Design Guidelines for Inland Ships

8/17/2019 Design Guidelines for Inland Ships

1/142

Buenos Aires, 18-09-2015

Workshop on DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INLAND

WATERWAYS (PIANC INCOM WG 141)

Bernhard Söhngen

“SMART RIVERS 2015”

www.baw.de

1. Presentations held at the Workshop

Workshop on Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways (PIANC INCOM WG 141), Bernhard Söhngen

SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015 Page 3

Bernhard Söhngen (Germany): Introduction to WG 141 approach and findings (45 min.)

Otto Koedijk (The Netherlands): Classification of waterways, design vessel and data needed (25 min.)

Jean-Marc Deplaix (France): Existing waterways with special respect to China and ease ofnavigation (30 min.)

Katja Rettemeier, Bernhard Söhngen (Germany): Recommendations of WG 141 concerning fairway

design in canals and rivers (30 min.)

Jose Iribarren (Spain): Examples for comparative variant analysis in using ship handling simulatorswith special respect to assess ease quality and human factor (30 min.)

Lunch break

Katrien Eloot (Belgium): Appl ication of WG 141 approach including full bridge ship handlingsimulators for Class Va-vessels to the Upper-Seascheldt (ca. 35 min.)

Bernhard Söhngen (Germany): Appl ication of WG 141 approach including elaboration of field data and fast time simulation forClass Va-vessel passing narrow Jagstfeld Bridge in the German Neckar River (ca. 40 min).

Pierre-Jean Pompee (France): Channel types with special respect to speed, power used and easequality (40 min.)

Feedback from the participants and final discussion – ca. 20 min.


2/142

www.baw.de

Content

1. Presentations held at the Workshop

2. Terms of reference of WG 141

3. WG 141: Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways

4. Content of the future report with examples



www.baw.de

Motivation:

There is a need for revised guidelinesbecause of

• larger, but better equipped inland

vessels,• better on-board information systems and

• better simulation methods.





3/142

www.baw.de


Main Tasks:

• Consider actual dimensions of vessels

according to international standards

• Take into account the demands of

climate change and ecology

• Consider influences of wind effects,

visibility, currents

• Refer to all relevant PIANC publications,

especially to MarCom WG 49

Class Vb



www.baw.de


We will focus on

• modern vessels

• dimensions of

fairways

• lock approaches

• turning basins

• berthing places

• bridge openings

Class Va



Defining lower limits of navigational

space based on nautical aspects only

supports economical, environmental

and climate change aspects


4/142

www.baw.de


Katja Rettemeier,

Ministry of Traffic,

Germany

Jose Iribarren,

SIPORT, Spain

Pierre-Jean Pompee,

VNF, France

Otto Koedijk,

Reijkswaterstaat,

The Netherlands

Ji Lan, Shanghai

Waterway

Engineering, China

Bernhard Söhngen

BAW, Germany

Katrien Eloot, Flanders

Hydraulics, Belgium

Ismael Verdugo,

SIPORT, Spain

Interim meeting, May 2012, SIPORT, Madrid, Spain

12th meeting, July 2015, DST, Duisburg

“Hard Core”of WG 141

Jean-Marc Deplaix,

COCOM,

France



www.baw.de

Katja Rettemeier,Ministry of Traffic,

Germany

Jose Iribarren,

SIPORT, Spain

Pierre-Jean Pompee,

VNF, France

Otto Koedijk,

Reijkswaterstaat,

The Netherlands

Ji Lan, Shanghai

Waterway

Engineering, China

Bernhard Söhngen

BAW, Germany

Katrien Eloot, Flanders

Hydraulics, Belgium

Ismael Verdugo,

SIPORT, Spain

Interim meeting, May 2012, SIPORT, Madrid, Spain

12th meeting, July 2015, DST, Duisburg

“Hard Core”of WG 141

Jean-Marc Deplaix,

COCOM,

France


WG 141 consists of governmental

experts and consultants concerning

planning and maintenance of

waterway infrastructure, users and

developers of ship handling

simulators and skippers




5/142

www.baw.de

4. Content of the future report with examples

1. INTRODUCTION

2. DISCUSSION OF EXISTING GUIDELINES

3. DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING WATERWAYS – PRACTICE

4. TECHNICAL INFORMATION5. CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY AND EASE QUALITY

6. RECOMMENDED STEPS IN WATERWAY DESIGN

7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIAL DESIGN ASPECTS (dimensions of

canals, fairways in rivers, junctions, turning basins, bridge openings, lock

approaches, berthing and waiting areas, harbour entrances)

8. CONCLUSIONS

9. APPENDIVCES

EXISTING GUIDELINES

PRACTICAL EXAMPLES

EASE QUALITY EXAMPLES

APPLICATION EXAMPLES



www.baw.de

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Contribution

of WG 141

report to the

planning

process of

waterway

infrastructure




6/142

www.baw.de

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Contribution

of WG 141

report to the

planning

process ofwaterway

infrastructure

Our report can (clearly) not support all the usual steps in planning

of a waterway infrastructure, but it supports one of the most

important aspects: The safety and ease of navigation!



www.baw.de

Chapter 2: DISCUSSION OF EXISTING GUIDELINES

Country BLA/B LLA/L

China 3.5 - 4.5 (s) 3.5 - 4.0

7.0 (d) 3.0 - 3.5*

Dutch 2.2 (s) 1.0 - 1.2

French 2.9 (s) 0.5

Germany

3 - 4 (s)

2.2

Example lock approach

breadth BLA and length LLA

(double locks, upper harbour)

River BLA/BLLA/L

Main 2.8 (d) , 1.8 (s) ~ 2.5Neckar 8.3 (t), 2.6 (d),

2.3 (s)0.7 – 1.4

Nederrijn

(Lek)2.9 (s) 6.3 (s)

Maas 8.2 (t), 4.9 (d),9.4 (s)

4.3 (t), 3.3 (d)4.6 (s)

Average

8.3 (t), 3.6 (d),

4.1 (s)

3.5 (t,d,s)

d = double lock, s = single lock, t = triple lock

Data from guidelines

Data from practice

The data vary widely!It seems that especially the lock approach

lengths were chosen according to the

available space (as long as feasible), not the

necessary space.

LLA

BLA




7/142

www.baw.de

Chapter 2: DISCUSSION OF EXISTING GUIDELINES

Example lock approach

breadth BLA and length LLA

(double locks, upper harbour)

LLA

BLA

Lock approach widths and lengths

depend on each other, depending on

the “driving style”.

• Stopping in front of the lock in anapproach requires a wider

entrance, but reduced lengths!

• If the pilot is forced to stop inside

the approach, BLA can be smaller,

but LLA longer!

