NAVIGATIONAL SAFETY

Discussion on:
CATZOC’s
Under-keel clearance methodology
(Malacca Strait TSS)
Dynamic Underkeel Clearance Systems
Intertanko Captain Jonathon Pearce
20 October2016 Senior Pilotage Advisor
 CATZOC’s

• When IHO developed the S-57 standard the quality of

survey data used to compile ENCs had to be encoded
within a composite data quality indicator known as:
‘Category of Zone of Confidence’ (CATZOC)
• UK MAIB Reports that concluded CATZOC’s may
have been a causal factor*
– No 18/2015, 14 July 2014 :
• “Report on the investigation of the grounding and flooding of the ro-ro ferry
Commodore Clipper in the approaches to St Peter Port, Guernsey”
– No 18/2007, 9 August 2007:
• “Report of the investigation of the grounding of the jack-up barge Octopus towed
by the tug Harald, Stronsay Firth, Orkney Islands, 8 September 2006”.
*Point to consider: “Would these findings be similar if paper charts involved?”
 ENC’s do not mean NEW!

• ENCs that are on the market today do not always depict the
real world as accurately as would be desired.
• ENCs (and paper charts) are compiled from multiple data
sources, some modern and comprehensive, some old
(even ancient) and others from all stages in between.
• IHO Data Quality Working Group (DQWG) found :
– CATZOC’s was not well understood, not liked, nor allowed
mariners to adequately make decisions based on data quality.
– Countries believe that legacy data can only be a maximum of
CATZOC B as it does not take into temporal degredation
– The DQWG has, therefore, rejected CATZOC for S-101 and is
developing a new and improved method to depict data quality.
Source and Reliability Diagrams
CATZOC’s – Newer Charts
ECDIS CATZOC/Safety Contours
CATZOC’s accounts for errors

Recorded water level across Prince of Wales Channel 15/16 May 2007
1.5
booby
goods
hammond
1
nardana
ince
Water level relative to AHD [m]

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5
12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00
 MAIB Findings

• MAIB’s experience from previous accidents:

Training of watchkeepers in the use of ECDIS and ECS
systems is, at best, patchy and that many are able to use
only the systems’ most basic functions.
• Specific concerns include:
– CATZOCs do not provide the navigator with the detail currently shown in the
source data diagrams on paper chart.
– On ECDIS displays, CATZOC data is available, but has to be operator selected.
– ECS displays that use official electronic charts, are not always able to display
CATZOC information
– Basic ECS systems that use unapproved charts may not display CATZOC at all.
Numerous vessels now carry ECS as a supplementary aid to their approved
paper charts, but by default it has become the primary method of navigation
for some navigators.
 MAIB Summary

• In summary, the report highlights the following in

respect of electronic charts:
– The significance of CATZOC is not fully understood by many
operators.
– The use of CATZOC is an ECDIS menu option and is therefore not
immediately available to the navigator.
– CATZOC is unavailable on many unapproved ECS and chart
plotters.
Conclusions

• CATZOC’s interim method to relay confidence in

ENC’s
• CATZOC’s need to be considered
• Legacy Charts should use at least ZOC B grade
• Watchkeepers need to be trained in
understanding of what CATZOC’s are and how to
find and interpret them (ECDIS training).
• Using ECS systems with unapproved charts should
be discouraged
• Situation unlikely to change even with S100
Underkeel Clearance Calculations

Considerations on how
clearances are calculated

Are you using the correct

calculations
ISMS Considerations

• Are underkeel clearance calculations suitable in

todays risk adverse climate?
• Do you understand the factors behind your own
rules?
• Are they based on best practices and can the be
justified?
• Do your ships officers understand the factors?
• In the event of a grounding will your procedures
withstand a legal challenge and have all “all
reasonable steps” been taken?
 The present “norm” for UKC
• Most ports (and vessels) use Static Rules
– Created in an era when:
• Vessels were smaller
• Speeds were lower
• Squat was a relatively unknown phenomena (Tuck 1966 - ship dynamic movements )
• Actual squat unknown (with new formulae still being derived!)
• Computers not available
– It is a simple method to ensure safety
• Minimum distance (i.e. 1 metre) or %age of vessels draught (i.e. 10%)
• Well known Rule of Thumb – 10%, But this is for calm waters only!
• Does the allowance include squat or is the allowance after squat?
• Is Roll/Heel calculated and applied?
• More appropriate to call it Static Allowance than Static UKC

