthe bow (oF stom, Barras notes that fullform ships it {G,> 07 tend to squat bythe bow and fie-orm shipe wit C, <07 tend 10 squat by the ster, The ,=07 isan everoe situation wth maximum suat the same at both bow and stem. Rémisch as an equivalent rule of thumb’ on the locaton of ‘maximum squat, since he proposes that. ship wil ‘squat by the Bow fC >0.1L,/B, For the Susan, “Macrsi this would occur for C"> 0.77. Therefore, ‘one might expect the Susan Maersk to squat by the stem sinoe her G, i less than 0.70 to 0.77 In these senstivly comparsons. Of cours, for channel design, one is manly interested in the ‘maximum squat and not necossaly whether is {the bow of stom. Thus, researchers often use ‘lof the formulas and report maximum squat. ‘The formulas fr an unrestricted channel appica- tion ae contained in Appendbx A. Barassis on Rs fourt teraon of ship squat formulas. The one in this paper [Barass 2004 ; Barras 2002} Is con- sited his hire version and scale 83 for sim pllty His formulas are relatively straight-forward fand eany to use, Stocks etal (2002) found that the B3-formulas gave the best results for New and Traiional Lakers inthe unrestricted portions of the St Lawrence Seaway, The Exyuziu etal. (1994) ‘squat formula s based on laboratory experments. ‘Athough thas some serious constants (6. Cy> 0.8), tis used exclusively bythe Canadian Coast ‘Guard (2001). Therefore its included here even though the C, constraint is technically excoeded. itis refered fo a6 'E2. The Huuska (1976) and Guliev (1871) squat formula is refered to 38 the "HG forma, The HG i dental tothe ICORELS formula in uneesticted channels and is used clusively in German waterways ofthis type. The Spanish Rlecommendatons for Maria Works [Puertos del Estado, 1999] andthe Finnish Mar- {ime Administration [FMA 2005, Sika 2007] use the HG foal tree cnannel types. Remisch (1980) 81010) and side ‘lope n (9. > 20 to $0) ae large enough, then '2U channel is appropriate fr this channel reach. ‘The Base Case values are used asthe standard for comparison since they match many ofthe ship ‘and channel characteris, Fermala Symbot | Barrass | Eryuzia | Huwska/Gullev | Romisch | Voskimu | s| 2) | aie) «ey | 02) [ = Yes [Yer Yes = Yes Yer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes_[ Yer ‘Channel Parameters hve [Ye | Ye [Ve [ver ny £ = ‘Yes [Yes [Yes ‘Yes Tablet: Relovant Inout Parametors in PIANC Squat Farmulas 418 PIANC E-Magazine n° 142, Januaryanier 2011 the bow pradictions and were usd inthis study in ‘comparison wah the other tree formulas. 5, RESULTS Parameter Maximum Gy 070 WE. 130 te is Table 2: Sonstvty Analysis Parametors The range of C, was solected to match typical standard deviations of G, for contaierships [Ont = 005 i equivalent to ‘an 8 % change in Cy. Sco its known that most Containerships squat by the ster, the maximum value of , = 0.70 was selected to stay within the Barrass threshold. The dopih-o-raught ratios 277 roprosent typical values of UKC for entrance ‘channels, with IVT = 1.20 an aocopted vale for ‘ficient navigation. Note thatthe AT = 1.4, 1.2 ‘and 1.3 corespond wih UKC =1.5,29.and 4.3m fospectvely The sh/T = 0.10 i equivalent to an {8% chango in WT. Tho range of ship speeds V, Includes fypieal contanership speeds in entrance channels. The AV, = 5 Ks represents 250 % ‘change in ship pel rm the Rasa Cae {As stated previously according to Barrass and Remisch, ships wit C, <07 10 0.77 wil tend to ‘Squat by the stom. Therefore, the stom S, squat rodetions of B3 and Rt were always largor than Hp er es entbe sem mene ora oat ‘The results section is divided nto presentations and discussions of predicted maximum