Design Guidelines For Inland Ships

SMART RIVERS 2015
Workshop on DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INLAND

WATERWAYS (PIANC INCOM WG 141)
Bernhard Shngen
Buenos Aires, 18-09-2015
1. Presentations held at the Workshop

Bernhard Shngen (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 of
navigation (30 min.)
Katja Rettemeier, Bernhard Shngen (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 simulators
with special respect to assess ease quality and human factor (30 min.)
Lunch break
Katrien Eloot (Belgium): Application of WG 141 approach including full bridge ship handling
simulators for Class Va-vessels to the Upper-Seascheldt (ca. 35 min.)
Bernhard Shngen (Germany):
Application of WG 141 approach including elaboration of field data and fast time simulation for
Class 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 ease
quality (40 min.)
Feedback from the participants and final discussion ca. 20 min.
Workshop on Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways (PIANC INCOM WG 141), Bernhard Shngen
Page 3
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
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
Page 2
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de

Motivation:
There is a need for revised guidelines
because of
larger, but better equipped inland
vessels,
better on-board information systems and
better simulation methods.
Page 4
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
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
Page 5
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
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
Page 6
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de

Bernhard Shngen
BAW, Germany
Ismael Verdugo,
SIPORT, Spain
Ji Lan, Shanghai
Waterway
Engineering, China
Katja Rettemeier,
Ministry of Traffic,
Germany
Jose Iribarren,
SIPORT, Spain
Katrien Eloot, Flanders

Hydraulics, Belgium
Otto Koedijk,
Reijkswaterstaat,
The Netherlands
Interim meeting, May 2012, SIPORT, Madrid, Spain

Jean-Marc Deplaix,
COCOM,
France
Hard Core
of WG 141
Pierre-Jean Pompee,
VNF, France
12th meeting, July 2015, DST, Duisburg
Page 8
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de

Bernhard Shngen
BAW, Germany
Ismael Verdugo,
SIPORT, Spain
Ji Lan, Shanghai
Waterway
Engineering, China
Katja Rettemeier,
Ministry of Traffic,
Germany
Jose Iribarren,
SIPORT, Spain
Katrien Eloot, Flanders

Hydraulics, Belgium
Otto Koedijk,
Reijkswaterstaat,
The Netherlands
WG 141 consists of governmental

experts and consultants concerning
planning
and maintenance of
Jean-Marc Deplaix,
COCOM, infrastructure, users and
waterway
France
developers of ship handling
simulators and skippers
Interim meeting, May 2012,

0
SIPORT, Madrid, Spain
Hard Core
of WG 141
Pierre-Jean Pompee,
VNF, France
12th meeting, July 2015, DST, Duisburg
Page 9
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de
4. Content of the future report with examples

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
INTRODUCTION
DISCUSSION OF EXISTING GUIDELINES
DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING WATERWAYS PRACTICE
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY AND EASE QUALITY
RECOMMENDED STEPS IN WATERWAY DESIGN
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
Page 10
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Contribution
of WG 141
report to the
planning
process of
waterway
infrastructure
Page 11
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
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!
Contribution
of WG 141
report to the
planning
process of
waterway
infrastructure
www.baw.de
Page 12
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
Chapter 2: DISCUSSION OF EXISTING GUIDELINES

Example lock approach
breadth BLA and length LLA
(double locks, upper harbour)
Data from guidelines

Country
China
Dutch
French
Germany
LLA
BLA/B
3.5 - 4.5 (s)
7.0 (d)
2.2 (s)
2.9 (s)
3 - 4 (s)
LLA/L
3.5 - 4.0
3.0 - 3.5*
1.0 - 1.2
0.5
2.2
d = double lock, s = single lock, t = triple lock
Data from practice

BLA
River
Main
Neckar
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.
Nederrijn
(Lek)
Maas
Average
Page 13
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
LLA/L
BLA/B
2.8 (d) , 1.8 (s)
~ 2.5
8.3 (t), 2.6 (d),
0.7 1.4
2.3 (s)
2.9 (s)
6.3 (s)
8.2 (t), 4.9 (d),

9.4 (s)
8.3 (t), 3.6 (d),
4.1 (s)
4.3 (t), 3.3 (d)

4.6 (s)
3.5 (t,d,s)
www.baw.de
Chapter 2: DISCUSSION OF EXISTING GUIDELINES

Example lock approach
breadth BLA and length LLA
(double locks
locks, upper harbour)
LLLAA
BLA
Lock approach widths and lengths

depend on each other, depending on
d
tthe driving style.
Stopping in front of the lock in an
approach 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
C
dimensions each for length and
d
width e.g. from existing
w
guidelines!
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
Page 14
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
Chapter 3: DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING

WATERWAYS PRACTICE (example fairway in rivers)
Practical data replace data from guidelines because there are only few information available
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
g to guidelines
g
Calculated fairway width according
for comparison
There was no
significant
influence of flow
velocity
detectable, apart
from US guidelines
The influence of
curvature was
significant and
about the same as
for empty vessels
according to Dutch
guidelines

Page 15
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015

n=
3
www.baw.de
Chapter 4: TECHNICAL INFORMATION
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
www.baw.de
Page 16
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
Chapter 5: CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY AND EASE
Why?
How?
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
Definition of three different ease qualities (standards)

A
B
Page 17
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
designation
nearly unrestricted
drive
moderate to
strongly restricted
drive
strongly restricted
drive
www.baw.de
Why?
How?


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

Concept Design (simplified approach):
All the recommended waterway dimensions are

assigned to ease qualities
Example fairway width

in straight canals
B
w
W=4B
Page 18
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
W=3B
www.baw.de
Why?
How?


standards

All the recommended waterway dimensions are

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
Page 19
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de
Why?
H
How?


standards


(sta
(st da
arrrd
r
ar
a
All the recommended
waterway dimensions are
A scoring system helps

elp
ps to
to define
deffine the necessa
necessary
ar
quality for
for design and thus, the
ease quality
appropriate
a
ppropriate waterway dimension, e.g. W=4B in
case of ease quality between A and B
Page 20
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de

(1) Analyze
the s&e quality of the present
approach):
How?
nautical condition(s) (pnc) with the
simplified approach
(2) Assess the necessary s&e quality for

design (dc) with the simplified approach
(4)
4 Check the sensitivity off the ease scores
4)
of pnc and erc
(5)
5) Specify the aspired ease standards
5)
nd
dards ffor
or
the design case
(6)
6) Perform the design,
design using the Concept
Design Method, the Practice Approach
and/or the Detailed Design Method and
compare the results
(8) Determine the decisive design case,

e.g. the one with the largest necessary
waterway dimensions
(3) Choose an e
ease reference case
(erc), having
having the same s&e quality
(erc),
as dc(check
dc(che
eck applying the simplified &
detailed approach)
app
pproach))
pp
Compare s&e scores of (2) and (3)
and
an
d mod
modify
dify if necessary the ease
rreference
ef
ce
e ccase
Adapt the w
weighting
e
factors of the simplified
d s&e approach if necessary
and detailed
(7) Check e
ease quality of dc and erc
approach: Should be the
with the detailed
de
etailed
e
same!
simplified
detailed
s&e approach
Go back to (1), (2) and (3) if the decisive
design case was initially not clear
Results: s&e quality, especially for the

decisive design cases
Page 21
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de

How?
Case by Case Design (detailed approach):
Exploitation of
resources
Group
Relevant results from simulations or field

data will be transferred into appropriate s&e
scores and matched to a comprehensive score
Subgroup
Waterway
related
Characteristic value from simulations

Percentage of permitted speed
Percentage of critical speed
Bank distance
Swept area width
Vessel related
Main rudder angle
Driving
difficulty and
handicaps
Human related
Vessel related
Percentage of bow thruster power used

Percentage of main power usage
Number of rudder actions (incl. bow thruster)
per minute
Standard deviation of swept area width
Standard deviation of rpm
Standard deviation of main rudder angles
Rudder angular velocity
www.baw.de
Page 22
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015

How?
All the results of simulations or field data will

be transferred into appropriate s&e scores
and matched to a comprehensive score
The score can be chosen
according to the ease scores
of the simplified approach
Significant
rudder angle,
e.g. 20q
Rudder angle producing

max. crosswise force,
e.g. 45q for twin rudders
Usual peak value,

e.g. 30q
Geometrically max.
rudder angle of the
design vessel
Page 23
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de

How?

Time series of rudder angles
Time series of
ease scores
Transformation
into ease
scores
The average ease score in

the time interval of interest
defines an ease quality of
level B (in our example)
Page 24
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de

How?

core
be transferred into appropriate s&e sscores
and matched to a compreh
comprehensive score
re
Time series o
of rudder angles
Time series of
ease scores
Transformation
into ease
scores
cores

Page 25
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
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
Practice 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
Compare results
from Concept
and Practice
If Concept Design
and Practice deliver
reliable results
Finalize Design
www.baw.de
Page 26
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
Example lock
approach width
Still
water
LLA
flow towards
weir
Concept Design
width + increments
BLA
average crosswise
flow velocity vc
crossflow
zone
approach flow
velocity vFlow
Practice Approach
similar projects
Concept Design

Use international
Compare results
from Concept
and Practice
If Concept Design
reliable results
Finalize Design
Data from guidelines
Sailing fast relative to water (requires stopping

inside lock approach and thus longer LLA):
Assuming vFlow/vSW | 0.3
o BLA (one lane) | 2B + 'bc | 2.6 B
Page 27
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de
Example lock
approach width
Still
water
LLA
flow towards
weir
Concept Design
width + increments
BLA
crossflow
zone
average crosswise
flow velocity vc
Practice Approach
data provided
Use practical
pract
Use data from previous
revious or
similar projects
rojects
Check
heck application limits
approach flow
velocity vFlow

Use international
C
Co
Compare results
from Concept
ffro
and Practice
aan
I Concept Design
If
aan
reliable results
rre
Finalize Design
Data from guide

guidelines
eli
Concept Design
ign
n
Sailing fast relative
tive to water (requires stopping
inside lock approach and thus longer LLA):
Assuming vFlow/vSW | 0.3
o BLA (one lane) | 2B + 'bc | 2.6 B
www.baw.de
Page 28
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015

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
Concept Design
width + increments
Practice Approach
Use practice data provided
similar projects
p j
Use Concept Design as preliminary design o

bathymetry and flow field for the detailed design

Use international
Compare results
from Concept
and Practice
If Concept Design
reliable results
Detailed Design
Choice of method & modelling,
Performance of the detailed
design study
Interpretation of results
Check of decisive design cases
Feedback to planners
Page 29
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
Finalize Design
If the results are
resilient
Compare results
from all 3 methods
+ preliminary
projects
www.baw.de
Excursus: Application of simulation techniques
Comparative
considerations
Model Verification
Application of s&e
approach
(1) Prepare and check data basis
Modelling
(2) Check modelling capacity
Calibration
Support to check modelling
capability and s&e approach
(4) Choose the verification
reference case vrc (may be
identical to pnc)
(3) Perform simulations for the

present nautical conditions
pnc
(5) Simulate the verification
reference case vrc and
compare it with field data
(6) Choose the ease reference

case erc (may also be identical
to pnc)
(7) Simulate erc and adjust if

necessary the s&e approach
(9) Interpret 1st the simulations,

using differences between dc
and pnc, use the result of (8) as
a 2nd approach, use 3rd the simulations directly (absolute values)
and account for 4th experiences
Interpretation
(8) Simulate the design case dc,

analyse the ease quality, compare it
with erc and adjust dc if necessary
Comparative analysis
Page 30
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de
Excursus: Application of simulation techniques (fast time)