Caution if one uses the smallest

dimensions each for length and

width e.g. from existing

guidelines!

ou e oc s, upper ar our

B

Nevertheless, one needs concrete waterway dimensions at least for preliminary

design, that means, before a detailed study can start, because simulation or scale

model tests need the geometry and the flow field of the lock approach!



www.baw.de

Chapter 3: DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING

WATERWAYS – PRACTICE (example fairway in rivers)

• Fairway data from different rivers, interpreted as to be limited by buoys

• Interpretation according to usual usage one-lane or two-lane

• US data according to model tests

• Calculated fairway width according to guidelines for comparison

Practical data replace data from guidelines because there are only few information available

• There was no

significant

influence of flow

velocity

detectable, apartfrom US guidelines

• The influence of

curvature was

significant and

about the same as

for empty vessels

according to Dutchguidelines

n=2 3 4




8/142

www.baw.de

• Classification of reference vessels

• Design relevant properties of waterway types

• Design relevant aspects of driving dynamics

“Driving Dynamics

of Inland Vessels”

(soon available in

English)

Association for

European Inland

Navigation and

Waterways

Chapter 4: TECHNICAL INFORMATION



www.baw.de

Chapter 5: CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY AND EASE

Why? • Different boundary conditions in our waterways(vessels, environment, waterway properties) lead to

different s&e qualities

• Different international guidelines reflect these different

boundary conditions and so, demand for different s&e

standards

• There are several rational reasons speaking e.g. for

higher necessary or lower acceptable standards

designation

A nearly unrestricted

driveB moderate to

strongly restricted

drive

C strongly restricted

drive

How? • Definition of three different ease qualities (standards)




9/142

www.baw.de





boundary conditions and so, demand for different s&estandards

• There are several rational reasons speaking e.g. for a



• Concept Design (simplified approach):

• All the recommended waterway dimensions are

assigned to ease qualities B

w

W = 4 B W = 3 B

Example fairway widthin straight canals



www.baw.de





boundary conditions and so, demand for different s&e

standards






assigned to ease qualities

• A scoring system helps to define the necessary

ease quality for design – and thus, the

appropriate waterway dimension, e.g. W=4B in

case of ease quality between A and B




10/142

www.baw.de





boundary conditions and so, demand for different s&estandards






assigned to ease qualities

• A scoring system helps to define the necessaryease quality for design – and thus, the

appropriate waterway dimension, e.g. W=4B in

case of ease quality between A and B

• Concept Design sim

•

e ine the necess r es gn an t us, t e

ppropr ate waterway mens on, e.g. =



www.baw.de

approach):


How?



(8) Determine the decisive design case,

e.g. the one with the largest necessary

waterway dimensions

(2) Assess the necessary s&e quali ty for

design (“dc”) with the simplified approach

Compare s&e scores of (2) and (3)

and modify if necessary the ease

reference case

(3) Choose an ease reference case

(“erc”), having the same s&e quality

as “dc”(check applying the simplified &

detailed approach)

(4) Check the sensitivity of the ease scores

of “pnc” and “erc”

(6) Perform the design, using the ConceptDesign Method, the Practice Approach

and/or the Detailed Design Method and

compare the results Go back to (1), (2) and (3) if the decisive

design case was initially not clear

(1) Analyze the s&e quality of the present

nautical condition(s) (“pnc”) with thesimplified approach

(5) Specify the aspired ease standards for

the design case

Adapt the weighting factors of the simplifiedand detailed s&e approach if necessary

Results: s&e quality, especially for the

decisive design cases

(7) Check ease quality of “dc” and “erc”

with the detailed approach: Should be the

same!

simplified detaileds&e approach

2 Assess the s&e quali ty or

ease reference caseChoose an

(“erc ing the same”), hav s&e quality

as “dc ck applying the simplified &che

roachdetailed a

ase quality of dc” and erc”

tailed approach: Should be the

) Check the sensi

o

or

design (“dc”) with the simplified approach

(7) Check

with the d

same!


11/142

www.baw.de


How? • Case by Case Design (detailed approach):

• Relevant results from simulations or field

data will be transferred into appropriate s&e

scores and matched to a comprehensive score

Group Subgroup Characteristic value from simulations

E x p l o i t a t i o n

o f

r e s o u r c e s

Waterway

related

Percentage of permitted speed

Percentage of critical speed

Bank distance

Swept area width

Vessel related Main rudder angle

Percentage of bow thruster power used

Percentage of main power usage

D r i v i n g

d i f f i c u l t y

a n d

h a n d i c a p s

Human related

Number of rudder actions (incl. bow thruster)per minute

Standard deviation of swept area width

Vessel related Standard deviation of rpm

Standard deviation of main rudder angles

Rudder angular velocity



www.baw.de



• All the results of simulations or field data will

be transferred into appropriate s&e scores

and matched to a comprehensive score

Significant

rudder angle,

e.g. 20

Usual peak value,

e.g. 30

Rudder angle producing

max. crosswise force,

e.g. 45 for twin rudders

Geometrically max.rudder angle of the

design vessel

The score can be chosenaccording to the ease scoresof the simplified approach




12/142

www.baw.de






Time series of rudder angles Time series of

ease scores

Transformation

into ease

scores

The average ease score inthe time interval of interestdefines an ease quality o flevel B (in our example)



www.baw.de






Time series of rudder angles Time series of

ease scores

Transformation

into ease

scores

The average ease score inthe time interval of interestdefines an ease quality o flevel B (in our example)



an matc e to a co

Time

e


13/142

www.baw.de

Chapter 6: RECOMMENDED (3) DESIGN STEPS

Concept Design

• Choose appropriate s&e quality

• Perform the design e.g.

concerning necessary fairway

width by adding the “basic

width” + increments• Check applicability limits

Compare results

from Concept

and PracticePractice Approach

• Use practical data provided

by WG 141 comparable to

design case considered

• Use data from previous or

similar projects

• Check application limits

Use national guidelines if

available and applicable

Use international

guidelines if applicable

and accepted instead

Finalize Design

If Concept Design

and Practice deliver

reliable results



www.baw.de


Concept Design





width” + increments

• Check applicability limits

Compare resultsfrom Concept






similar projects




Use international



Finalize Design

If Concept Design


reliable results



BLABLA

flow towards

weir

LLA

approach flow

velocity vFlow

Still

water

average crosswise

flow velocity vc

cross-

flow

zone

L

B

Sailing fast relative to water (requires stoppinginside lock approach and thus longer LLA):

Assuming vFlow/vSW 0.3

BLA (one lane) 2B + bc 2.6 B

Data from guidelinesConcept Design

Example lockapproach width


14/142

www.baw.de


Concept Design





width” + increments• Check applicability limits

Compare results

from Concept






similar projects




Use international



Finalize Design

If Concept Design


reliable results



BLA

flow towards

weir

LLA

approach flow

velocity vFlow

Still

water

average crosswise

flow velocity vc

cross-

flow

zone

L

B

Sailing fast relative to water (requires stoppinginside lock approach and thus longer LLA):

Assuming vFlow/vSW 0.3

BLA (one lane) 2B + bc 2.6 B

Data from guidelinesConcept Design

Example lockapproach width

C

r

If

a

r

li

i

ous or

cts

application limits

Data from guid

ractice Approac

se p-flow

g

www.baw.de


Concept Design









• Use practice data provided




similar projects




Use international



Finalize Design

If application limits

are exceeded (e.g.