• The Static Rule Paradox

– The paradox of the static rules is that without an incident a port’s static rules may appear
validated and considered safe.
– In reality, where underkeel limits are critical and conditions variable, there may be times
when the clearance is marginal and the vessel has experienced an unknown “near miss”.
 GROSS – TOP DOWN approach

VARIABLE RISK

Net Clearance changes

for every transit
Is it Safe, Marginal or
Unsafe? Static Allowance
Tidal Residual
Fixed UKC
Allowances Squat
Heel
Wave Response/Setdown

Variable Net UKC Clearance

Case Study - Failure of Static Rule
Marsden Point NZ, Groundings: Eastern Honor & Capella Voyager 2003

Conservative Marginal Unsafe

(95%) (4%) (1%)

Under most conditions a static rule will be conservative

However, groundings can occur when a ship
is sensitive to the prevailing conditions (this is actual data!)
A static rule won’t tell you when this is the case!
Win/Win – Safety & Productivity

• OMC’s evidence from existing studies show:

• 95% existing static rule conservative
• Potential for draught increases and/or productivity gains
through increased tidal windows
• 4% existing static rule marginal
• Potential for a touch bottom incident. High risk but
actual risk never quantified
• 1% existing static rule unsafe
• Very high potential for a touch bottom incident
 Reducing the Risk:

STATIC RULES - GROSS DYNAMIC - NET

Traditional rules based on static Uses fixed safety limit with variable
data and no allowance for change allowances for environmental and
vessel conditions

VARIABLE RISK FIXED (CONSTANT) RISK

NET – BOTTOM UP approach
NET UKC
(usingCONSTANT
real time data)
RISK
is referred
Minimum to as a
NETT
Clearance APPROACH
DYNAMIC maintained
for every transit
Always Safe!

Required Water Depth

Wave Response/Setdown
Heel
Variable UKC
Allowances
Squat
Tidal Residual

Fixed NET Allowance: Minimum Predetermined Clearance

Reasons for change

• Changing from a Gross approach to a Net

approach can:
– Improve safety
– Enhance Master/Pilot Information Exchange
• Use PIANC Guidelines
– as a UKC management template a rather than a
channel design tool
• The first step to a DYNAMIC approach to UKC
Risk Mitigation using Net
PIANC WG 49
Harbour Approach Channels
Design Guidelines
 Channel Depth factors

2.1
 Gross UKC – 6 Components
Component
Static Draught Uncertainties
Water Density
Ship Squat including dynamic trim
Dynamic heel
Wave response allowance
Net underkeel clearance UKCNet
Notes
The ship’s draught is not always known with absolute certainty.
Prediction of ship squat depends on ship characteristics and channel
configurations. … the most important ship parameter is its speed VS.
During turning of a vessel, heeling will occur depending on the ship’s speed,
rate of turn, metacentric height and tugboat line forces.
Potentially the largest ship factor, especially if the ship is in an exposed
channel where large waves are present. Ships in water have a natural period
of oscillation in heave, roll and pitch. Resonance, with amplification of ship
motions, can be expected if their natural period is close to the period of the
dominant wave forcing.
Largest Component and is what is left as a ’safety’ margin for the ship after
subtracting the other ship factors (wave-induced vertical ship motions, ship
squat and dynamic heel) from the nominal channel bed level or depth.
UKCNet should be based on kind and size of ship, commodities transported,
environmental consequences, density of traffic, etc…
Maneouvring Margin

The limiting value of MM depends on ship type,

channel dimensions and alignment, and ship traffic
(including whether one-way or two-way).
A minimum value of 5% of draught or 0.6 m,
whichever is greater, has been found to provide
adequate MM for most ship sizes, types, and
channels.