squat S,, for each ofthe fve PIANC formulas. Results ih this section ae for analysis of C,h/T and V, na Iv =120) a6 a function of V.Atbough AV, = 5 ts, afer increment of 1 kts used inthe pols to show the fer detal and resolution due to ship speed although some plots only show symbols for every other pont o minimise citer. The Bar ass predictons were the largest and Romisch the ‘malt, withthe cthor too in tho middle. The S,.vaia from a low of about 0.1 m toa high Val of almost 1.5 m, This example Is typical of the equat formulas as there is usualy at of vari ation in the predicbons. Thus, tis recommended {o.examine the squat predictions with more than ‘one formula aed compare tho results based on the ‘3pe of ship an formula constant 5.1 Barrass (63) Figure 3 shows the effect of ©, on the Barrass storm squat, a /T=1.20 forthe range of hip 10 Ve tte 18 ‘Figure 2: Base Case Maximum Squat for Susan Maersk Containership [PANG EMapatne 142, Jaman 2011 4 speeds. Even hough shown at 1/T=1.20, the BS Predictions are not afecod by WT, as they are the ‘same for all VT (see Append A. This due to the fact thatthe A rato fs not explyinctuded Inthe 6 formula Both h and Tare nclded inthe ' blockage factor but the values of are not a. towed to excaed the tweshold valves of 01's $< (0.25. Table 3 ists the porcatage variation in Sy, from the Base Case valu at C, = 0.65 for each ship speed. 5.2 Eryuzlu (€2) Figure 4 shows the effect of f/T on the Eryualy ‘dopondent on Cs tis the Eame for any Cy, This Is due to the fact that tis not expicy included in the E2 formula (see Appendix A). The percentage Variation inS, rom the Base Case value at T= 112s again ised in Tabo 3. [Effect of C, on Barrass Squat A/T] on 0 8 Figure 3: fect of Gon Barrass Stem Squat in Uresticted Channel, all /T pe on oo 5 Effect of f/Ton Eryuzlu Squat, AC, Figure 4: Elect of WT on Eryuly Squat in Unrestricted Chane all, 17. PIANC E Magni 2; ari 2A 5.3 Huuska (HG) LUnike the 6 and £2 predictions, the Huuskal Guile squat Sq predictions ae functions ofboth (and A/T. Figure 6 has five curves that ius- tre these effects on the S, forthe range of hip speeds. The inner twee curves 2,3 and 4 show the infuenc of C, fora fxadh/T = 1.2 (rd ines ‘and square symbols}. The outer tree curves 1, 3 and 5 (soi lines and symbols) usta the of {ect of WT ata fixes C, = 065. Tabe 3 lts tho percentage variation in, predict fr al ship Speeds relative to the Babe Case valves at C, = (065 and WT= 1.2. Formats ‘Ship Speed (kis) 5 1s BS $a %| 8% 6% 5% 2 3% 9% [3 HG Ri 5% Woes 1 Negative sign is decrease or reduction from Base Case ‘Table 3: Senstivty Resuts for Unrestricted Channel Figure 5: Ect of C, and hvT on Huuska Squat in Unrestricted Channel PIANC E-Magazine nt 142, Janvaryianvier 2011 48 5.4 Romiseh Romisch stom squat Sis function of WT only ‘and is shown In Figur'6. Ths fgur Is siiar to Fiure 4 for Eryuzlu, with three curves shown fr , = 085. The percentage vat-aton in Se ‘ction forall ship speeds relative to the Base Case vais aC, = 0.65 are ste in Table 3 5.5 Yoshimura (¥2) ‘The Yoshimura squat S,, 1 a function of bth C, ‘and A/T, same as Huuska/Gulev. Figur 7 is simit Taro Figure 5, wth § curves for S,, Curves 2,3 ‘and 4 show th variation inS, a8 a function of C, fora ied 1/T= 12. The oflectof Tis again tis: trated by curves 1,3. and 5 with the sob ines and ‘symbols. Tabo 3 iss tho percentage variation In ‘Sy folaive to the Base Case values at C,=0.65 {of al twee ship speeds Effect of hon Romisch Squat, Al Cy Figure 6: Efect of tT on Résmisch Stern Squat in Unrestricted Channel aC, Effect of Cand iT on Yoshimura Squat Figure 7: fect of C, and h/T on Yoshimura Squat