Example German Neckar River: Future
passage of narrow Jagstfeld Bridge by
135 m long Class b vessels
Ship positions of GMS, approximately mean water
level (MW)
GMS Hanna Krieger , coupled in front of pusher Vogel

Gryff, simulating a GMS
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!
| 24 m net width in headroom
| 28 m net width in draught

depth between foundations
Page 31
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de

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

erc, but not very much! o Therefore, widening
y does not seem to be

of the fairway
o
olutely
necessary (only wind)!
absolutely
Page 32
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de

What about keeping safety margins between
bridge piers and not using the entire installed
bow thruster power (42%)?
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!
Keeping safety
margins between
bridge piers
Page 33
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
8m
exceeding
of safety
margins
downstream
of the
bridge
www.baw.de
Model Verification

Modelling
M
dellingg
(2) Check
Ch
modelling capacity
Calibration
bratio
on
o

pnc
(7) Simulate erc
c and
aan
nd adjust
adjust if
necessary
approach
n
ecessary the s&e
e appro
ch
Concept Design
Desi
Des
s ig
gn
nods
routing methods
(8) Simulate the design case dc,,

analyse the ease q
uaality, compare
ccom
ompare it
quality,
with
h erc
erc aand
nd
d adjust dc if necessary
Page 34
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
Support
pporrt
r to check modelling
capability
pabiility
i y and s&e approach
pp
(4)) Choose the verification
reference
efeeerence case vrc (may be
identical to pnc)
(6) Choose
C
the ease reference
case erc
(may also be identical
to pnc)
(9) Interpret
Inter
1st the simulations,
usingg dif
differences between dc
and pnc,
p
pnc use the result of (8) as
p
a 2nd app
approach, use 3rd the simud
lations directly
(absolute values)
and account
acco
for 4th experiences
Interpretation
Interpreta
www.baw.de

Generally
y recommended
steps in waterway design
Page 35
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de
Chapter 7: SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS (example)

7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
4
7.2.4
5
7.2.5
6
7.2.6
7.2.7
7
8
7.2.8
9
7.2.9
Canal cross section and fairway width

Definition
Scaling parameters
Precision and data needed (check lists)
Concept Design with respect to s&e
Extensions by adding increments
Review international guide
guidelines
Practice examples
exam l
Detaile design
Detailed
ed
da
dditional information
Recommended
additional
Bank impact from bow
b
a
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
Page 38
SMART RIVERS 2015, 09.09.2015
www.baw.de
SMART RIVERS 2015

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

For further questions do not hesitate to contact:
Prof. Dr. Bernhard Shngen
bernhard.soehngen@baw.de
phone: 0049-721-9726-4600
Bundesanstalt fr Wasserbau
76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
www.baw.de
5/10/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
The role of classification and

reference vessels in the design of inland
waterways for commercial vessels
Pianc WG 141. Paper No. 21
Otto Koedijk MSc
Rijkswaterstaat WVL / TU Delft
Buenos Aires, Argentina, 7-11 September 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 WGs 141 & 179
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
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 and

classification
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
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
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-Herne
canal (85 x 9.50 m)
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
Classification: the European

example (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 Waterways Dimensions
-> CEMT 54 no provisions for push convoys
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
1992
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2013
Pianc WG 179: lhistoire se

rpe`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
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
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 reference
motor cargo vessels
Source table below: Dutch Guidelines for Waterways 2011
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
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 2015
FLEET OF MOTORVESSELS IN 2002, PLOTTED AFTER LENGTH (HORIZONTAL AXIS) AND

BEAM (VERTICAL AXIS)
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2013
5/10/2015
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
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2013
5/10/2015
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 this
represents 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
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
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 Waterways.
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!
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
EXISTING WATERWAYS
with special respect of CHINA, &
EASE OF NAVIGATION
DEPLAIX J.-M.
Member, Cooperation Commission (CoCom) of PIANC
Dutch waterways total 6 105 km,

spread as follows as regards size
Craft size
3 000 t and
over
1 500-2 999 t
1 000-1 499 t
650-999 t
400-649 t
250-399 t
below 250 t
TOTAL
10/5/2015
ITF
Class
Vb and
over
Va
IV
III
II
I
0
length (km)
of which
leisure
network
751
108
1297
741
259
1091
511
1455
512
324
165
686
405
1455
6105
3655
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
The WAAL River is the largest arm of the Rhine in

the 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 vessels
annually in 4-lane traffic. Reference vessel is a push convoy VIc
(6 barges) with draught of 4.00 m.
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 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
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
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)
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 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
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
GERMANY
Germany has the longest network in Western Europe
Craft size
ITF Class
length
(km)
3 000 t and over

1 500-2 999 t
1 000-1 499 t
650-999 t
400-649 t
250-399 t
below 250 t
Vb and over
Va
IV
III
II
I
0
2993
1002
1781
233
252
404
1012
TOTAL
7675
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
SMART RIVERS 2015
10/5/2015
RHINE
The Rhine is navigated over 900km, out of which 740km in
Germany. Traffic is 135.000 craft/year at the border.
River
Rhine
drive
guaranteed
curvature of
fairway (m) worst bend (m)
push tows
Section km
direction
287-334
up&downstream
length (m) beam (m)

270/193
22,9
3,00
334-344
up&downstream
193
22,9
2,10
344-359,8
up&downstream
193
359,8-424
up&downstream 193/153b
22,9/34,35b
424-508
22,9/34,35b
508-540,2
22,9
22,9/34,35b
c
540,2 -
upstream
556
downstream
556 -
upstream
depth width Radius width
186,5/193
22,9
116,5/193c 22,90/12,50c
c
186,5/193
22,9
564,3
downstream
564,3
upstream
269,50e
22,9d,e
763
downstream
193e
34,35d,e
88
2,10
92
2,10
120
1,90
120
1260
88
670
92
1560
120
600
(Lorelei)
120
2,10
120
2,50
150
670
150
2,80
150
1430
150
116,5/193 22,90/12,50
763
upstream
269,50
863
downstream
193e
d,e
22,9
34,35d,e
Self-propelled vessels can be upto 135x22,80m everywhere on the Rhine, except

during droughts or floods at the Lorelei (110m)
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
Mittellandkanal
This canal links the Ruhr region on the Rhine with
Berlin.
Since reunification it is being improved to its new

characteristics, for design craft of
185x11.5x2.80m. Its traffic is around 22Mt
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
FRANCE
With 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
Craft size
ITF Class
length (km)
unused.
3 000 t and over
1 500-2 999 t
1 000-1 499 t
650-999 t
400-649 t
250-399 t
below 250 t
TOTAL
Vb and over
Va
IV
III
II
I
0
1420
343
118
126
85
2742
162
4996
Many waterways are not used anymore for goods

transportation and are not reported in recent statistics.
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
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.
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
DEULE WATERWAY
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
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
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
3 000 t and over

1 500-2 999 t
1 000-1 499 t
650-999 t
400-649 t
250-399 t
below 250 t
Vb and
over
Va
IV
III
II
I
0
TOTAL
length
(km)
252
248
431
0
216
338
31
1516
The main inland waterway is the Albert Canal, linking Lige with the port of
Antwerp. The main rivers are the Meuse, upstream from Lige, and the Scheldt,
canalized upstream of Gent, and tidal between Gent and Antwerp.
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
ALBERT CANAL
This 130 km canal is quite large, with locks 200x24 m,
enabling pushed convoys 196x12,5x3,40 m to pass,
except at some places.
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.
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
Tidal SCHELDT
Below Gent, the Scheldt becomes a free-flowing river, which is
actually tidal, between high tide (HW) and low tide (LW)
Source: Eloot.K & others, paper 99, Smartrivers 2015
Design bottom width is 19 m, a width at 2.65 m design draught of

28.5 m, and a width of 35.5 m at the keel of unladen vessels.
Traffic is 4Mt
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
USA
35% of the network is in the Mississippi basin,

which represents roughly 70% of all US traffic
(614Mt and 408Gtkm).
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Mississippi River
[m]
Head of Passes, LA
to New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA to
Baton Rouge, LA
Baton Rouge, LA
to Cairo, IL
Cairo, IL
to St. Louis, MO
St. Louis, MO to
Minneapolis, MN
Guaranteed
fairway
Shallow draught fleet used
length
beam
draught
depth
width
540
86,0
13
13,7
228,6
480
86,0
13
13,7
152,4
480
75,0
2,7+
3,65
91,5
360
32,0
2,7
2,7
91,5
180
32,0
2,7
2,7
91,5
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.
SMART RIVERS 2015
10/5/2015
Baton Rouge, LA
to Cairo, IL
10/5/2015
480
75,0
2,7+
3,65
91,5
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015
Baton Rouge, LA
to Cairo, IL
480
75,0
2,7+
3,65
91,5
476x64m and 355x85.3m in a 91m channel !

10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 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
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
10
5/10/2015
CHINESE CLASSIFICATION
China has a lot of waterways:
ITF
Class
Craft size
3 000 t and
over
1 500-2 999 t
1 000-1 499 t
650-999 t
400-649 t
250-399 t
below 250 t
substandard
TOTAL
10/5/2015
Vb and
over
Va
IV
III
II
I
0
Chinese
classes
length
(km)
I & II
4 784
IIII
6 069
IV
V
VI
VII
other
9 301
8 298
18 997
17 913
60 900
126 300
SMART RIVERS 2015
Difficult to make it coincide with ITF classes: it is

very different if only the characteristic vessel is
taken into account, or if the Convoy is taken as
reference !!!
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
11
5/10/2015
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
12
5/10/2015
Why is it useful to have a

detailed Classification ?
If you compare only the depth,
Both waterways are equal !