if flow velocity is

too high) or if there

are other good

arguments for a

Case by Case Study

Detailed Design

• Choice of method & modelling,

• Performance of the detaileddesign study

• Interpretation of results

• Check of decisive design cases

• Feedback to planners

Compare results

from all 3 methods

+ preliminary

projects

If Concept Design


reliable results

If the results are

resilient

Use Concept Design as preliminary design

bathymetry and flow field for the detailed design

Concept Design








and Practiceractice Approach

• Use practice data provided

y WG 141 comparable to



similar ro ects



Use international



If Concept Design


reliable results

Check application limits




15/142

www.baw.de

(1) Prepare and check data basis

(2) Check modelling capacity

(6) Choose the ease reference

case “erc” (may also be identical

to “pnc”)

(8) Simulate the design case “dc”,

analyse the ease quality, compare itwith “erc” and adjust “dc” if necessary

(3) Perform simulations for thepresent nautical conditions

“pnc”

(9) Interpret 1st the simulations,

using differences between “dc”

and ”pnc”, use the result of (8) as

a 2nd approach, use 3rd the simu-

lations directly (absolute values)and account for 4th experiences

Modelling

Calibration

M o d e l V e r i f i c a t i o n

Comparative analysis

(4) Choose the verification

reference case “vrc” (may be

identical to “pnc”)(5) Simulate the verification

reference case “vrc” and

compare it with field data

(7) Simulate “erc” and adjust if

necessary the “s&e” approach

Interpretation

Support to check modelling

capability and s&e approach

Excursus: Application of simulation techniques

Application of s&e

approach


analyse the ease quality, compare itwith “erc and adjust “dc” if necessary




case “erc (may also be identical

to “pnc”)

Comparative

considerations

(9) Interpret 1s the simulations,



a 2n approach, use 3r the simu-




www.baw.de

GMS Hanna Krieger , coupled in front of pusher Vogel

Gryff, simulating a üGMS

28 m net width in draught

depth between foundations

24 m net width in headroom

Ship positions of GMS, approximately mean water

level (MW)

Excursus: Application of simulation techniques (fast time)

Example German Neckar River: Future

passage of narrow Jagstfeld Bridge by

135 m long Class b vessels

Application of field data for

analysing the present nautical

conditions, to check the modelling

capacity and to define the ease

reference case: here empty GMS at

highest navigable stage!




16/142

www.baw.de

“erc” “dc”

All the scores of “dc” are a bit lower than those for

“erc”, but not very much! Therefore, widening

of the fairway does not seem to be

absolutely necessary (only wind)!


lutely necessary (only wi



www.baw.de

What about keeping safety margins between

bridge piers and not using the entire installed

bow thruster power (42%)?


Keeping safety

margins between

bridge piers

8 m

exceedingof safety

margins

downstream

of thebridge

Taking extra widths into account for

instabilities & human factor and wind

increments (Dutch “rule of thumb” 0.05 L)

one ends up with 17 m necessary widening!




17/142

www.baw.de

(1) Prepare and check data basis

(2) Check modelling capacity


case “erc” (may also be identical

to “pnc”)


analyse the ease quality, compare itwith “erc” and adjust “dc” if necessary

(3) Perform simulations for thepresent nautical conditions

“pnc”

(9) Interpret 1st the simulations,



a 2nd approach, use 3rd the simu-


Modelling

Calibration

M o d e l V e r i f i c a t i o n

Comparative analysis

(4) Choose the verification

reference case “vrc” (may be

identical to “pnc”)(5) Simulate the verification

reference case “vrc” and

compare it with field data



Interpretation

Support to check modelling

capability and s&e approach


Concept Design -routing methods

hoose the ease reference

erc (may also be identical

to “pnc”)

n

Choose the verification

rence case “vrc” (may be

identical to “pnc”)

t to check modelling

lity and s&e approach


analyse the easewi “

(9) In

usin

and ”

rati

(4)

f

po

abi

oachr

i

a 2n ap

lations dand acc

, mpare itand adjust “dc” if necessary

ary the “s&e”



www.baw.de

Generally recommended

steps in waterway design


Generall recommen

steps in water




18/142

www.baw.de

Chapter 7: SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS (example)

7.2 Canal cross section and fairway width7.2.1 Definition7.2.2 Scaling parameters7.2.3 Precision and data needed (check lists)

7.2.4 Concept Design with respect to s&e7.2.5 Extensions by adding increments7.2.6 Review international guidelines7.2.7 Practice examples7.2.8 Detailed design7.2.9 Recommended additional information

Bank impact from bow and main thruster and “body contact”

Model tests at DST in a very narrow canal (OHW); ES

(9,5x85, camera), ballasted (0,7/1,8), meets GMS

(11,45; 2,5/2,5), 2,2 m net space in draught depth

ow

x ens ons y a ng ncremeReview internationaPractice e

onal information

an mpact rom



Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau

76187 Karlsruhe, Germany

www.baw.de

Thank you for your attention

For further questions do not hesitate to contact:

Prof. Dr. Bernhard Söhngen

[email protected]

phone: 0049-721-9726-4600


Paper 34 - Workshop on Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways, Introduction to WG 141 Approach and Findings


19/142

5/10/2015

1

Otto Koedijk MSc

Rijkswaterstaat WVL / TU Delft

The role of classification and

reference vessels in the design of inland

waterways for commercial vessels –

Pianc WG 141. Paper No. 21

Buenos Aires, Argentina, 7-11 September 2015


08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Introduction (1)

• Speaker :

• Otto C. Koedijk MSc, Netherlands

• Former professional captain (inland + sea)

• Senior advisor Rijkswaterstaat WVL,

waterway design (from traffic point of view)

• Lecturer TU Delft, Ports and Waterways

• Pianc: member of Pianc Commission

InCom and WG’s 141 & 179


20/142

5/10/2015

2

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Introduction (2)

• Subject: the role of classification and

reference vessels in the design of inland

waterways for commercial vessels

• Use of reference vessel and classification

• Classification: the example of Europe

• Reference vessel: concept and use

• Design of inland waterways

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Use of reference vessel andclassification

• Designing an inland waterway ->

first determine vesseltypes and –dimensions

• How to determine them?

-> by using the appropriate classification (if

available)

-> by selecting the appropriate reference- or

design vessel


21/142

5/10/2015

3

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Classification: the European

example (1)• History of the European (CEMT)

classification

-> 1879 standardisation started in France:

9000 km canal built for Peniche ship type

(38.5 x 5.05 m)

-> 20th century Germany Dortmund-Ems

canal (73.0 x 8.20m) and Rhein-Hernecanal (85 x 9.50 m)

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Classification: the Europeanexample (2)

• From 1954 on, European transport

Ministers resoluted on a European

classification (CEMT)

• Current CEMT classification is from 1992

-> CEMT ’92 based on Pianc WG 9 report

‘Standardization of Inland Waterway’s Dimensions’

-> CEMT ‘54 no provisions for push convoys


22/142

5/10/2015

4

5-10-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2013”

1992

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Pianc WG 179: l’histoire serépe`te

• CEMT ‘92 no provisions for larger

motorvessels (e.g. 135 x 17 m) and

coupled units

• Misunderstandigs exist among the

different countries• I wrote the ToR; Pianc WG 179 started in

June 2015 and can still use participants!