Applying this guideline then vessels less than 12.0m draft

have minimum MM of 0.6m and vessels with drafts greater
than 12.0m draft an MM of 5%.
Gross UKC – Component 3

Squat
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑 2
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 1.5 .
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃2 𝑔𝑔. 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤

Professor Ernest Oliver (Ernie) Tuck

BSc (Hons)(Adel), PhD (Camb), FAA, FTSE, FACS,
FAustMS (1939 – 2009)
“Shallow-water flows past slender bodies”
(J Fluid Mech 26:81−95).
Squat – Channel Blockage

Squat is Unique
Channel Blockage is
like a fingerprint –
\its different for
every port
Which formulae?

∆tmax C B F2 nh
= Co B
t l pp 1 − F 2 nh
t Vs
=S = ( Frh )3 where Frh
3 gh
∇ F2 nh  1  F2 nh
S = 2.4 2 =SbM 2 0.01Lpp  61.7Cb − 0.6 
Ks  Lpp / T  1− F 2
l pp 1 − F 2 nh   nh
SbR = Cv CF K ∆T T
S sR = Cv K ∆T T ∇ F2 nh
SbH = 2.4 Ks
L2pp 1 − F 2 nh
∇ F2 nh
T 
0.27 SbHo = 1.96
SbE 0.113B   Fnh1.8 1.08 < h / T < 2.75 L2pp 1 − F 2 nh
h

S Cb  Vs 
3
V2 A
= =S 2.20
= S2Cb where S2 s
T 45  h 
.
g Ac − As
1 2T
SbD = Vk Cb SbJ =
  
 0.7 + 1.5 1   Cb  + 15 1
 Cb 

3
 2
 Vs
95 h   
h T   L pp B  h T  L pp B 
  g
   
=
Note : L pp B R= LB and h T RhT
Panamax 12.0m draft
Gross UKC – Component 5

Wave Response
 Wave Response

• Affected by:
– Sea Conditions!
• wave height & period
• wave to hull angle of incidence
• wave-current-vessel interaction
– Vessel
• hull geometry
• stability characteristics
• vessel speed (relative to waves)
• Inherent difficulty and danger
in generalising wave response
of one vessel against another
SEA
Wave Spectra

• A statistical representation of a stationary sea state

• Sea:
– Short period waves.
– All waves with periods
less than 7 seconds
– Does not significantly
affect ship motions

• Swell:
– Medium period waves.
– All waves with periods
over 7 seconds and less
than 30 seconds
– Significantly affect ship
motions
Ship Motions Unique to each Vessel
 Vessel Spectra

10

Energy Trader: Lbp 218m Beam 36.5m Draft 12.82m

7

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
 Spectral Alignment – Wave/Vessel

13 January 2009 - 0845 Hs = 1.4m, Tp = 11.1s

Formosa Fifteen: Lbp 165m Beam 32.2m Draft 11.5m
Energy Trader: Lbp 218m Beam 36.5m Draft 12.82m

2.5 10

95% Exc
9

2 DUKC Predicted SA Roll: 8

Energy Trader
0845 - 3.4 [4.4] degs, WRA - 1.7m [2.2]m
Formosa Fifteen 7
0845 - 6.1 [7.9] degs, WRA - 2.1m [2.7]m
1.5 6

5 0845
Energy Trader
Formosa Fifteen
1 4

0.5 2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Singapore and Malacca Straits
 An Example - IMO UKC Rule

“Deep-draft vessels and VLCCs

shall allow for an under-keel
clearance (UKC) of at least
3.5m at all times during the
entire passage through the
Straits of Malacca and
Singapore”
• 1.2m squat – sometimes required
– Based on blanket assumption of 12 knots over ground.
– This is the approx speed to reach next critical point at HW & no scientific background to its implementation
– Created 30 years ago: uncertainties, lack of data & technology
• 1.3m uncertainty required
– Tidal and depth uncertainties
• 1.0m clearance
Ambiguity: “at least” has been interpreted as:
• 3.5m static UKC limits number of controlling points • Gross (includes all allowances), or
• Nett (excludes allowances, primarily squat)
• No consideration for differing topography
 Vessel Compliance