10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 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 the
navigation season
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
13
5/10/2015
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
SMART RIVERS 2015
Another important factor is speed: in USA, they

round the bends slowly, even Heeling to pass
safely in a sandy river
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
14
5/10/2015
SAFETY & EASE
These are the various factors influencing waterway design

10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
(Waterway related criteria)
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
15
5/10/2015
There are two different ways to

use the left table: If you look at
an existing waterway, a small
fairway 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
SMART RIVERS 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:
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
16
5/10/2015
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
17
5/10/2015
These figures of traffic are the same as in the Dutch

Guidelines and may have to be adjusted in other countries
They 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
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
18
5/10/2015
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
19
5/10/2015
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 conflicting
constraints, 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
SMART RIVERS 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 is
cheaper 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 overriding 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
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
20
5/10/2015

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 (8001000 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
SMART RIVERS 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 waterway
networks 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.
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
21
5/10/2015
That is why a long analysis is needed to

deal with any waterway
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
Thanks for your attention
10/5/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
22
SMART RIVERS 2015
Workshop Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways
Paper 101 - Applying

Concept Design Method
Practice Approach
Case by Case Design
PIANC INCOM WG 141
Katja Rettemeier & Bernhard Shngen
www.bmvi.de
General Approach in Inland Waterway Design

Binnenschiffahrt in Kln von Rolf Heinrich, Kln. Lizenziert unter CC BY 3.0 ber
Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Binnenschiffahrt_in_K%C3%B6ln.jpg#/media/File:
Binnenschiffahrt_in_K%C3%B6ln.jpg
Wide variety of boundary conditions

determining the design
Yangtze, China
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yangtze-Ships.JPG
Rivers (in general) and high flow velocities
Special dimensions as harbor intakes
It is not appropriate to give one specific number for

designing a waterway dimension. WG 141 provides
process recommendations instead (3 step approach)!
Smart Rivers 2015 Applying 3Step Design Method (PIANC-INCOM WG 141)
Dr. Katja Rettemeier, BMVI
General Approach in Inland Waterway Design

Jiangnan Canal, Yangtze, CH
Apply national guidelines
Compare with international guidelines
Use recommendations of WG 141
Practice Approach
Select appropriate practice cases
Compare to practice examples
Detailed Design
"Gcjiangnan1" by Tomtom08 at en.wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia by Ronhjones.

Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gcjiangnan1.JPG#/media/File:Gcjiangnan1.JPG
Choose optimal investigation method
Verify results + sensitivity analyses
The approach is illustrated by three examples of fairway

design: Canal, River, Lock Approach.
Outline of the Design Case (examples from German waterways)

Improvement of German Waterways
CEMT Class Vb (extended Va, 135 m long)

to CEMT Class Va (105 m long)
Improving/checking fairway dimension
Category of driving (change B to C)
Examples
Side Canal approaching a lock (Neckar,

Pleidelsheim)
Free flowing river (Rhein near Speyer)
Lock approach (Neckar, Besigheim Locks)
Besigheim locks and dam, German Neckar River
Classification reflects each countrys fleet

European CEMT
Class
DWT (t)
Class IV Convoy
Main, Freudenberg, D
Design vessel [m]

length
beam draught
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
165 x 9,6 x 2,5
Freudenberg Main von Presse03 - Eigenes Werk. Lizenziert unter CC BY-SA 3.0 ber
Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freudenberg_Main.jpg
#/media/File:Freudenberg_Main.jpg
Class Va Vessel
110 x 11,45 x 2,8
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)
Main Stadtprozelten von Presse03 - Eigenes Werk. Lizenziert unter CC BY-SA 3.0 ber Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Main_Stadtprozelten.JPG#/media/File:Main_Stadtprozelten.JPG
Existing guidelines use partly very different approaches

E.g. Chinas approach for rivers is based on
specific relations for:
Swept area width

Bank Clearance
Passing Distance
But for restricted curvature radii only
http://www.wsa-braunschweig.wsv.de/wasserstrassen/MLK/
US and German Guidelines take constant (from

vessel type independent) increments for:
Chinesisches contbinnenschiff von Henryvb in der Wikipedia auf Deutsch. Lizenziert

unter CC BY-SA 3.0 ber Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chinesisches_contbinnenschiff.JPG#/media/File:
Chinesisches_contbinnenschiff.JPG
Bank Clearance
Passing Distance
Dutch Guidelines:
Distinguish normal & narrow profile

Take wind increment into account
Account for high traffic density
Existing guidelines use partly very different approaches

E.g.
E
g China
Chinas
s appro
approac
approach
h for rivers
r
is based on
relations for:
specific relatio
Swept
Sw
area width
Bank Clearance
Passing Distance
vature rra
But for restricted curvature
radii only
http://www.wsa-braunschweig.wsv.de/wasserstrassen/MLK/
/w
wasserstra
US and German
rman Guidelines
Guideline
es take constant (from
sel type independent) increments
in
vessel
for:
Chinesisches contbinnenschiff von Henryvb in der Wikipedia auf Deutsch. Lizenziert

unter CC BY-SA 3.0 ber Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chinesisches_contbinnenschiff.JPG#/media/File:
Chinesisches_contbinnenschiff.JPG
Bank Clearance
Passing Distance
Dutch Guidelines:
Distinguish normal & narrow profile

Take wind increment into account
Account for high traffic density
Fairway design in Canals:

Mittellandkanal, Wolfsburg, D
Relative waterway dimensions from guidelines

Ship (BxLxD)
F/B
http://www.wna-helmstedt.wsv.de/projekte/mittellandkanal/allgemeines/index.html
Jiangnan Canal, Yangtze, CH
China
Canal
China
Channel
China
River
Dutch
normal
Dutch
narrow
Average
(Class III VII)
two-lane
D/d
one-lane
F/B
D/d
Driving
quality
category
4,4
1,3
A-B
4,4
1,4
6-7
A-B
4,4
1,2
2,3
1,2
A-B
11.45x185x3.5
4.0
1.4
8.7
1.3
A-B
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
US River
10.7x59.5x2.7
~3.3
~1.3
~4.9
~2.2
1.3
B-C
Average
(Class II VII)
Average
(Class I VII)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canal_%28China%29
Outline of the Design Case: Side Canal
[m]
canal profile
actual
design case
situation
vertical and sloped 1:3
driving
one lane
wind condition
3-4 Bf
flow velocity [m/s]
0.5
one lane
design vessel
28 m
Locks shall be
extended.
But what is in the
reaches between?
Neckar, Pleidelsheim Canal
CEMT Class
Va
Vb (lengthextended Va)
traffic density [vessel/a]
11000
11000
quality of navigation
length
105
135
beam
11.45
11.45
draught
2.70
2.70
squat
Cf (turning point) loaded
(bow thruster) - empty
fairway dimension
0.30
0.30
0.8 - 1.0
0.8 1.0
net width in 3 m depth
28.0
28.0
depth/draught
1.3
1.3
water depth
3.5
3.5
radius
extra width in curves
loaded / empty
685
685
5.1 / 7.9
8.3 / 13.0
Fairway design in Canals: Concept Design Method
1. Step: Look at national Guidelines

[m]
canal profile
actual
design
situation
case
driving
one lane
wind condition
3-4 Bf
flow velocity [m/s]
0.5
Check of applicability
one lane
d 0.5 m/s
design vessel
CEMT Class
Va
Vb
11000
11000
length
105
135
beam
11.45
11.45
draught
2.70
2.70
squat
fairway dimension
0.30
0.30
0.8 - 1.0
0.8 1.0
28.0
28.0
depth/draught
1.3
1.3
water depth
3.5
3.5
radius
loaded / empty
685
685
5.1 / 7.9
8.3 / 13.0
< 1.4 (not applicable, but not far from threshold)

> 500 m
dynamic draught,
loaded (3 m here)
actual: 28 m

[m]
canal profile
actual
design
situation
case
driving
one lane
Fairway in straight section (RT-profile, Germany)
wind condition
3-4 Bf
flow velocity [m/s]
0.5
one lane
design vessel
CEMT Class
Va
Vb
11000
11000
length
105
135
beam
11.45
11.45
draught
2.70
2.70
squat
fairway dimension
0.30
0.30
0.8 - 1.0
0.8 1.0
28.0
28.0
depth/draught
1.3
1.3
water depth
3.5
3.5
radius
loaded / empty
685
685
5.1 / 7.9
8.3 / 13.0
[m]
depth
4
fairway width in
dynamic draught
including safety distances
and instabilities
two-lane
one-lane
two-lane
one-lane
rectangular-trapezoidal-section (1:3)
48.5
33.2
39.0
23.9
canal water table width
< 28 m
dynamic draught,
loaded (3 m here)
actual: 28 m

[m]
canal profile
actual
design
situation
case
driving
one lane
Fairway in straight section (RT-profile, Germany)
wind condition
3-4 Bf
flow velocity [m/s]
0.5
one lane
design vessel
CEMT Class
Va
Vb
11000
11000
length
105
135
beam
11.45
11.45
draught
2.70
2.70
squat
fairway dimension
0.30
0.30
0.8 - 1.0
0.8 - 1.0
28.0
28.0
depth/draught
1.3
1.3
water depth
3.5
3.5
radius
loaded / empty
685
685
5.1 / 7.9
8.3 / 13.0
[m]
depth
4
fairway width in
dynamic draught
including safety distances
and instabilities
two-lane
one-lane
two-lane
one-lane
rectangular-trapezoidal-section (1:3)
48.5
33.2
39.0
23.9
canal water table width
Increments in curves (Germany)

'E F
5 %2
& I / 2
5 %
actual: 23.9 + 5.1 = 29 m | 28 m (threshold)

design: 23.9 + 8.3 = 32.2 m (too small)
dynamic draught,
loaded (3 m here)
static draught,
loaded (2.7 m)
actual: 28.9 m
actual: 28 m
1:3

[m]
canal profile
2. Step: Compare with WG 141 advice
actual
design
situation
case
driving
one lane
wind condition
3-4 Bf
flow velocity [m/s]
0.5
Fairway width for alternate one-lane

Waterway
one lane
Ease quality
C
min F
CEMT Class
Va
Vb
11000
11000
length
105
135
beam
11.45
11.45
draught
2.70
2.70
squat
fairway dimension
0.30
0.30
0.8 - 1.0
0.8 - 1.0
28.0
28.0
depth/draught
1.3
1.3
water depth
3.5
3.5
radius
loaded / empty
685
685
4.0 / 8.1
6.7 / 13.3
min n
2.5
min D
3.5
4L
max vflow
3B
4B
7L
10 L
efficiency of bowthrusters
1.3 d
to avoid dW
4L
0.5 m/s
min
R = 4 x 110
= 440 m < 685 m
max vcross
0.5 m/s
1.4 d
7L
to keep on speed
because of squat &
efficiency of bowthrusters
10 L
0.5 m/s
5-6 Bf
5-6 Bf
design vW
= 1.3
(costal)
(threshold)
6-7 Bf
6-7 Bf
dynamic draught,
loaded (3 m here)
2.5 B can damage

the canal
0.5 m/s
design vW
(inland)
Remarks
min
= 2speed
x 11.45 =3.522.9
4.5 bto
5 m7
F keep
in static
draught
because
of squat &depth
1.3 d
min R
for security
reasons
2.0 B
design vessel
Remarks
Fairway width for two-lane

Ease quality
static draught,
loaded (2.7 m)
static draught,
empty (1.6 m)
actual: 32.2 m
actual: 28.9 m
actual: 28 m
1:3
1:3
2. Step: Compare with WG 141 advice

[m]
canal profile
actual
design
situation
case
driving
d
one lane
one lane
Maybe not,
but
wind condition
w
3-4 Bf
flow
flo
o Pleidelsheim
velocity [m/s]
0.5
Canal
design vessel
d
should
beVaimproved
in
CEMT
C
Class
Vb
traffic
tr
r every
density [vessel/a]
case11000
(ship11000
speed
q
B
C
bottleneck),
especially
length
le
e
105
135
beam
b
e for container
11.45 vessels.
11.45
draught
d
raught
2.70
2.70
squatt
fairway dimension
0.30
0
30
0.30
0
30
0.8 - 1.0
0.8 - 1.0
28.0
28.0
depth/draught
1.3
1.3
water depth
3.5
3.5
radius
loaded / empty
685
685
4.0 / 8.1
6.7 / 13.3
Increments in curves (Dutch rules)

'E F
& /2 5 &
025 05 ORDGHG HPSW\
Wind increments for empty vessels
(Dutch rule of thumb)

'E Z
F : / F :
005 010 LQODQG FRDVWDO
actual / loaded: 22.9 + 4.0 = 26.9 < 28.9 m (O.K.)

actual / empty : 22.9 + 8.1 + 5.3 = 36.3 > 32.2 m (too small)
design / loaded: 22.9 + 6.7 = 29.6 > 28.9 m (maybe just O.K.)
design / empty: 22.9 + 13.3 + 6.8 = 43.0 m >> 32.2 m
(too small) But results from wind a safety problem?