in Unrestricted Channel 49. PIANC E-Magazine n* 142, Januaryljanvier 2017 9 PIANC E-Magazine n° 142, January/anvier 2011, 6. DISCUSSION ‘The Barrass prcicions aro not afectod by VT ‘since this parameter isnot expt included nis. formula. Th effec of changes in C, on proditod stor squats approximataly 1 to 1. The predicted ‘stor squat increased or decreased by 8 % a8 Cy Increases or decreased by 8% (Le. AC, = 0.05) ‘The Eryuu squat predictons are not dependent on Gy, The fect of 8% changes in h/T (0. ANT ‘is approximatly 1 to ton the squat precic- tions, A deerease of 8% In IVT reuls In an in crease in squat of approximately 8% anda sii crease in squat for an increase in VT. ‘The Huuska/Gule squat predictions are functions of C, and 97. Again, changes in C, result near 440 changes in predictions. An 8 % decrease or Increase in C, datroases or increases squat pr ‘cons by approximately 8 % fr all tee ship speeds. Changes in are sigh larger or fixed C, =065, Adecrease in WT 10 1-1 for shallower pins causes an increase in predicted squat of ‘10 12% forthe tvwe ship spoode, Sm, an Increase in fT to 1.3 for deeper channels gives 28 decrease in squat of 8 to 10% as a function of ship speed The Romisch stom squat radictions are not af fected by C,, since C, isnot included in his str formula, Detroases ih channel depth to WT = 81 resuls in 0 Yo 14% increases In stom squat pr ‘ction as ship speed increases from 5 to 15 Ks. Increasing UKC to h/T= 1.3 resus in decreases Instem squat of 10 11%, “Tho Yoshimura squat predctons are affected by both G, and A/T. Again, changes in C, produce neatly Mental changes (Le. 1:1) n sql proc. ‘Hons, A decrease of 8% in C, from 0.65 to 0.60 results in decreases of 8 10 9 %. Sima, an in ‘roase of 8% to C= 0.70, causes an increase in Predicted squat of o 9%. Decraasing th chan- ol depth by 8% to WT = 1.1 causes an Increase in squat precios of approximately 7% fr the {tree ship spoods. LkaWso, increases in depth to N/T= 1.3 loads to reductions of 4 8% fora ship specds, In summary, al five squat formulas give reason ‘able predictions, but the user needs to be aware 20 ‘ofthe tots of uncertainties inthe input variables, No one formula sooms to give consstontybettor ‘estimates than the ther. Many counts and re- ‘searchers have favourite’ that they are comfort ‘able wih using. My recommendation Iso use an ‘veraga ofall fve ith knowledge of mama ‘squat predictions and possible constraint viola: {ions de to type of channel or sip 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ‘Tho author wishes to acknowledge the Head quarters and the US Amy Corps of Engineers {or authorsing the publication ofthis paper The ‘squat formulas in his paper are updates from the PIANC WG30 report that will bo reporiad and ocumonted in the new WG49 report. Paricular thanks goto Wibur Wiggins (CESAW) and Capt ‘Steven Carmel (Maersk Stigping) for supplying Information on the Savannah entrance channel ‘and Susan Maersk contanershp 8. REFERENCES ‘warass, C. (20): “Shp Squat — A Gude Yor Masters", Private report, vi sp-sk com Barass, CB. (2004): “Thity-Two Years of Re- search into Ship Squat’, Squat Workshop 2004, EstetOldenburg, Germany ‘Barass, C8. (2007): "Ship Squat and interaction for Masters” Private Report, wan shipsiual cam, Briggs, MJ. (2006) “Ship Squat Predictions for ‘Ship/Tow Simulator, Coastal and Hysrau-os En- ‘neering Technica Note CHETNGL-72, US. Army Engineer Researen and Development Canter Vicksburg, MS, hip lchiwos srmymUbrany ublcatinsichet. ‘riggs, MJ. (2008): “Sensitivity Study of PIANC ‘ShipSquaiFormulas,nteratonalConferenceon ‘Ship Manoeuvring in Shalow and Confined Water: ‘Bank