• WG 179 same approach as WG 9


23/142

5/10/2015

5

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Reference vessel – starting

point for design• Reference vessel: biggest vessel in a

certain waterway class

• If there are different ship types, a

reference vessel should be determined for

each category

• In Europe, categories are motorvessels,

pushed convoys and coupled units• Example of 1st category in next slide:

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Characteristics of referencemotor cargo vessels

• Source table below: Dutch Guidelines for Waterways 2011


24/142

5/10/2015

6

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Lack of classification

• If no classification is available, the

region/country should construct one, e.g.

by drawing a squatter diagram from the

existing fleet and clustering it in logical

classes.

• This is what Rijkswaterstaat did in 2002

and 2010 (see next slides).

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2013”

FLEET OF MOTORVESSELS IN 2002, PLOTTED AFTER LENGTH (HORIZONTAL AXIS) AND

BEAM (VERTICAL AXIS)


25/142

5/10/2015

7

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2013”

RWS 2010

Classification (left part)

Source: Dutch

Guidelines for

Waterways 2011

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2013”

RWS 2010 Classification(right part)

Source: Dutch Guidelines

for Waterways 2011


26/142

5/10/2015

8

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Choice for reference vessel

• primarily based on the horizontal

dimensions, with the ships beam as most

important factor

• is to be made by the administrator of the

fairway. He can choose for different

dimensions than the class if thisrepresents the studied fairway better

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Design of waterway

• Having selected the proper reference

vessel, the waterway can be designed by

using guidelines (if available) and, in

specific cases, ship handling simulators

• This process is treated by others in this

Workshop, given by WG 141


27/142

5/10/2015

9

08-09-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Completion

• References• 1. European Conference of Ministers of Transport CEMT/ECMT), Athens 11 – 12 June 1992,

Resolution No. 92/2 on new classification of inland waterways (including reccomendations and

notes for table). .

• 2. Pianc Working Group no. 9, 1990, Standardization of Inland Waterway’s.

• 3. Brolsma, J.U. and K. Roelse 2011, Waterway Guidelines 2011 (meant for waterway

design from a vessel traffic perspective), Rijkswaterstaat Dienst Verkeer en Scheepvaart.

(http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/en/images/Waterway%20guidelines%202011_tcm224-320740.pdf)

• Questions?

• Thank you for your attention!


28/142

5/10/2015

1

DEPLAIX J.-M.

Member, Cooperation Commission (CoCom) of PIANC

EXISTING WATERWAYS

with special respect of CHINA, &

EASE OF NAVIGATION

Buenos Aires, Argentina, 7-11 September 2015


10/5/2015“SMART RIVERS 2015”

Dutch waterways total 6 105 km,

spread as follows as regards size

Craft size ITF

Class length (km)

of which

leisure

network

3 000 t andover

Vb andover

751

108

1 500-2 999 t

Va

1297

512

1 000-1 499 t IV 741 324

650-999 t III 259 165

400-649 t II 1091 686

250-399 t I 511 405

below 250 t 0 1455 1455

TOTAL 6105 3655


29/142

5/10/2015

2

10/5/2015

The WAAL River is the largest arm of the Rhine inthe Netherlands; it flows for 87km towards Rotterdam


Width is 150 m by 2.80 m (depth) below the water level of OLR

(agreed lowest water level). Target minimal width is 170 m.

The Waal is navigated by 116.000 commercial vesselsannually in 4-lane traffic. Reference vessel is a push convoy VIc

(6 barges) with draught of 4.00 m.

10/5/2015

AMSTERDAM-RHINE CANAL


This large canal aims at being the continuation of

the Waal, and accepts the same 6 barges tows than

the Waal and the Rhine in Germany. It has a traffic

of 70.000 vessels/year


30/142

5/10/2015

3

10/5/2015

JULIANA CANAL

The Juliana Canal is being improved for longer craft,from Class Va/Via (135x14m) to Vb/Vib (185x14m),

which also involves widening the canal, and lengthening

the locks, both underway. Traffic is 22.000 vessels/year

North-South Emden-Maastricht route is being improved

to ITF Vb (185x11,40m)“SMART RIVERS 2015”

10/5/2015

IJSSEL• The IJssel is a branch of the river Rhine and flows

northerly from Arnhem over 120 km to the Iake

IJsselmeer.

The channel width in the IJssel varies from 40x2.5m

(upper part) up to 60x2.8m (lower part), yet it is

navigated by 36.000 commercial vessels/year



31/142

5/10/2015

4

10/5/2015

GERMANY


Craft size ITF Class length

(km)

3 000 t and over Vb and over 2993

1 500-2 999 t Va 1002

1 000-1 499 t

IV

1781

650-999 t III 233

400-649 t II 252

250-399 t I 404

below 250 t 0 1012

TOTAL 7675

Germany has the longest network in Western Europe

The main waterway is the Rhine, which has large characteristics,

except at some narrow stretches (Gebirge, Lorelei, etc.). Other

rivers are the Main, the Mosel and the Neckar, in the Rhine basin,

and the Elbe, closer to Berlin

10/5/2015

RHINEThe Rhine is navigated over 900km, out of which 740km in

Germany. Traffic is 135.000 craft/year at the border.


River

Rhine drive

Section km direction length (m) beam (m) depth width Radius width

287-334 up&downstream 270/193 22,9 3,00

334-344 up&downs tream 193 22,9 2,10

344-359,8 up&downstream 193 22,9

359,8-424 up&downstream 193/153b

22,9/34,35b

424-508 up&downstream 193/153b

22,9/34,35b

508-540,2 up&downstream 193/153b

22,9/34,35b 1560 120

540,2 - upstream 186,5/193c 22,9

556 downstream 116,5/193c

22,90/12,50c

556 - upstream 186,5/193c 22,9

564,3 downstream 116,5/193c

22,90/12,50c

564,3 upstream 269,50e

22,9d,e

763 downstream 193e

34,35d,e

763 upstream 269,50e

22,9d,e

863 downstream 193e

34,35d,e

Self-propelled vessels can be upto 135x22,80m everywhere on the Rhine, except

during droughts or floods at the Lorelei (110m)

670 92

600

(Lorelei) 120

92

120

120

120

150

150

push tows

guaranteed

fairway (m)

1,90

2,10

curvature of

worst bend (m)

1260 88

2,10

88

2,80 1430 150

2,50 670 150

2,10


32/142

5/10/2015

5

10/5/2015

Mittellandkanal

This canal links the Ruhr region on the Rhine withBerlin.

Since reunification it is being improved to its new

characteristics, for design craft of

185x11.5x2.80m. Its traffic is around 22Mt“SMART RIVERS 2015”

10/5/2015

FRANCEWith more than 8 000 km, French network was

the longest of Europe, but most of it is composed

of small Freycinet canals (250t capacity) or

unused.

Many waterways are not used anymore for goods

transportation and are not reported in recent statistics.


Craft size ITF Class length (km)

3 000 t and over Vb and over 1420

1 500-2 999 t

Va

343

1 000-1 499 t IV 118

650-999 t III 126

400-649 t II 85

250-399 t I 2742

below 250 t 0 162

TOTAL 4996


33/142

5/10/2015

6

10/5/2015

The main waterway is the Seine River, passing through Paris. Its

traffic is around 22 Mt.


Since there are few shallow parts, the guaranteed depth is

only 1.15 times the design draught. On most of the route,

depth is over 5 m.

The canalized Deule River is part of the Seine

Scheldt project. It is located between Lille and the

Belgium

border.