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!
Fairway Design Free Flowing River: Practice Approach

Mosel, D
Procedure
Little information available in national guidelines
Compare practice examples with care:
A river is a very complex system
Mosel Schubverband von Schreibkraft - Eigene Aufnahme. Lizenziert unter CC-by-sa

3.0/de ber Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Mosel_Schubverband.jpg#/media/File:Mosel_Schubver
band.jpg
Rhine, Lorelei, D
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
"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
river data dont
Outline of the Design Case: Free Flowing River

Rhine River at Speyer
[m]
water body
flow velocity [m/s]
river bottom
actual
situation
design case
free flowing river

d 1.7
d 1.7
gravel
design vessel
Push to units:
185 x 22.8 m
CEMT Class
Class Vb unit
sailing
downstream (R =
1000 m)
Vb
30.000
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
sailing
downstream
(R = 900 m)
sailing
upstream
(R = 800 m)
VIb
traffic density [vessel/a] 30.000
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
length2/(radius*beam)
2.0
8.0
1.9 3.6,
average 2.8
Class Vb vessel (lengthextended GMS) sailing

upstream (R = 600 m) - data
from Class Va

Fairway Width
[m]
water body
flow velocity [m/s]
river bottom
actual
situation
design case
free flowing river

d 1.7
d 1.7
gravel
design vessel
CEMT Class
VIb
Vb
30.000
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
radius
825 (average)
825 (average)
width/beam
4.0
2.0
8.0
1.9 3.6,
average 2.8
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)
Discrepancy between permission and practice!

Fairway Width (meetings)
[m]
water body
flow velocity [m/s]
river bottom
actual
situation
design case
free flowing river

d 1.7
d 1.7
gravel
design vessel
CEMT Class
VIb
Vb
30.000
at least C
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
8.0
4.0

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
2.0
8.0
1.9 3.6,
average 2.8
2.0
2.8
Actual: The ease quality of the permitted situation is not acceptable o avoided in practice
Design: Ease quality will be A as specified!

Under Keel Clearance
[m]
water body
flow velocity [m/s]
river bottom
actual
situation
design case
free flowing river

d 1.7
d 1.7
gravel
design vessel
CEMT Class
VIb
Vb
30.000
at least C
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
radius
825 (average)
825 (average)
width/beam
4.0
2.0
8.0
1.9 3.6,
average 2.8
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 large
draughts will be chosen
Fairway Design - Lock Approach: 3-Step Design Method

Lock 25, Mississippi, Winfield, US
Problem
Variety of practice examples is great
Planners probably tried to make the harbor as
big as feasable
"Mississippi River Lock and Dam number 25 large" by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mississippi_River_Lock_and_Dam_number_25_l
arge.jpg#/media/File:Mississippi_River_Lock_and_Dam_number_25_large.jpg
Adequate choice of quality of driving is essential
Case by Case Design

Elbe-Seitenkanal, Lneburg, D
Investigation Method: analytical method,

bridge simulator, fast-time simulation
http://www.wsauelzen.wsv.de/aktuelles/images/SHW_LG_Schiff_Ausfahrt_Trog_Bergfahrt.jpg
Outline of the Design Case: Lock Approach (upper harbour)

[m]
Lock
wind condition
Cross flow [m/s]
design vessel
< 0.3 m/s
CEMT Class
Va
Vb
(extended Va)
5.000
5.000
B
105
11.45
2.70
C
135
11.45
2.70
width relation B/b
4.4
4.4
harbour width
total length relation
total length
straight section L/l
straight Section
entrance funnel L/l
entrance funnel
min depth
safety margin
50
|1.3
130
1.0
100
0.3
30
3.5
5.0
50
|1.2
160 by design
1.0 by design
130 by design
0.2
30
3.5
4.0
traffic density
[vessel/a]
length
beam
draught
Lock approach
Besigheim Locks Neckar River, feasibiliy studies

concerning lock improvement
actual
design
situation case
double lock
3-4 Bf

[m]
Lock
wind condition
Cross flow [m/s]
design vessel
Inlet > 110 (80)
Va
5.000
5.000
B
105
11.45
2.70
C
135
11.45
2.70
width relation B/b
4.4
4.4
harbour width
50
50
| 1.3 | 1.2
total length
straight Section
entrance funnel L/l
entrance funnel
min depth
safety margin
130
1.0
100
0.3
30
3.5
5.0
traffic density
[vessel/a]
length
beam
draught
Lock approach
1. German Guidelines
< 0.3 m/s

Vb
(extended Va)
CEMT Class
actual
design
situation case
double lock
3-4 Bf
Bw = 12.0 m width
of waiting area
s = 5.0 m safety distance between lanes
Approach Channel > 2.8 L
> 64 m
160 by design
1.0 by design
130 by design
0.2
30
3.5
4.0
c > 5.0 m mole width

Bl width of lock =12.5 m
s = 5.0 m safety lane
mooring area > 2.0 L
straight section > 1.5 LVessel (1.0 LConvoy)
German Guidelines cannot be met in our example!


[m]
Lock
wind condition
actual
design
situation case
double lock
3-4 Bf
Cross flow [m/s]

design vessel
< 0.3 m/s
CEMT Class
Va
Vb
(extended Va)
5.000
5.000
traffic density
[vessel/a]
length
beam
draught
Lock approach

2. Compare different guidelines
Lock Approach
B
105
11.45
2.70
C
135
11.45
2.70
width relation B/b
4.4
4.4
harbour width
total length
straight Section
entrance funnel L/l
entrance funnel
min depth
safety margin
50
| 1.3
130
1.0
100
0.3
30
3.5
5.0
50
| 1.2
160 by design
1.0 by design
130 by design
0.2
30
3.5
4.0
China
Dutch
French
Germany
BLA/b
LLA/l
3.5 - 4.5 (s)
3.5 - 4.0
7.0 (d)
2.2 (s)
2.9 (s)
3.0 - 3.5*
1.0 - 1.2
0.5*
3.0 - 4.0 (s)

4.5 - 6.0 (d)
2.8
Practice Approach
River
Main
Neckar
B/b (u)
2.8 (d)
1.8 (s)
8.3 (t)
2.6 (d)
2.3 (s)
B/b (l)
2.8 (d)
2.4 (s)
4.2 (t)
2.5 (d)
2.0 (s)
L/l (u)
L/l (l)
~ 2.5
0.7
1.4
Data from
different
guidelines and
practice cover
existing widths
and lengths!
1.0
2.1
German Guidelines reflect driving category A.

Practice Examples show driving category down to C.

Detailed Design (approach channel)
Application routing
Placing vessel symbols

tangential at turning point
along the route
method with cF
from numerous filed
data
The 135 m long Class Vb vessel

stays inside existing fairway.
Only a little widening just
upstream 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 the
proposed design method:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/20040711181710_Mississip
pi_Memphis_Ausschnitt.jpg/1200px20040711181710_Mississippi_Memphis_Ausschnitt.jpg
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
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/2011_03_11_Elbe_Schubverband
_DSCI0197_k.JPG
starting point
Recommandation
Look at the approach with great care
and experience:
Quality of driving and aspects of traffic are
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/20040711181710_Mississip
pi_Memphis_Ausschnitt.jpg/1200px20040711181710_Mississippi_Memphis_Ausschnitt.jpg
important
Qualification of Designer:
Good understanding of nautical aspects
Experience in water engineering to select
correct boundary conditions
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/2011_03_11_Elbe_Schubverband
_DSCI0197_k.JPG
SMART RIVERS 2015
Workshop Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways
Paper 101 - Applying

Practice Approach
Case by Case Design
www.bmvi.de

Dr.-Ing. Katja Rettemeier
Bundesministerium fr Verkehr
und digitale Infrastruktur (BMVI)
Invalidenstrae 44
D-10115 Berlin
Katja.Rettemeier@bmvbs.bund.de
5/10/2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
Comparative variant analysis in using ship

handling simulators with special respect
to assess ease quality and human factor
Iribarren, 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 Center
CEDEX
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
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 present
and 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
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
Safety and Ease Approach

Reasons to categorize ease quality
Differences in existing and recommended waterway dimensions in national
guidelines
Each waterway system has specific features > accepted minimum
dimensions of waterway infrastructure are derived
Safety and Ease of navigation conditions: different from country to country
or from waterway to waterway
Safety of navigation should be always ensured
WG 141 decided to distinguish different ease categories
Different ease categories or qualities are defined based on objective
criteria
Design case characterized by comparison with analysis case or
reference case
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015

Criteria to assign ease categories
Analyze all influencing parameters
Three rating groups:
1. Waterway related criteria, vessel characteristics and personnel skills
2. Vessel speed
3. Traffic density
If there are uncertainties or risks to be accounted for, the design should be
more generous
Good information systems or strongly powered vessels can significantly
reduce necessary waterway dimensions
High risk of damage in case of accident (nearby buildings, quay walls,
floating facilities or vessel berths)
Human-factor effects: highly skilled, experienced and attentive helmsman
<> poorly instructed, distracted or stressed. Space required
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015

1st Rating Group
Waterway criteria
Vessel characteristics
Personnel skills
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015

2nd Rating Group
Vessel speed
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015

3rd Rating Group
Traffic density
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015

Designation of ease categories
A: nearly unrestricted drive
B: moderate restricted drive
C: strongly restricted drive
(A) all possible ships, even poorly equipped, can sail without interacting with
each other. Poorly trained helmsman can sail safe in the area
(C) implies very restricted conditions, steer at strongly reduced speed, as
during entry into locks or manoeuvring inside a harbour
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
Detailed safety and ease approach for using simulation