Elects, Antwerp, Belgium, May 19-15, 57-67, Briggs, MJ, Vantore, M, Ulezka, K and Debal- Jon, P (2010) “Chaper 26: Prediction of Squat for UUndertee! Clearance” Handbook of Coastal and ‘Ocean Engineering, Word Scientific Publishers, Singapore, 723-774 Canadian Coast Guard (2001): “Safe Waterways (A Users Guide to the Design, Maintenance and Safe Use of Waterways), Pat 1(a) Guideines for the Safe Design of Commercial Shipping Chan- nol, Sofware User Manual Version 3.0, Wa- tonvays. Development Division, Fisheries and ‘Oceans Canada, Enyzu, NE., Cao, VL. and D’Agnolo,F. (1904): “Underkes! Requirements for Large Vessels in ‘Shalow Waterways", Proceadings ofthe 28th In- tomational Navigaton Congress, PIANC, Paper S 12, Sevilla, Spain, 17-25. FMA (Finnish Maritime Adminstaton) (2005) “The Channel Dapth Practice in Fela, But, Witorways Dhision, Helsnk Finland Guliey, UM. (1971): *On Squat Calculations for ‘Vessals Going in Shallow Water and. Through Channels", PIANC Bullotin 1971, Vo, No. 7.17 20, Huuska, 0. (1876) “On the Evaluation of Under. Fool Clearances in Finnisn Waterways”, Helin Universy of Technology, Ship Hydrodynamics Laboratory, Otaniemi, Report No. 8 ICORELS (Intemational Commission forthe Re= ‘ception of Large Ships) (1880) "Report of Working ‘Group IV", PIANC Buln No. 35, Supplement. COhtsu, ., Yoshimura, ¥., Hirano, M.,Teugane, 'M. and Takahash, H. (2006) “Design Standard for Farway in Next Generation’, Asia Navigation Conference, No. 26. (Overseas Coastal Area Development institut of Japan (2002): “Technical Standards and. Com ‘montares for Port and Harbour Facies in Ja- pan’ PIANG (1997): “Approach Channels: A Gulde for Desig’, Final Report of the Joint PUANC-APH, ‘Working Group I-30 in cooperation wth IMPA and IALA, Supplement to Bultin No. 95, Poros dol Esta (1990): ‘Recommendations for Martime Works (Spain) ROM 3.1-98: Designing Martime Configuration of Ports, Approach Ghar ‘nels and Floatation Areas", CEDEX, Span, Romisch, K. (1989): “Empfehlungen zur Bemes- sung von Hafeneinfahrer", Wasserbaulche Mit- tolungen der Technischen Univerat Dresden, Heft 139.63. ‘iki, E. (2007): “Economical Efeiency to be ‘Achioved with 2 Regulatory Change Only with Consideration for Navigational Riss’, PIANC Magazine, 129, 23-34 Stocks, DT, Dagget, LL. and Page, ¥. (2002) “Maximization of Ship Oran the St Lawrence Seaway Volume |: Squat Study’, Prepared for “Transporaion Development Cente, Transport Canada, Uiezka, K and Kondziola, . (2008): ‘Dynamic Response of Very Large Contanesships in Ex ‘womely Shallow Water, Proceedings 31st PANG ‘Congress, Esto, Spain, Yoshimura, ¥. (1986): “Mathematical Mode for the Manoeuwring Ship Motion in Shatow Water’, Journal of the Kansai Society of Naval Architects, ‘tapan, No. 200. 21 PIANC E-Magazine n° 142, Januaryanver 2011 APPENDIX A: PIANC SHIP SQUAT FORMULAS “This appendix describes the five PIANC empirical squat formulas of Barace, Eryu, HuskaGu- lew, Romisch and Yoshimura. Symbols are Ested ‘and defined in Appendix 8. More detailed descr tions wth constants for channel snd hip po- rameters ate described in PIANC (1997), Biggs (2006), Briggs (2008) and Briggs ot al. (2010), “The new PIANC WG4® report is planned for pub Seaton in 2011 AA, Barrass (B3) ‘Barrass's formula for maximum SqUat Sy. i an ‘unrestricted channel i a function ofthe block co- ‘ficient C, ship speed V, in knots and channel blockage coefficient K. Its defined a eect Sum = AG {Pon ¢,507 160, 07, tis oqo the bow sat 5, £ Oki equnl ote tr agua SH nal Coote Kis based on naj ovr 600 a Seaton ane protsiype maser os tee Chanel ype arse 2007 ands dened ot Key ‘ a o K-5ms" 1

    You might also like