The design channel (navigation rectangle) is

34x4m. for craft 185x11,45m, with 3 m draught.

Its traffic is 5.2 Mt

10/5/2015

DEULE WATERWAY



34/142

5/10/2015

7

10/5/2015

BELGIUM


Although its territory is small, Belgium has a relatively large network, and 60%

of it belong to Class IV and beyond

Craft size

ITF Class

length

(km)

3 000 t and over

Vb and

over 252

1 500-2 999 t Va 248

1 000-1 499 t IV 431

650-999 t III 0

400-649 t II 216

250-399 t

I

338

below 250 t 0 31

TOTAL

1516

The main inland waterway is the Albert Canal, linking Liège with the port of

Antwerp. The main rivers are the Meuse, upstream from Liège, and the Scheldt,

canalized upstream of Gent, and tidal between Gent and Antwerp.

10/5/2015

ALBERT CANAL

It is being widened to the new cross section of

102x72x5 m, with locks 24 m wide. Its traffic is in

the range of 40 Mt.


This 130 km canal is quite large, with locks 200x24 m,

enabling pushed convoys 196x12,5x3,40 m to pass,

except at some places.


35/142


36/142

5/10/2015

9

10/5/2015

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Fairway dimensions seem restricted compared to Europe. But in

fact the river is much larger, the Corps of Engineers is bound to

maintain and dredge a channel, yet nature provides more.


Mississippi River[m]

Shallow draught fleet used Guaranteed

fairway

length beam draught depth width

Head of Passes, LA

to New Orleans, LA 540

86,0

13

13,7

228,6

New Orleans, LA to

Baton Rouge, LA

480 86,0 13 13,7 152,4

Baton Rouge, LA

to Cairo, IL 480 75,0 2,7+ 3,65 91,5

Cairo, IL

to St. Louis, MO 360 32,0 2,7 2,7 91,5

St. Louis, MO to

Minneapolis, MN

180 32,0 2,7 2,7 91,5

10/5/2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

Baton Rouge, LA

to Cairo, IL 480 75,0 2,7+ 3,65 91,5


37/142

5/10/2015

10

10/5/2015

476x64m and 355x85.3m in a 91m channel !“SMART RIVERS 2015”

Baton Rouge, LA

to Cairo, IL 480 75,0 2,7+ 3,65 91,5

10/5/2015

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE

The Tenn-Tom waterway is a divide canal

linking 2 basins

The cut canal on the divide is 3,65 m deep

and 85 m wide. Trafic is around 7Mt



38/142


39/142

5/10/2015

12

10/5/2015

CHINESE CLASSIFICATION


10/5/2015

CHINESE CLASSIFICATION



40/142

5/10/2015

13

10/5/2015

Why is it useful to have a

detailed Classification ?• If you compare only the depth,

• Both waterways are equal !


10/5/2015

38 barges counted for zero ?• If you insist on a guaranteed

depth as sole criteria, this river,

Orinoco, would rank very low,

with less than 1.5m of

guaranteed depth, but is nearly

equal to Mississippi during thenavigation season



41/142

5/10/2015

14

10/5/2015

HUMAN FACTOR ALSO has to be taken into

account. The chairman of our working group is

using these results to prove the point:

These graphs show

the swept area width

of a manually steered

craft (top) and that

made with autopilot

(below)


10/5/2015

Another important factor is speed: in USA, they

round the bends slowly, even « Heeling » to pass

safely in a sandy river



42/142

5/10/2015

15

10/5/2015

SAFETY & EASE

These are the various factors influencing waterway design


10/5/2015

(Waterway related criteria)



43/142

5/10/2015

16

10/5/2015

There are two different ways to

use the left table: If you look at

an existing waterway, a smallfairway width describes a poor

waterway, while for design a

narrow fairway requires a

better design on all other

counts, a better ease.


10/5/2015

• In thinking of a new design (Design case), a high quality waterway (A) will be

indicated when most criteria are in the red column, with few green, to prepare

for possible dangers. Accordingly, lower standards B and C may be

accepted, when more green show in the analysis, with more safety ensured.

• However, if observing an existing waterway (Analysis case), things are

reverse, and green arguments denote a good waterway, while red arguments

denote dangerous parts of the network. Here are some examples:



44/142

5/10/2015

17

10/5/2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

10/5/2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”


45/142

5/10/2015

18

10/5/2015

These figures of traffic are the same as in the Dutch

Guidelines and may have to be adjusted in other countriesThey sum traffic in both driving directions.

Leasure traffic is also to be accounted for, as it dramatically

impacts the ease of navigation for commercial vessels


10/5/2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”


46/142

5/10/2015

19

10/5/2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”

10/5/2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”


47/142

5/10/2015

20

10/5/2015

OTHER FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR

GUIDELINES OR CLASSIFICATION

• All this attention to “Ease related to Safety” is mostly an attention to actual

circumstances. Like any complex structure, Guidelines are the result of conflictingconstraints, criteria and elements. Here are some other factors to which attention

should be paid.

• INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS: TYPE 0F WATERWAY AND LEVEL

0F TRAFFIC

• Type of Waterways: we shall see in detail.

• Degrees of roughness of the water bodies (canals, rivers, lakes, estuaries, open sea);

• Level of traffic expected. less stringent criteria on a waterway with little traffic; better

profitability in the economic calculations; such an approach was approved by PIANC

at its Centenary congress in 1985, at the request of the UNESCAP secretariat, then

represented by the author.

• Existing waterways used by craft larger than classification would point to. Thus three

levels of design appear appropriate: one for existing infrastructure, one for future

waterways of low traffic and one for future waterways of high traffic. This is link

between craft and waterway characteristics.


10/5/2015



• AN EXTERNAL CONSTRAINT: AVERAGE SHIPMENT SIZE

• Each flow of traffic, each commodity has its requisites. Each customer likes to have

his deliveries tailored to his needs, while each fleet operator wants to have the largest

unit shipment size; however one cannot force upon a customer 5,000 tonnes of

goods at one time if he has no storage space, if the commodity does not permit long

storage or if it has a relatively high value. The cost of prolonged storage often

outweighs the savings offered by large shipments.

• So the service must be frequent enough to suit the customer, and shipment size is

the result of a trade-off between the financial costs and the transport cost; IWT ischeaper if it involves for instance ten trips of 1,000 tonnes rather than 100 trips of 100

tonnes, but in a global, logistics perspective this may not be so for the customer.

• This over —riding consideration obliged to have craft of varied dimensions, barred

networks to be completely uniform, and led to a graded classification to encompass

all cases.

• TECHNICAL RESPONSE : FR0M CUSTOM BUILT CRAFT TO MULTI-MODAL

INTEGRATION

• Thus the average shipment size is a variable external to the technical design of a

waterway. To solve this difficulty, craft were traditionally designed to match this

average capacity; or they would also have sub-divisions, either holds or hatches,

which could be isolated and devoted to one commodity or one customer



48/142

5/10/2015

21

10/5/2015



• The recent tendency to multimodal integration led to introducing handling units of the

appropriate size, be it internal containers (5 tonnes), ISO container (20 to 30 tonnes),LASH barges (350 tonnes), or even Danube-Seabee barges (800—1000 tonnes).