Absolute and comparative approach
Objective absolute criteria to characterize inland fairways operation levels
(related to ease categories) are very difficult to fix
Recommended general approach: comparative considerations for assessing
the safety and ease of navigation
Suggested method: compare two variants with each other
New design cases
Well-known reference case
Use of results of ship handling simulators:
Expert rating: discussion with skippers (very important <> objective?)
Additional rational approach following previous scheme
Index-system analogous to the ease score
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015

Methodology
Define an index system adapted to the specific design problem
Take into account all (most) relevant variables influencing the navigation
situation
Specific weighting system will apply to each score (more or less arbitrarily)
based on designers experience
Both design case (new) and ease reference case (existing, well-known) will
be analyzed
Indexes should reflect the difficulty of a driving situation (low values for
an easy drive - high values for a complicated condition)
Simplified S&E approach uses 3 categories > use 3 index levels:
1 - easy or small, e.g. small deviations from the course (A)
2 - medium difficulty according to ease quality B
3 - great difficulties or big deviations (C)
Indexes based on navigation variables (rpm, rudder angle, speed, )
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015

Simulation Techniques
Fast-time Autopilot models
Track-following scheme
Conventional PC operation
No human decision
Easier and cheaper to use
Not too much information needed
Fast-time: manoeuvre simulation just takes a few seconds
Large number of scenarios can be built and analyzed within limited cost
and time
Human factor (steering) substituted by a mathematical algorithm
Inadequate for complicated manoeuvres, complex vessels, restricted
spaces, very demanding conditions, interaction with traffic
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015

Simulation Techniques
Real-time Bridge Simulator
Interactive human decision
Knowledge and experience
Accurate and realistic results
Analysis of complex scenarios
Manoeuvring conditions better evaluated
Skipper evaluation (experience and perception)
Situation awareness
High cost
Very complete information
Reliable virtual model
Long hours of simulation in real-time conditions
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015

Proposed evaluation method
Time series of relevant variables from simulation runs are analyzed
A score is assigned to each manoeuvre variable
Predetermined criteria penalizing the degree of difficulty
Several difficulty indices are considered:
Steering index (IG)
Deviation index (ID)
Speed index (IV)
Combined in a total index (IT)
Weighted average of these indices computed for each scenario
Objective manner of comparing one manoeuvre with another
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015

Proposed evaluation method
Steering Index
How much steering capacity should be applied to safely navigate
rudder angle, engine rpm and thruster rpm
Low rudder + low engine = small difficulty
High rudder angle + engine use = high control required
Deviation Index
Vessel deviation from desired position (channel axis, lock entrance, )
track deviation and course error
Speed Index
Important as it is closely related to risk damage in case of grounding or
colliding
three velocity components: ahead, lateral and turning speed
Total Index
Combination of partial indices
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
Case 1: Approach to Lock-gates

General description
Siport21 analysis for BAW, Germany
Parametric simulation study for the approach of inland vessels to lock-gates
Variables to analyze:
Ship dimensions
Engine power
Bow thruster power
Lock-harbour length and width
Flow velocity
Necessary minimum engine power and
bow thruster power for a safe approach
under variable flow velocities
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015

General description
Class V GMS (98.4x11.4x2.7 m)
Class Vb push-tow unit (184.0x11.4x2.7 m)
72 scenarios to consider:
3 waterlevels
2 vessels
6 levels of bow-thruster power
2 lock widths
Shipma model simulations
Real-time simulator verification
Acceptable threshold
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015

Evaluation criteria
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
5/10/2015

Evaluation results
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015

Evaluation results
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
10
5/10/2015

Conclusions
All design-operation situations ranked
Based on objective criteria
Influence of different parameters (vessel size, propulsion power, thruster
power, current intensity, etc.) on the manoeuvre in relation to the layout and
dimensions of the lock
Tolerable thresholds defined based on a limited number of real-time simulations
Simulator results were quite coherent
red line was not considered <> grey area progressively more difficult
decision acceptable-non acceptable based on the opinion of an expert
Captain: controllability of the vessel; conditions to reach the lock
The evaluation procedure was translated into access rules for different types of
ships equipped with variable power thrusters, depending on the flow conditions
in the river
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
Case 2: Navigation Width Passing a Cross Current Field

General description
Siport21 analysis for BAW, Germany
Simulation studies for the analysis of the additional navigation width required
for inland vessels passing a cross current field from an inlet or outlet structure
with different boundary conditions
Variables to analyze:
Ship dimensions
Ship draught
Water depth
Ship speed
Width of the inlet structure
Distance to the bank
Main current
Cross current field
Driving direction (upstream-downstream)
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
11
5/10/2015

General description
Vessel types:
Europe ship (ES) Class IV (82.0x9.5x2.8 m)
Large Motor Ship (GMS) Class V (98.4x11.4x2.7/1.6 m)
Push Tow Unit Convoy (SV) Class Vb ((110+75) x 11.4 x 2.8 m)
Variables:
Main flow
Cross flow speed
Outlet width
Real-time simulations first
SHIPMA simulations (many variables)
22 runs real-time + 68 runs fast-time
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015

Evaluation criteria
Critical values for evaluation:
Ship position (x-axis)
Side shift at bow and tail
Yaw angle
Engine power used
Ship speed over ground and relative
to water
Rudder angle and rudder force
Current forces and moments
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
12
5/10/2015

Manoeuvres and results
Strategy: try to keep the vessel at the
required distance from the bank
Vessel receives cross flow and deviates
Skipper tries to recover initial position using
rudder and bow thruster
All different scenarios were ranked in terms
of difficulty. They were compared with each
other and the most relevant parameters were
clearly identified
The results obtained were used to define
specific design guidelines for such conditions,
in combination with scale model tests
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
Conclusions
Review of existing guidelines in several countries
Discrepancies in existing and recommended waterway dimensions may be
caused by specific operation conditions
Safety and Ease conditions for navigation definitively different from country to
country or from waterway to waterway
Dimensions resulting from the design process (channel width and depth, bend
dimensions, bridge passages, lock approaches, harbours, turning areas, etc.)
linked to operation conditions
WG 141 defines three ease scores for inland fairways:
A: nearly unrestricted drive
B: moderate restricted drive
C: strongly restricted drive
Rating groups: waterway related criteria, vessel characteristics and
personnel skills + vessel speed + traffic density
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
13
5/10/2015
Conclusions
Suggestion to compare the decisive design cases with a corresponding wellknown reference case, instead of absolute assignment
Manoeuvring models and real-time simulators are useful tools to support
channel and fairway design in Detailed Design phase
A method for the evaluation of simulation runs has been described
Deviation Index (ID), Steering Index (IG), Speed Index (IV)
Evaluation criteria to rank different design scenarios in terms of difficulty
Possibility to compare one with each other and check influence of different
parameters (vessel size, propulsion power, thruster power, current intensity,
water depth, layout, etc.) in relation to the layout and dimensions of the
fairway
5-10-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
Comparative variant analysis in using ship

handling simulators with special respect
to assess ease quality and human factor
SMART RIVERS 2015 - Buenos Aires, Argentina, 7-11 September 2015
14
5-10-2015
Design Guidelines versus

Practices for the UpperSeascheldt, the Inland
Waterway Connection
between Antwerp and Ghent
Katrien Eloot
08-09-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015: Buenos Aires
Introduction
Rivers = inland transportation axes between cities
Upper-Seascheldt = inland waterway connection
Upper-Seascheldt
5-10-2015
Introduction
Rivers = inland transportation axes between cities
Upper-Seascheldt = inland waterway connection
Tidal river (changing water levels and important
currents)
Entire river only accessible for CEMT class IV
Is an upgrade of the Upper-Seascheldt for class Va
vessels possible?
No design guidelines for the evaluation of the
accessibility of a river for a design ship
PIANC InCom Working Group 141: step by step
Overview
Accessibility of the river for:
Class IV (85 m x 9.5 m)
Best practice: full-scale measurement of real
track
Concept design: analysis of national guidelines
Class Va (110 m x 11.4 m)
Concept design: comparison between IV and Va
Detailed design: real time simulations at the
inland simulator Lara of FHR
5-10-2015
Overview
Based on studies tendered by the the Zeeschelde
division of the waterway authority Waterwegen en
Zeekanaal NV. International Marine and Dredging
Consultants (IMDC) carried out the research in
cooperation with Flanders Hydraulics Research (FHR).
Knowledge Centre Manoeuvring in Shallow and
Confined Water (www.shallowwater.be) together with
Ghent University.
Overview
Design guidelines for class IV and Va
Design guidelines worldwide
Bottlenecks for ship manoeuvring
Accessibility for class IV vessels
Full-scale measurement
Evaluation of the accessibility for class IV
Accessibility for class Va vessels
Real time simulation
Evaluation of the accessibility for class Va
Conclusion
5-10-2015
Design guidelines for class

IV and Va
No European guidelines for rivers, thus guidelines for
canals and dammed rivers. Ease of sailing.
Maximal (normal) profile
Minimal (narrow) profile
Chinese guidelines (natural and canalised rivers):
Chinese class IV = CEMT class IV, Va and Vb
but with small draft of 1.6 m
For a ship with a beam of 10.8 m:
One-lane: width is 30 m
Two-lane: width is 50 m

IV and Va
Bottlenecks:
waterway profile in straight sections and
bends for two-lane traffic;
minimum bend radii for taking the bends;
passage of bridges with minimum height and
width related to tidal elevation and current
5-10-2015

IV and Va
Waterway profile in straight sections and bends for
two-lane traffic
Reference water level (tidal cycle)
50 percentile of the lowest LW and highest HW
tidal range 2.5 m in Merelbeke, 5.0 m in Antwerp
height of the water column (with 30% of the draft as
UKC)
acceptable drafts at LW and HW
Designed profile for a two-lane river for class Va
vessels at 3.65 m draft (Dutch guidelines)
Bottom width 2B
Width in the keel of the laden vessel 3B
Wind increment

IV and Va
Waterway profile in straight sections and bends for
two-lane traffic
5-10-2015

IV and Va
Minimum bend radii: 4 or 6L
Counter-rotating bends

IV and Va
Minimum bend radii: 4 or 6L
(1.2 to 1.6L)
Other guidelines accept lower bend radii
5-10-2015