Gross UKC Speeds generally less than 12 knots but

5
still being controlled by an assumed 12
knots squat!
4.5 20% breaching rules 14

Speed Over Ground

Speed Through Water

12

10

3.5
Gross UKC [m]

Vessel Speed [kn]

3

2.5
4

2 2

0
1.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Percentile [-]

Percentile [%]

Transit Date
Draft
Class Tide [m]
Speed TW
Nett UKC [m]
Nett UKC @ Δ Nett Approx 250
[m] [kn] 7 kn UKC [m]
vessels over 4
2016-02-28 21 TANKER 1.02 14.27 1.37 2.34 0.97

2016-05-17 22 TANKER 1.24 8.60 1.43 1.57 0.15 months equating

2016-04-24 20.6 TANKER 0.59 11.22 1.88 2.33 0.46 to about 50
vessels breaching
2016-04-05 20.5 CONTAINER 0.72 12.02 1.99 2.56 0.57
Regime change - Gross to Net
Draft 22.00m

3.5m rule 3.50m

Gross Water Required

Charted depth
25.50m

22.60m

Tide Required 2.90m

6 knots 8 knots 12 knots 13 knots

Draft 22.00m 22.00m 22.00m 22.00m

PIANC Clearance 1.10m 1.10m 1.10m 1.10m

Net Squat

Water Required
0.24m

23.34m
0.44m

23.54m
1.04m

24.14m
1.24m

24.34m

Charted depth 22.60m 22.60m 22.60m 22.60m

CATZOC A2 1.40m 1.40m 1.40m 1.40m

Tide Required 2.14m 2.34m 2.94m 3.14m

Economic Benefits using Net

UKC Depth [m] Tide [m]* Maximum Draft [m]

controlling MHWS Under Under Under
Location (MHWN) existing proposed 2.5 m
Gross UKC Nett rule @ Nett rule @
12 knots 8knots
One 23.3 4.57 24.37 24.37 25.07
Fathom (3.34) (23.14) (23.14) (23.84)
Bank
Buffalo 22.6 2.9* 22.0 22.0 22.7
Rock (2.2) (21.3) (21.3) (22.0)

Note: Grounding risk is unchanged for each example

as Net UKC is 2.5m in all cases
(1.10m PIANC + 1.40m CATZOC A2)
 Better Methodology

moving towards

Dynamic Underkeel Clearance

Dynamic UKC
Accurate Scientific Prediction of Ship Motions
 Increased Information

Dynamic Underkeel Clearance

Consistent scientific approach
utilising near real time and
forecast environmental data
(tides, waves, currents) and uses
sophisticated ship modelling
to calculate ship motions and
UKC

SOMS UKC Concept Study

DUKC® - System Inputs/Outputs
What is DUKC®? An example
Planning and Monitoring
Outputs and Reports
DUKC® - Overview

https://vimeo.com/165530252
 DUKC® Primary Outcomes

Ensures Safety and

Maximises Productivity and Efficiency and
Increased Economic Benefits
(By exploiting the inefficiencies of the static rule)

• Enhanced decision making with transit plan accuracy

• Detailed reports Improved Master/Pilot Information Exchange
• Enhanced vessel scheduling/reduced channel conflicts
• Enhanced contingency planning
• Removes commercial pressures
• Implements a shared picture between ship and shore
Benefit examples:

• Melbourne
• Draughts of tankers have increased to 14.7m for a
14.0m design channel

• Geelong
• Since commissioning this year, drafts increased from
11.5m to 11.9m, with an aim to go to 12.3m

• Kwinana
• Additional additional 50cm in available draft over a static
system per import tanker
OMC International

• Inventor and sole supplier of DUKC®

 Dr Terry O’Brien involved in 2 PIANC committees
 Technical advisors to UKHO TSMAD committees
 Industrial member of IALA, and VTS committees
• Safety Record: 150,000+ bulk, container and
tanker movements since 1993 without incident
(about 1 movement per hour)
• Productivity and economic gains for DUKC users
• Installed at 25 Worldwide ports
• Over 500 vessels surveyed
Thank You

SOMS UKC Concept Study