• IWT can accept a spectrum of shipment sizes, from 5 tonnes up to 80,000 tonnes in

the United States, and 32,000 tonnes in China, Brasil or Argentina, but at the same

time the craft sizes show less dispersion: containers are consolidated in one barge,

while the above large shipment in America is made up of 60 x 1250 tonnes barges in

a convoy.

• Thus integration, through the pushing technique, offer another alternative, by

combining small unit craft and a much bigger global convoy capacity. It retains the

economy of scale of a large power plant while barges are of adapted, smaller size.

• So the criteria of the number of craft in the moving unit, and of the modularity of the

respective craft have been incorporated in the ITF classification (former CEMT

classification).


10/5/2015



• DETERMINATION OF CLASSES: DEADWEIGHT OR CRAFT DIMENSION?

• Actually these two approaches complement each other. Reference to deadweight is

more adapted to describing an existing, diverse network, while reference to the craft

dimensions is most useful in the planning of networks.

• One could say that classification using craft dimensions as a base are adapted to the

national planning of waterways, while reference to deadweight intervals is more

suited for an international classification aiming at describing networks in more than

one country.

• Countries like Russia and China, enjoying the first and second longest waterwaynetworks in the world, have developed complex classifications which incorporate both

approaches, because they must at the same time describe their very diverse

networks, and plan the upgrading or construction of new waterways and fleet. As can

be seen in Annex, the ITF classification, although less precise, has evolved and has a

structure similar to that of Russia or China.



49/142

5/10/2015

22

10/5/2015

That is why a long analysis is needed to

deal with any waterway“SMART RIVERS 2015”

10/5/2015

Thanks for your attention



50/142

www.bmvi.de

Workshop “Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways” Paper 101 - ApplyingConcept Design Method – Practice Approach – Case by Case Design

PIANC – INCOM WG 141

Katja Rettemeier & Bernhard Söhngen


Buenos Aires, 18-09-2015

Smart Rivers 2015 – Applying 3 –Step Design Method (PIANC-INCOM WG 141) Dr. Katja Rettemeier, BMVI

Wide variety of boundary conditions

determining the design

Variety in bathymetric and flow conditions

Variety in traffic density, vessel types

Variety in tradition of shipping

Variety in safety and ease demands …

Limited information available

Rivers (in general) and high flow velocities

Special dimensions as harbor intakes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yangtze-Ships.JPG

Yangtze, China

General Approach in Inland Waterway Design

It is not appropriate to give one specific number for

designing a waterway dimension. WG 141 provides

process recommendations instead (3 step approach)!

„Binnenschiffahrt in Köln“ von Rolf Heinrich, Köln. Lizenziert unter CC BY 3.0 über

Wikimedia Commons -https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Binnenschiffahrt_in_K%C3%B6ln.jpg#/media/File:

Binnenschiffahrt_in_K%C3%B6ln.jpg


51/142


52/142


Classification reflects each country‘s fleet

Class DWT (t) Design vessel [m]length beam draught

I 250-400 38,5 5.05 2.5

II 400-650 50-55 6.6 2.6

III 650-1000 67-85 8.2 2.7

IVa 1000-1500 80-105 9.5 3.0

IVb 1250-1450 170-185 9.5 3.0

Va 1500-3000 110-135 11.4 3.5

Vb 3200-6000 170-190 11.4 3.5-4.0

European CEMT

Class Va Vessel

Class IV Convoy

„Freudenberg Main“ von Presse03 - Eigenes Werk. Lizenziert unter CC BY-SA 3.0 über

Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freudenberg_Main.jpg#/media/File:Freudenberg_Main.jpg

Main, Freudenberg, D

„Main Stadtprozelten“ von Presse03 - Eigenes Werk. Lizenziert unter CC BY-SA 3.0 über W ikimedia Commons -https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Main_Stadtprozelten.JPG#/media/File:Main_Stadtprozelten.JPG

Main, Stadtprozelten, D

Category of Driving(assumption)

actual case: Cat. B

Moderate to strongly restricted drive

design case: Cat. C

Strongly restricted drive (short distance)

165 x 9,6 x 2,5

110 x 11,45 x 2,8


E.g. China‘s approach for rivers is based on

specific relations for:

• Swept area width• Bank Clearance

• Passing Distance

• But for restricted curvature radii only

US and German Guidelines take constant (from

vessel type independent) increments for:

• Bank Clearance


Dutch Guidelines:

• Distinguish normal & narrow profile

• Take wind increment into account

• Account for high traffic density

http://www.wsa-braunschweig.wsv.de/wasserstrassen/MLK/

„Chinesisches contbinnenschiff“ von Henryvb in der Wikipedia auf Deutsch. Lizenziertunter CC BY-SA 3.0 über Wikimedia Commons -

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chinesisches_contbinnenschiff.JPG#/media/File:Chinesisches_contbinnenschiff.JPG

Existing guidelines use partly very different approaches


53/142


Existing guidelines use partly very different approaches

E.g. China‘s approach for rivers is based on

specific relations for:

• Swept area width

• Bank Clearance


• But for restricted curvature radii only

US and German Guidelines take constant (from

vessel type independent) increments for:

• Bank Clearance


Dutch Guidelines:

• Distinguish normal & narrow profile

• Take wind increment into account

• Account for high traffic density

http://www.wsa-braunschweig.wsv.de/wasserstrassen/MLK/

„Chinesisches contbinnenschiff“ von Henryvb in der Wikipedia auf Deutsch. Lizenziert

unter CC BY-SA 3.0 über Wikimedia Commons -https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chinesisches_contbinnenschiff.JPG#/media/File:

Chinesisches_contbinnenschiff.JPG

i

‘

en b in der Wikipedia auf Deutsch. Lizenziert

e r

n Guideline

ype independent)

• an earance

• ass ng stance

. .

specific rel

•

ass r s


Fairway design in Canals:

Concept Design Method

Ship (BxLxD) two-lane one-laneDrivingquality

F/B D/d n F/B D/d category

China

Canal

Average(Class III – VII)

4,4 1,3 7 - - A-B

ChinaChannel

Average(Class II – VII)

4,4 1,4 6-7 - - A-B

ChinaRiver

Average(Class I – VII)

4,4 1,2 - 2,3 1,2 A-B

Dutchnormal

11.45x185x3.5 4.0 1.4 8.7 2 1.3 A-B

Dutchnarrow

11.45x185x2.8 3.0 1.3 6.7 - - B-C

France 11.45x185x2.5 3.1 1.4 5.8 - - B-C

Germany 11.45x185x2.8 3.3 1.4 5.6 1.8 1.4 B-C

Russia 16.5x135x3.5 2.6 1.3 - 1.5 1.3 C

US River 10.7x59.5x2.7 ~3.3 ~1.3 ~4.9 ~2.2 1.3 B-C

Relative waterway dimensions from guidelines

http://www.wna-helmstedt.wsv.de/projekte/mittellandkanal/allgemeines/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canal_%28China%29

Mittellandkanal, Wolfsburg, D

Jiangnan Canal, Yangtze, CH


54/142


Outline of the Design Case: Side Canal

[m]

actual

situation design case

canal profile vertical and sloped 1:3

driving one lane one lane

wind condition

3-4 Bf

flow velocity [m/s]

0.5

design vessel

CEMT Class Va Vb (length-extended Va)

traffic density [vessel/a]

11000

11000

quality of navigation B C

length 105 135 beam 11.45 11.45

draught

2.70

2.70

squat

0.30

0.30

Cf (turning point) loaded(bow thruster) - empty

0.8 - 1.0 0.8 – 1.0

fairway dimension

net width in 3 m depth 28.0 28.0 depth/draught

1.3

1.3

water depth

3.5

3.5

radius 685 685

extra width in curves

loaded / empty 5.1 / 7.9

8.3 / 13.0

Neckar, Pleidelsheim Canal

28 m

Locks shall be

extended.