IV and Va
Bridges
Air draft
Position of
the bridge
in the
waterway
Overview
Conclusion
5-10-2015
Accessibility for class IV

vessels
Full-scale measurement on a 85 m vessel with 2.65 m
draft
SOG (20 km/h,
lower in bends)
STW (current
up to 4 km/h
and more)
Numerical
simulation with
HW: 11.4 B width
secundary
Swept path 6.1 B
(45 deg drift angle)
flow

vessels
Wide variety of parameters for a river
Reference level = minimum water level for a section
profile so that a class IV with 3.0 m draft can pass the
considered section with 20% UKC while passing all
other shallow water zones
Upper-Seascheldt:
Straight sections: two-lane except most
inbound section
Bends: one- or two-lane depending on the
radius, width and depth
Meetings are not forebidden
5-10-2015

vessels
Straight sections

vessels
Straight sections (10,000 vessels in 2007)
5-10-2015

vessels
Bends
Class IV vessel in the bend

Kramp swept path ratio without
safety distances to the banks

vessels
Overall evaluation based on ease of sailing
Ease level B waterway (with moderate to strong
restrictions and not characterized by easily sailing)
Although the many sharp bends could transform the
river into a score C waterway, thanks to the lower
traffic density and the higher speed that can be
maintained in a waterway with a variable tidal water
depth, the ease of sailing with a class IV vessel gives
still some possibilities for upgrading the waterway
10
5-10-2015
Overview
Conclusion
Accessibility for class Va

vessels
Real time simulation with a 110 m vessel with variable
draft
Most difficult situations (LW, max. flood or ebb)
129 simulation runs in the reference case (actual
Upper-Seascheldt)
Different scenarios with adapted river
11
5-10-2015

vessels
Straight sections:
Meeting class Va vessels
draft 2.85 m, max.
ebb current

vessels
Bends:
Run 117, draft

2.85 m, max.
flood
Run 118, draft

3.65 m, max.
flood
12
5-10-2015

vessels
environmental parameters (water level, tidal current)
ship related parameters (dimensions, draft)
operational parameters (ships speed, ships controls)
Bridges:

vessels
Overall evaluation:
Reduction of the ease level in the design process
Maintain an ease level B (measures: widening of the
river or sharp bends deleted) but respect the
environmental and ecological balance of the river
No final decision about adaptations to the river
resulting from the study
Dredging plan as a guarantee of the accessibility of
class IV vessels
13
5-10-2015
Overview
Conclusion
Conclusion
Design guidelines = for the design of new canals
For natural or dammed rivers = guidelines are too
restrictive or conservative
Comparative evaluation method for the UpperSeascheldt with concept, practice and real time
simulation techniques
Upper-Seascheldt = NOT a practice example as the
ease of sailing is belonging to level B with moderate to
strong restrictions
Result = dredging plan for class IV vessels with a good
description of the river and necessary maintenance
14
5-10-2015
Conclusion
15
SMART RIVERS 2015
Paper 174 Workshop on Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways
Application of WG 141 Approach including

Elaboration of Field Data and Fast-time
Simulation for Class Va Vessel passing narrow
Jagstfeld Bridge in the German Neckar River
Bernhard Shngen & Rolf Butterer
Content
1. Project area and specification of the design case

2. Application of the recommended design approach
3. Concept Design using routing methods
4. Practice Approach using river data

5. Detailed Design using fast-time simulations
6. Discussion of results and recommendations
Paper 174 Application of WG 141 Approach using Fast Time Simulation Bridge Passage, Bernhard Shngen, Rolf Butterer
SMART RIVERS 2015, Workshop on Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways, 08.09.2015 | Page 2
www.baw.de
27 barrages, almost each with double locks,

around 80 years old, renovation or
replacement necessary
Locks for 105 m long Class Va vessels
(large motor vessel GMS)
Heidelberg locks and dam

www.baw.de

German Waterway Category A up to
Heilbronn (largest harbour)
Prognosis of length-extended GMS (135 m,
GMS, Class Vb) about 30%
Decision: Elongation of one of the double
locks for 135 m long Class Vb vessels
German Waterway Category map
www.baw.de

Present study: Passage of Jagstfeld
Bridge by GMS (2 container levels)
GMS Hanna Krieger , coupled in front of pusher Vogel

Gryff, simulating a GMS
| 24 m net width in headroom
Excelsior in Neckar
Canal at Mannheim
| 28 m net width in draught

depth between foundations
www.baw.de

Year-round 2.7 m draught possible, but also
many empty/ballasted vessels
Presently decisive vessel: GMS (about 50%)
Neckar fleet (% by number of trips)

with loading conditions
Upstream
Loaded GMS
empty GMS
Downstream
www.baw.de

Year-round 2.7 m draught possible, but also
Presently decisive vessel GMS (about 50%)
Vessels are almost optimally equipped
Vessel properties reference case

(according to MS Hanna Krieger):
Length 105 m, breadth 11.4 m
1 wheel, Kort Nozzle, twin rudders
Propeller Diameter 1.7 m
Main engine power 950 kW
Design speed 335 rpm
4-channel bow thruster, 205 kW
(negligible thrust sailing at usual
speed of about 8-9 km/h relative
to water fully loaded and about 1112 km/h empty/ballasted)
py
)
Vessel properties design case
(analogous to former Vigilia):
Length 135 m, breadth 11.45 m
2 wheels (by admission), Kort
Nozzles, twin rudders
Propeller Diameter 1.6 m
Engine power 2x800 kW
Design speed 350 rpm
4-channel bow thruster, 600 kW!
(results are very sensitive to this
number)
www.baw.de

restrictions
almost
no
moderate
strong Va
strong
Locks for 105 m longto Class
vessels
C
(largeAmotor vesselBGMS)
easy sailing
not really easy
tricky drive
German
Waterway
Category
A up to
easiness
analysis case GMS (135 m,
score
Prognosis
of for
length-extended
+1.0
+0.8
+0.6
+0.4
+0.2
-0.2 -0.4
-0.6 -0.8 -1.0
GMS, Class Vb)0.0about
30%
+0.425
designation
A
nearly unrestricted drive
drrive
B
moderate to strongly
ngly restricted
Bridge drive
by GMS (2 container levels)
2.7 restricted
m draught
possible, but also
C Year-round
strongly
drive
rive
s
ssels
Presently decisive vessel GMS (about 50%)
5
a eqipped
ally
eqi
Vessels are almost optimally
xp
Very good trained and ex
experienced
pilots
on
n t/a
t (mouth)
Total freight about 7 Million
About 11000 trips/a downstream
n re
nstr
Heilbronn
brronn
Few companies control the
he
e market
markket
s&e score
for png
www.baw.de
Sailing downstream is more tricky than

upstream
Limited available
space sailing
downstream, no
straight course
Almost straight
passage possible
upstream
Ship positions of GMS from long-time vessel observations,

approximately mean water level (MW)
www.baw.de

upstream
Unusual strong flow velocities for an
impounded river of about 1.9 m/s | 7 km/h
at Jagstfeld Bridge at highest navigable
stage HSW!
Small navigational reserve between 6
km/h (threshold good steerability) up to the
speed limit of about 9 km/h relative to water
(16 km/h over ground)
www.baw.de

upstream
Atypical strong flow velocities for an
impounded river of about 1.9 m/s | 7 km/h
at Jagstfeld Bridge at highest navigable
stage HSW!
Small navigational reserve between 6 km/h
(threshold good steerability) up to speed
limit (16 km/h over ground) of about 9 km/h
relative to water)
About 5 m more space available in draught
depth because of sloped banks downstream
of the bridge at HSW compared to MW and
about 3 m more between an empty (draught
about 1.6 m) or fully loaded vessel (2.7 m),
but more space needed for HSW or
empty/ballasted vessel while drifting
o Worst case concerning loading conditions
and stage is not clear in the beginning
o Consideration of 4 variants (MW-HSW,
empty/full) for each png and dc
Container vessel
Excelsior T= 1.8 1.9 m
Bulk carrier
Hanna Krieger
T = 2.7 m
The lower the

draught-to-depth-ratio
T/d, the wider the
swept area if no bow
thrusters are used
www.baw.de
2. Application of the recommended design approach s&e

(1) Analyze the s&e quality of the present
p
) with the
nautical condition(s) (pnc)
simplified s&e approach
(2) Assess the s&e quality
y of the design
case (dc) with the simplified
approach
m
mplified
If one demands for the same s&e score for design

and pnc o safe side o ease reference case erc
may be the same as pnc
www.baw.de

(1) Analyse
Analyze the s&e quality of the present
nautical
(pnc)
nautical
condition(s)
condition(s)
(pnc)
withwith
the the
simplified
simplified
approach
s&e approach
(3) Choose an appropriate ease reference case (erc):
o here identical to png
(2) Assess the s&e quality of the design

case
(dc)
withwith
the the
simplified
simplified
approach
approach
case
(dc)
www.baw.de

(1) Analyse
Analyze the s&e quality of the present
nautical
(pnc)
nautical
condition(s)
condition(s)
(pnc)
withwith
the the
simplified
simplified
approach
s&e approach
(3) Choose an appropriate ease reference case (erc):
(2) Assess the s&e quality of the design

case
(dc)
withwith
the the
simplified
simplified
approach
approach
case
(dc)
Compare
C
ompare s&e scoress off (2)
(2
2) and
d (3)
(3)
and modify if necessa
and
necessary
aryy the
th
he ease
easse
reference case
reference
(4) Check the sensitivity of the ease scores

of pnc
of pnc
andand
erc
erc
(5) Specify the aspired ease standards for
the design case o around B
o here identical to png
Adapt the weighting factorss of the

e simplified
sim
mplified
d
and
necessary
an
nd detailed s&e approach if n
ece
essa
ary
(7) Analyze dc and erc according to the

ease quality with the detailed approach
(6) Perform the design, using the Concept

Design Method, the Practice Approach
and/or the Detailed Design Method and
compare the results
www.baw.de

Concept Design
width + increments

Use international
Flow velocity up to 1.9 m/s is a lot higher than the applicability

threshold of about 0.5 m/s
o German guidelines are not applicable
It is a maneuvering situation, not a stationary movement
o other guidelines, such as the Chinese ones, are not
applicable as well
www.baw.de

are exceeded (e.g.
if flow velocity is
too high) or if there
are other good
arguments for a
Case by Case Study
Concept Design
width + increments

Use international
Flow velocity up to 1.9 m/s is a lot higher than the applicability

threshold of about 0.5 m/s
o German guidelines are not applicable
It is a maneuvering situation,
situation not a stationary movement
moveme t
o oth
other
h guidelines, such as the Chinese ones,
her
nes, are nott
applicable
applic
c
cable
as well

www.baw.de
But one may use the routing

method recommended in
German guidelines
(requirement: no cross currents)
and the corresponding safety
margins for Class Va/Vb vessels:
o 4.1 m extra width due to
instabilities and human effects
o 1.5 / 4.0 m safety distances to
banks in draught depth,
because of similar boundary
conditions (T/d and vW )!
Concept Design
width + increments

Use international
Routing method = placing

vessel symbols tangential at
turning point along the route
www.baw.de
But one may use the routing

method recommended in
German guidelines
(requirement: no cross currents)
and the corresponding safety
margins for Class Va/Vb vessels:
o 4.1 m extra width due to
instabilities and human effects
o 1.5 / 4.0 m safety distances to
banks in draught depth,
because of similar boundary
conditions (T/d and vSW )!
Assuming that the existing
situation is just acceptable,
taking the a.m. safety margins
and wind increments (according
to Dutch rule of thumb for inland
stretches = 0.05 L | 5 m), one
can apply the principle of
comparative variant analysis,
meaning that the fairway should
be widened by the difference of
the swept areas between png
and dc
Concept Design
width + increments
5m

Use international
bank in draught depth

minus safety margins
Assumption: swept area

includes instabilities
www.baw.de

png
cF for good equipped

vessels ('cF | - 0.1), usual
T/d and vFlow/vSW in dammed
rivers (| 0.4) from future
guidelines of WG 141 (could
be more precise using local
boundary conditions)
dc
case
draught
cF
png
GMS
1.6 m
1.1
2.7 m
0.9
dc
GMS
1.6 m
1.0
2.7 m
0.8
The most critical condition

(space needed versus space
available) is an empty or
ballasted vessel!
www.baw.de

png
dc
37 17 = 20 m more space needed

+ increased extra width due to wind
= 0.05 (135 105) | 1.5 m
+ increased extra width from
instabilities | 1.0 m
| 22.5 m
Routing methods are not able to consider a

sideways displacement, which usually occurs
downstream of the bridge
All the necessary safety margins were met,
forcing to make the turn just behind the bridge,
which is unusual in practice
Routing methods are generally on the

safe side! o 22.5 m is an upper bound!
www.baw.de

Concept Design
width + increments
Practice Approach
design case at hand
similar projects

2
C
n=
3
B
Application for R | 300 m, n | 3.075 according for dc

according to s&e score and n | 3.425 for pnc.
o 'bF | 8 m + 2.5 m for greater increments (wind + instabilities)
o | 10.5 m necessary widening downstream of the bridge
4
A
www.baw.de

Concept Design
width + increments
Practice Approach
design case at hand
similar projects

2
C
n=
3
B
4
A
Compare results
from Concept
and Practice
If Concept Design
reliable results
Finalize Design
Application for R | 300 m, n | 3.075 according for dc

according to s&e score and n | 3.425 for pnc.
o 'bF | 8 m + 2.5 m for greater increments (wind + instabilities)
o | 10.5 m necessary widening downstream of the bridge
Results from Concept and Practice are not the same!
www.baw.de
5. Detailed Design using fast time simulations

Concept Design
width + increments
Practice Approach
design case at hand
similar projects
Detailed Design
Choice of method & modelling,
design study
www.baw.de
Bathymetric and extrapolated

flow data from field
measurements
vFlow in 1/2 draught depth for
secondary currents
Cross sections every 25 m
for calculating critical speed
Modelling
www.baw.de

Fast-time simulation with PeTra2D
Slender body theory
Inertia inclusive added mass
Irregular flow velocities
Critical speed considered
No bank forces, safety

distances instead
Commercial track-keeping
Vessel built-up by components
Calibration inter alia by

different force components
Modelling
Calibration
www.baw.de

Fast time simulation with PeTra2D
Slender body theory
Inertia inclusive added mass
Irregular flow velocities
Critical speed considered
No bank forces, safety

distances instead
Commercial track-keeping
Vessel built-up by components
Calibration inter alia by

different force components
Modelling
Calibration
www.baw.de

Because bow thruster usage is
not very efficient and according
to observed vessel velocities:
Sailing with max. permitted
speed of 16 km/h a.G.
Most critical condition both for
png and dc: empty /
ballasted vessels at HSW
Modelling
Calibration

pnc (here = erc)
2 m below water
table at HSW
minus 1.5 m
safety margin
Driving style as observed,

neglecting safety margins
below the bridge!
www.baw.de
Because reliable measurements

are only available for stages
around MW:
Using a container vessel for
verification because its T/dratio is closer to T/d at HSW
Model Verification

Modelling
Calibration

pnc

identical to pnc)
Assumption: usage of
100% bow thruster power!
www.baw.de

erc = pnc
Model
Mod
del V
Verification
erificatio
on
dc
The smallest distances to

banks are about the same in
dc and png!
Because of the very strong
bow thruster (600 kW)!
Driving as observed in
practice, neglecting safety
distances below the bridge!
((1)
1) Prepare
Preparre and
and ccheck
heckk data
datta basis
basis
Modelling
M
odelling
((2)
2) Check
Check modelling
modelling capacity
capacity
Calibration
C
alibration
((3)
3) Perform
Perform simulations
sim
mulations for the
p
resen
nt n
autical conditions
conditions
present
nautical
pnc
pnc
((5)
5) Simulate
Simulate the
the vverification
eriificaation
reference
ref
ference case vrc
vrc
vrc and
d
SSupport
upport to
to ccheck
heck modelling
modelling
and
ccapability
a p a b i l i ty a
nd s&e
s&e approach
ap
pp
proach
((4)
4) Choose
Choo
ose the
the verification
veriffication
reference
be
re
efereence casee vrc
vrrc (may
(may b
e
iidentical
dentical to
to pnc)
pnc)
to pnc)

necessary the s&e-approach
www.baw.de

erc = png
Model
Mod
del V
Verification
erificcation
n
dc
((1)
1) Prepare
Preparre and
and ccheck
heckk data
datta basis
basis
Modelling
M
odelling
((2)
2) Check
Check modelling
modelling capacity
capacity
Calibration
C
alibration
((3)
3) Perform
Perform simulations
sim
mulations for the
p
ressen
nt n
autical conditions
conditions
present
nautical
pnc
pnc
SSupport
upport to
to ch
check
heck modelling
modelling
capability
and
capab
p b i l i ty a
nd s&e
s&e approach
ap
pp
proach
((4)
4) Choose
Choo
ose the
the verification
veriffication
reference
be
re
efereence casee vrc
vrrc (may
(may b
e
iidentical
dentical to
to pnc)
pnc)
This seems reasonable, because field investigations

(stage a little more than MW)((5)
5with
) Simulate
Simualatsignificantly
e the
the vverification
erifficattion weaker
vrc
reference
ref
f
erence
case
vrc
vrc and
d is safe (6)) Choose the ease reference
powered vessel show that the driving situation
compare
it
with
field
data
casee erc (may also be identical
at good environmental conditions!
There no
no s
significant
ignificant increase
increase
in swept area width for the 135
(7) Simulate
Simu
erc and adjust if
m long Class Vb vessel
necessary
necessa
r the s&e approach
compared to the shorter 105 m
But do we really need no fairway
vessel!
(8) Simulate
Simula the design case dc,
more
say 2.5 analyse
m as the
GMS Hanna
Krieger
, coupled
widening
Because of
of the
verythan
strong
the ease
quality,
compare
it in front of
pusher Vogel Gryff, simulating a GMS
indicated
by
increased
increments?
bow thruster (600 kW)!
with erc aand
n adjust dc if necessary
Driving as observed in
Comparative
Comparativ
vve
e analysis
practiceby
neglecting
safetyease quality!
Answer
comparing
distances below the bridge!
to pnc)
www.baw.de
Excursus: CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY AND EASE

How?

The score can be chosen
according to the ease scores
of the simplified approach
Significant
rudder angle,
e.g. 20q
Rudder angle producing

max. crosswise force,
e.g. 45q for twin rudders
Geometrically max.
rudder angle of the
design vessel
Usual peak value,

e.g. 30q
www.baw.de

How?

Time series of rudder angles
Time series of
ease scores
Transformation
into ease
scores

www.baw.de

How?

The simplified approach will be used (1) to

find out an appropriate ease quality for
design and (2) to define an ease reference
case erc with the same strived ease
quality
The s&e scores of the erc and the design

case dc can be compared (comparative
variant analysis)
They should be about the same to ensure

the aspired standard. If they differ
considerably, the design case has to be
modified, e.g. choosing a wider fairway
www.baw.de

About 1 B distance can be assigned
to ease category A
Selected characteristic values from simulations to

compare dc with erc with corresponding weighting
factors for matching the different s&e indexes
Used principle:
Ease scores generally
between +1 (category A)
and -1 (category C)
Exception unsafe
conditions (e.g. bank
distances < 0)
Exploitation Waterway Bank distance

0.3
of
related
resources
Vessel
Main rudder angle 0.2
related
Bow thruster usage 0.2
Driving
Human
Number of rudder actions (incl.
difficulty
related
bow thruster) per minute 0.15
Vessel
Standard deviation main rudder
related
angles 0.15
www.baw.de

About 1 B distance can be assigned
to ease category A
Selected
S
l cted
t d characteristic
h
t i ti values
l
from
f
simulations
i l ti
tto
compare dc
dc with
wi erc with corresponding weighting
w
factors for matching the different s&e iindexes
Principles:
Ease scores
e generally
es
g
between +1
A)
1 (category
(
and -1 (category
teg
go C)
Exception unsa
unsafe
u
af
conditions (e.g.
((e g b
bankk
distances < 0)
Exploitation Waterway Bank

Ban distance
d
of
related
0.3
resources
Vessel
Vesse
Main rudder angle 0.2
.2
2
related
Bow thruster us
usage
sage 0.2
Driving
of rudder
rudder actions (incl.
Human
Number of
dif
ow
w thruster)
thruster)) p
difficulty
related
bow
per minute 0.15
Vessel
Standard
S
tandard deviation main rudder
at e d
angles
g
0.15
related
www.baw.de
All the scores of dc are a bit lower than

those for erc, but not very much!
Widening of the fairway is, therefore, not
absolutely necessary, but indicated!
www.baw.de

erc
2st critical point: | 6 m
1st critical point: | 0 m
But the ease scores of the bank distances are obviously too positive result of averaging over about
500 m length (km 101.9 101.4). One could use the smallest distances at 2 critical points, e.g. just
below and downstream of the bridge, leading to ease scores of each - 0.5 for erc and dc!
If one increases the bank distances by around 5 m, using the critical-point-approach or about 10 m
taking the first approach, the comprehensive ease scores of erc and dc are about the same.
Taking the a.m. extra increments of about 2.5 m, one ends up with necessary 7.5 12.5 m!
But these numbers are the result of almost no safety margins below the bridge and 100% bow
thruster usage of a strong thruster!
www.baw.de

It is not possible to
exactly determine the
necessary fairway
widening!
Model Verification
Modelling
Calibration

pnc


capability
p
y and s&e approach
pp
identical to pnc)
to pnc)
using differences between dc and
pnc, use the result of (8) as a 2nd
approach, use 3rd the simulations
directly (absolute values) and
account for 4th experiences
Interpretation
www.baw.de
necessary fairway
widening!
The results depend
decisively on assumed
boundary conditions,
e.g. bow thruster
usage and power
Model Verification
n

Modelling
Calibration

About 6 m more navigational
space
needed!
(4) Choose the
verification
pnc
identical to pnc)
Sailing with 42% bow
to pnc)
power
(7) Simulate erc and adjust if thruster(9)
Interpret 1st the simulations,
necessary the s&e approach instead of
100%
using
differences between dc


Interpretation
www.baw.de
necessary fairway
widening!
The results depend
decisively on assumed
boundary conditions,
e.g. bow thruster usage
and power as well as
the driving style
Using the simulations directly

ensuring a safe (margins kept)
and easy (42% bow thrust) drive
Necessary widening:
8 m overlapping
+ extra widths due to
instabilities (| 2 m
according to German
guidelines)
+ 0.05 L wind increment
Model Verification
n

Modelling
Calibration

pnc

capability
bilit and
d s&e
& approach
h
Further 8 m
more
space
reference case vrc
(may
be
needed!
identical to pnc)