But what is in the

reaches between?


1. Step: Look at national Guidelines

Check of applicability

Fairway design in Canals: Concept Design Method

0.5 m/s

[m]

actualsituation

designcase

canal profile

vertical and sloped 1:3


wind condition

3-4 Bf

flow velocity [m/s] 0.5

design vessel

CEMT Class

Va

Vb

traffic density [vessel/a] 11000 11000

quality of navigation

B

C

length

105

135

beam 11.45 11.45

draught 2.70 2.70

squat

0.30

0.30

Cf (turning point) loaded

(bow thruster) - empty 0.8 - 1.0

0.8 – 1.0

fairway dimension

net width in 3 m depth 28.0 28.0

depth/draught

1.3

1.3

water depth

3.5

3.5

radius 685 685



8.3 / 13.0

> 500 m< 1.4 (not applicable, but not far from threshold)


55/142




Fairway in straight section (RT-profile, Germany)


[m]

actual

situation

design

case

canal profile



wind condition

3-4 Bf


design vessel

CEMT Class

Va

Vb



B

C

length

105

135

beam 11.45 11.45

draught 2.70 2.70

squat

0.30

0.30



0.8 – 1.0

fairway dimension


depth/draught

1.3

1.3

water depth

3.5

3.5

radius 685 685



8.3 / 13.0

[m] canal water table width

fairway width indynamic draught

including safety distancesand instabilities

depth two-lane one-lane two-lane one-lane

rectangular-trapezoidal-section (1:3)

4

48.5

33.2

39.0

23.9

< 28 m

dynamic draught,

loaded (3 m here)

actual: 28 m




Fairway in straight section (RT-profile, Germany)


[m]

actualsituation

designcase

canal profile



wind condition

3-4 Bf


design vessel

CEMT Class

Va

Vb



B

C

length

105

135

beam 11.45 11.45

draught 2.70 2.70

squat

0.30

0.30



0.8 - 1.0

fairway dimension


depth/draught

1.3

1.3

water depth

3.5

3.5

radius 685 685



8.3 / 13.0

[m] canal water table width

fairway width indynamic draught

including safety distancesand instabilities

depth two-lane one-lane two-lane one-lane

rectangular-trapezoidal-section (1:3)

4 48.5 33.2 39.0 23.9

dynamic draught,

loaded (3 m here)

Increments in curves (Germany)

22

actual: 23.9 + 5.1 = 29 m 28 m (threshold)

design: 23.9 + 8.3 = 32.2 m (too small)

actual: 28 m


56/142


57/142



3. Step: Increments

No indication for any other increments

4. Step: Verify Design Case

Field data under good environment

conditions show that the available

space maybe just enough.

But one “has to pay it” by very slow

vessel speeds severe bank and bed

impact from thrusters!


„Mosel Schubverband“ von Schreibkraft - Eigene Aufnahme. Lizenziert unter CC-by-sa

3.0/de über Wikipedia -https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Mosel_Schubverband.jpg#/media/File:Mosel_Schubver

band.jpg

Mosel, D

"Loreley von Spitznack". Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons -

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loreley_von_Spitznack.jpg#/media/File:Loreley_von_Spitznack.jpg

Rhine, Lorelei, D

Fairway Design – Free Flowing River: Practice Approach

Procedure

Little information available in national guidelines

Compare practice examples with care:

A river is a very complex system

Safe Navigation

Seems possible even in case of narrow conditions

Restrictive licensing and efficient techniques

Difference to Canals

F/B larger account for cross flow, turbulence Canals include safety distance to banks –

river data don’t


58/142


Outline of the Design Case: Free Flowing River

Rhine River at Speyer

Push to units:185 x 22.8 m

sailing

upstream

(R = 800 m)

sailing

downstream(R = 900 m)

Class Vb vessel (length-

extended GMS) sailing

ups tream (R = 600 m) - data

from Class Va

Class Vb unit

sailing

downstream (R =

1000 m)

[m] actualsituation

design case

water body free flowing river

flow velocity [m/s] 1.7 1.7

river bottom

gravel

design vessel

CEMT Class

VIb

Vb


30.000

30.000


B

A

max. length 195 135/185

max. beam 22.8 11.45

draught (1.6) 1.8 – 3.5 (1.6) 1.8 – 3.5

squat

0.30

0.30

existing fairway dimensions

width

92

92

depth/draught

1.4 – 4.7

1.4 – 4.7

depth (GlW-HSW) 2.5 – 7.5 2.5 – 7.5

radius 825 (average) 825 (average)

width/beam

4.0

8.0

length2/(radius*beam) 2.0 1.9 – 3.6,average 2.8



Fairway Width

Permission: Up to 195 m long and 22.8 m wide

push tow units in all possible traffic situations!

Meetings / overtaking of two of those vessels will be

avoided in practice – only one-lane traffic realistic

Design question: Which frequent traffic situation is

just acceptable, assuming ease quality A

Design case considered: Class Vb (135 m long

GMS) meets Class Vb push tow unit (185x11.45)

[m] actualsituation

design case


flow velocity [m/s]

1.7

1.7river bottom

gravel

design vessel

CEMT Class

VIb

Vb


30.000

30.000


B

A

max. length 195 135/185

max. beam 22.8 11.45

draught (1.6) 1.8 – 3.5 (1.6) 1.8 – 3.5

squat

0.30

0.30


width 92 92

depth/draught 1.4 – 4.7 1.4 – 4.7

depth (GlW-HSW) 2.5 – 7.5 2.5 – 7.5


width/beam

4.0

8.0

length2/(radius*beam)

2.0

1.9 – 3.6,average 2.8

Discrepancy between permission and practice!


59/142



Fairway Width (meetings)[m]

actualsituation

design case


flow velocity [m/s] 1.7 1.7

river bottom

gravel

design vessel

CEMT Class

VIb

Vb


30.000

30.000


at least C

A

max. length 195 135/185

max. beam 22.8 11.45

draught (1.6) 1.8 – 3.5 (1.6) 1.8 – 3.5

squat

0.30

0.30


width 92 92

depth/draught 1.4 – 4.7 1.4 – 4.7

depth (GlW-HSW)

2.5 – 7.5

2.5 – 7.5


width/beam

4.0

8.0

length2/(radius*beam) 2.0 1.9 – 3.6,average 2.8

Actual: The ease quality of the permitted situation is not acceptable avoided in practice

Design: Ease quality will be A as specified!

4.0

2.0

8.0

2.8



Under Keel Clearance

d/D = 1.3 good quality of driving

Min. dynamic underkeel clearance 2.5 m

(depth at GlW ) – 1.8 m (usual draught at GlW)

– 0.3 m (squat) 0.4 m

Safe navigation demands 0.5 m clearance for

effective bow thrusters usage 0.4 m

A safe navigation (bow thruster usage possible in case

of tricky situations) seems to be possible even if largedraughts will be chosen

[m] actualsituation

design case


flow velocity [m/s]

1.7

1.7river bottom

gravel

design vessel

CEMT Class

VIb

Vb


30.000

30.000


at least C

A

max. length 195 135/185

max. beam 22.8 11.45

draught (1.6) 1.8 – 3.5 (1.6) 1.8 – 3.5

squat

0.30

0.30


width 92 92

depth/draught 1.4 – 4.7 1.4 – 4.7

depth (GlW-HSW) 2.5 – 7.5 2.5 – 7.5


width/beam

4.0

8.0

length2/(radius*beam)

2.0

1.9 – 3.6,average 2.8


60/142


61/142


Fairway Design - Lock Approach: 3-Step Design Method


1. German Guidelines

[m]

actual

situation

design

case

Lock double lock

wind condition 3-4 Bf

Cross flow [m/s] < 0.3 m/s

design vessel

CEMT Class

Va

Vb

(extended Va)

traffic density[vessel/a]

5.000 5.000


B

C

length

105

135

beam

11.45

11.45

draught 2.70 2.70

Lock approach

width relation B/b 4.4 4.4

harbour width 50 50total length relation 1.3

1.2

total length

130

160 by design

straight section L/l

1.0

1.0 by design

straight Section

100

130 by design

entrance funnel L/l 0.3 0.2

entrance funnel 30 30

min depth 3.5 3.5

safety margin 5.0

4.0

German Guidelines cannot be met in our example!

s = 5.0 m safety distance between lanes

straight section > 1.5 LVessel (1.0 LConvoy)

Inlet > 110 (80)

Bw = 12.0 m width

of waiting area

Approach Channel > 2.8 L

mooring area > 2.0 L

c > 5.0 m mole width

s = 5.0 m safety lane

Bl – width of lock =12.5 m

> 64 m


[m]

actual

situation

design

case

Lock double lock

wind condition 3-4 Bf

Cross flow [m/s] < 0.3 m/s

design vessel

CEMT Class

Va

Vb

(extended Va)

traffic density[vessel/a]

5.000 5.000


B

C

length

105

135

beam

11.45

11.45

draught 2.70 2.70

Lock approach

width relation B/b 4.4 4.4

harbour width 50 50

total length relation 1.3

1.2

total length

130

160 by design

straight section L/l

1.0

1.0 by design

straight Section 100 130 by design

entrance funnel L/l 0.3 0.2

entrance funnel

30

30

min depth 3.5 3.5

safety margin 5.0

4.0

Lock Approach BLA/b LLA/l

China3.5 - 4.5 (s) 3.5 - 4.0

7.0 (d) 3.0 - 3.5*

Dutch 2.2 (s) 1.0 - 1.2

French 2.9 (s) 0.5*

Germany3.0 - 4.0 (s)

2.84.5 - 6.0 (d)



2. Compare different guidelines

German Guidelines reflect driving category A.

Practice Examples show driving category down to C.

Data from

different

guidelines and

practice cover

existing widths

and lengths! River B/b (u) B/b (l) L/l (u) L/l (l)

Main 2.8 (d)1.8 (s)

2.8 (d)2.4 (s)

~ 2.5

Neckar 8.3 (t)2.6 (d)2.3 (s)

4.2 (t)2.5 (d)2.0 (s)

0.7 –

1.4

1.0 –

2.1

Practice Approach


62/142



Detailed Design (approach channel)

Application routing

method with cF

from numerous filed

data

Placing vessel symbols

tangential at turning point

along the route

The 135 m long Class Vb vessel

stays inside existing fairway.

Only a little widening justupstream of the lock approach

seems to be necessary.

No further investigations needed

concerning upper harbor!


Conclusion

All three design cases considered

show the general applicability of theproposed design method:

Concept Design Method should be the first step

and the best choice in case if applicable

guidelines are available

Practice Approach especially helps to get better

understanding and for comparing results

Detailed Design uses Practice Approach as a

starting point

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/20040711181710_Mississippi_Memphis_Ausschnitt.jpg/1200px-

20040711181710_Mississippi_Memphis_Ausschnitt.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/2011_03_11_Elbe_Schubverband _DSCI0197_k.JPG


63/142


Recommandation

Look at the approach with great careand experience:

Quality of driving and aspects of traffic are

important

Qualification of Designer:

Good understanding of nautical aspects

Experience in water engineering to select

correct boundary conditions …

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/20040711181710_Mississippi_Memphis_Ausschnitt.jpg/1200px-

20040711181710_Mississippi_Memphis_Ausschnitt.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/2011_03_11_Elbe_Schubverband _DSCI0197_k.JPG

www.bmvi.de

Workshop “Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways”

Paper 101 - ApplyingConcept Design Method – Practice Approach – Case by Case Design

Thank you for your attention

For further questions do not hesitate to contact:Dr.-Ing. Katja Rettemeier

Bundesministerium für Verkehr

und digitale Infrastruktur (BMVI)

Invalidenstraße 44

D-10115 Berlin

[email protected]



64/142

5/10/2015

Comparative variant analysis in using ship

handling simulators with special respectto assess ease quality and human factorIribarren, Jose R.

Cal, Carlos Atienza, Raul Verdugo, Ismael

SMART RIVERS 2015 - Buenos Aires, Argentina, 7-11 September 2015


Introduction

Speaker: Jose R. Iribarren

Naval Architect (Politechnic University Madrid, Spain) Director General Siport21, Port and Navigation Consultants 1999

Real-Time Simulation Center

Design and Operation of Ports and Fairways

33 countries (Latam, Europe, Africa, Asia)

Previous: Ministry of Public Works, Port and Coastal Research CenterCEDEX

PIANC member. Several WG (20, 24, 27, 49, 141, 171)

Spain: no inland navigation. Experience other countries

Need to learn. Transfer and adapt criteria

5-10-2015 “SMART RIVERS 2015”


65/142

5/10/2015

Introduction

Incom WG141 “Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways”

Review of existing guidelines

Conceptual Design - supported by general guidelines and empirical data

Detailed Design - using more precise formulae or simulation models

Resulting dimensions linked to operation conditions (water level,current fields, wind conditions, …) and type of vessels (dimensions,propulsion and steering)

Characterize “safety and ease” levels of the fairway, both for presentand future operation conditions

Simulation: useful tool to analyze and establish this equilibrium

Evaluation method for simulation runs

Case studies:

approach to lock-gates

effect of cross currents

“SMART RIVERS 2015” 5-10-2015

Safety and Ease Approach

Reasons to categorize ease quality

Differences in existing and recommended waterway dimensions in nationalguidelines

Each waterway system has specific features > accepted minimumdimensions of waterway infrastructure are derived

Safety and Ease of navigation conditions: different from country to countryor from waterway to waterway

Safety of navigation should be always ensured

WG 141 decided to distinguish differ

Documents

Design Guidelines for Inland Ships