Keeping safety
to pnc)
the
(7) Simulate erc and adjust ifmargins below
bridge!
using differences between dc

Interpretation
| 17 m!
www.baw.de

Concept Design
Design Method
Driving style / s&e
necessary
widening
are exceeded (e.g.
(round off)
if flow velocity is
Concept Design
(routing
too
big) or if there practice today
width by adding the 22.5
basicm
method)
are other good
width + increments
arguments
for
a
Check
Practice Approach (river data, practice today applicability limits
11.5 m
Case by Case Study
one-lane)
Fast Time Simulations
using differences in swept
area space needed
ease quality dc = erc
direct results + increments for

instabilities and wind
Practice Approach
Use practice data provided
practice today by WG 141 comparable
2.5 m to
or m
practice today Use data from previous
7.5 12.5
similar projects
p j
practice today
11 limits
m
Check application
(less bow thruster power)

Use international
Compare results
from Concept
and Practice
If Concept Design
reliable results
Finalize Design
Keeping safety margins

17 m
Detailed Design
below the bridge and
less of method & modelling,
Choice
bow thruster power
design study
direct results + increments for
instabilities and wind
If the results are

resilient
Compare results
from all 3 methods
+ preliminary
projects
www.baw.de

Concept D
C
Design
i
Design
De
esign Method
Driving style / s&e
&
necessary
Choose appropriatee s&e quality
widening
are exceeded (e.g.
n e.g.
Perform the design
(round off)
if flow velocity is
concerning necessary
ary fairway
Concept
Co
oncept Design
(routing
y by adding the
too
big) or if there practice today
width
e 22.5
basicm
method)
me
ethod)
are other good
width + increments
ts
arguments
for
a
Check
applicability
limits
Practice
r
ractice
Approach (river data,
ata, p
practice
ractice today
11.5 m
Case
by
Case
Study
one-lane)
n
ne

Use international
Compare results
from Concept
and Practice
Practice Approach
h
Use practice
e data provided
using
sing differences
in swept
practice
today byimprovement
2.5 mbefore
WG 141 comparable
omparable
to
Feedback
to planners
of Neckar
If Concept Design
area space needed
design
case
considered
onsidered
finalizing the design:
Use data from previous
or m
reliable results
ease quality
dc
=
erc
practice
today
7.5
12.5
What are feasibility thresholds of a possible fairway
similar projects
p j
(achievable
ease
direct resultswidening
+ increments
for practice
today
11 limits
m
quality)?
Check application
Finalize Design
instabilities
windit be acceptable
(less bow
thruster HSW
power)for GMS only, not
and
Would
to reduce
Fast
a Time Simulations
ast
all vessel for

types?
direct resultsfor
+ increments
Keeping safety margins
17 m
Detailed Design
and
What
about defining
a necessary
minimum
bow thruster
instabilities
wind
below
the bridge and
Choice of method
& modelling,
usage
power (600 kW)? lower bow thruster
study piers (keep
Will crash barriers be acceptable atdesign
the bridge
Interpretation
results
to existing
driving
style,
safety forofbridge)?
Use Concept Design
as preliminary
design
o but ensuring
If the results are

resilient
Compare results
from all 3 methods
+ preliminary
projects
www.baw.de

Recommended steps
p in
waterway design
desi
www.baw.de
SMART RIVERS 2015

Paper 174 - Workshop on Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways, Application of WG 141 Approach including
Elaboration of Field Data and Fast Time Simulation for Class Va Vessel passing narrow Jagstfeld Bridge in the
German Neckar River

Prof. Dr.Ing. Bernhard Shngen
bernhard.soehngen@baw.de
phone: 0049-721-9726-4600
Bundesanstalt fr Wasserbau
76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
www.baw.de
VNF DLEI Direction des liaisons Europennes et de linnovation
SMART RIVERS 2015
About modeling inland vessels

resistance and propulsion
and interaction vessel - waterway
Pierre-Jean Pompe
VNF Voies navigables de France
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
1. General : Confined water effects

* Behaviour
* Canal and river situation, resistance curve aspect
* Available models and theories (models for Convoys # self propelled vessels)
2. About propulsion in confined water

* Need to compute w and t
* Difficulties associated with estimating w and t for inland vessels
* About propeller diagram in confined water
* Canal Case , River case comparison of results using different methods
3. Presentation of a Resistance+Propulsion model

* Diagram
* Typical results sheets & diagrams
Conclusion
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Confined water effects

Increased squat & trim
(increases with : confinement, bloc coefficient, speed)
Lowered water level + return flow
V
Waterde
level
niveau
l'eau
Sd=z+/2
z
T
u
Draught T , speed V , lowered level z return flow u, Squat Sd , trim
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
From principles for the design of Bank and bottom protection for inland waterways , Karlsruhe, 2005
4
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
(studies CNR 1977 Pushed Convoy 185 mx11,40m)
Confined water squat curves depending of speed for a 185m-long convoy for
several draughts : 1, 2, 3, 4m
5
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Confined water shipping effects (cont)

Increased Resistance (up to more than double)
Lower propulsion efficiency, increased fuel consumption (may be
double or triple)
Example of increase of resistance depending on 1/m= Ac/Ab , ratio of the
waterway cross section to the boat cross-section according to Strickler, depending
of velocity V of the boat and return flow u :
V+u (m/s)
V+u (km/h)
Ac/Ab=50
Ac/Ab=40
Ac/Ab=30
Ac/Ab=15
Ac/Ab=10
Ac/Ab=7
6
1,5
5,4
1
1,1
1,2
1,43
1,7
1,95
8-9-2015
2,0
7,2
1
1,1
1,2
1,43
1,72
2
2,5
9,0
1
1,1
1,2
1,45
1,8
2,20
3,0
10,8
1
1,1
1,2
1,5
2,1
-
SMART RIVERS 2015
3,5
12,6
1
1,1
1,2
1,6
PJ Pompe
Confined water shipping effects (cont)

Higher turning radius
Exemple : turning radius of

Esso Osaka is double
when h/T reaches 1,2
(Image from ITTC Esso Osaka
reports and studies, 2002)
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Confined water effects on resistance
Total resistance R
"Shallow
Water"
limited
depth
undulatory
effects
"Canal"
limited
depth &
width
hydraulic
effects
Open
Water
Vessel speed (relative to water)

Subcrical
Vcr speed
Critical speed
pe
Vc
Supercritical
speed Vscr
Canal situation : 2 subcritical and supercritical speed (estimate : Schijf method)

Shallow water or River situation : one critical speed only, critical Fnh =1
open water situation
8
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Confined water effects on resistance :

River / Shallow water situation (ie unlimited width)
"average" width of waterway Bc = Ac / h
B
Ab
width of influence of the vessel in open water Bi
sketch by John Scott Russel,

Edimbourg, 1839
9
River / Shallow Water situation :

Key parameter : h/T
waterway width Bc is larger than the width of
influence of the vessel Bi
undulatory effects are driving the resistance
1 critical speed only : subcritical speed is same
than supercritical speed and critical Fnh=1
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Confined water effects on resistance :

Canal situation, limited width
"average" width of waterway Bc = Ac / h
B
Ab
width of influence of the vessel in open water Bi
Towing tank drag curve of a Johan Welker /RHK vessel

From Recherches sur la navigation en sections limites Groupe
de travail No7 (Hydraulique) Thse , Dtermination de la
puissance des bateaux de navigation intrieure et de la section
transversale optimale de la voie navigable , universities of Lige,
Gand, Louvain J Marchal 1973-1975
10
8-9-2015
Canal situation : Bi >> Bc,

Key parameter : m = Ab/Ac
Width of hydraulic influence Bi of vessel is
larger than the waterway width Bc
Hydraulic effects in addition to undulatory
effects
2 critical speeds : subcritical and
supercritical speed;
sub critical Fnh is lower than 1
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Confined water effects thresholds
Ac / Ab
h/T
Bc / B
Start of
Important
confinement
confinement
effects
50
7-8
15
4
50-200
10-15
Highly
confined
4
1,5
4
(note : marine channel for access to a harbour : h/T 1.2)
Start of increase of wave making resistance : V > 60% Vcr
Start of hydraulic effects : to

11
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015

PJ Pompe
Note : for a freight inland vessel (displacement vessel) :
Lenght Froude number /
0,16 - 0,18
Depth Froude number 0,6 - 0,7 (laterally unrestricted)

Average depth Froude number 0,6 - 0,7 (confined)
12
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Note : Shallow water case is not as frequent as expected !
(and dont confuse average water depth Hm = Ac/W with real water
depth h what matters finally being Hm , NOT h)
Taking into account only depth or even only width on

surface may lead to mistakes . (nb Schijf method used for this table)
8-9-2015
13
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Influence of shape of cross-section

90%Vcr
Ac
Ab
Hm
m2
m2
54
54
54
54
Ac/Ab
Vcr
km/h
km/h
km/h
4,50 11,40 2,50 243,0 28,5 4,50 8,53
14,2
12,76
3,07 0,35
36
4,50 11,40 2,50 202,5 28,5 3,75 7,11
12,1
10,91
3,12 0,31
4,50 11,40 2,50 139,5 28,5 2,58 4,89
8,5
7,65
3,19 0,23
W=w
B
Water level (quiet)
Ab
h
= Hm
Aw = Ac - zW - Ab
slope p=0
W
B
Water level (quiet)
Ab
Hm =Ac / W
Aw = Ac - zW - Ab
slope
p = (W-w)/2h
W
B
Water level (quiet)
Ab
Hm =Ac / W
Aw = Ac - zW - Ab
slope
p = (W-w)/2h
Triangle section with same depth & width on surface

.. allows nearly half (-40% ) speed only compared to a rectangular section !
14
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Influence of shape of cross-section

(A)
(B)
(C)
(C)
85%Vcr
Surface Bottom water
width W width w depth h
Sub
Waterway Vessel Average
covering critical
cross
cross
depth
ratio n = speed /
section section Hm =
Ac/Ab
Schifj's
Ac
Ab
Ac/W
limit Vcr
m2
m2
km/h
Vessel
actual
speed V
km/h
distance of
distance of
vessel
maximum
Return
Bank vessel squat
squat
vessel squat
flow u
slope p projection
z
projection
on banks
on banks
km/h
Same width on surface and depth, only width at bottom changes

Rectangle
Trapeze
"Triangle"
Rectangle
Trapeze
"Triangle"
"Triangle"
4,5
3,75
2,58
8,53
7,11
4,89
14,18
12,13
8,50
12,05
10,31
7,23
2,62
2,68
2,77
0,27
0,25
0,19
0,0
2,0
5,1
0,27
0,55
0,98
0,80
1,54
2,58
Same section and depth, only shape changes

45
45
4,50
202,5
28,5
4,5
54
36
4,50
202,5
28,5
3,75
59
31,5
4,50
202,5
28,5
3,46
80
10
4,50
202,5
28,5
2,53
7,11
7,11
7,11
7,11
13,28
12,13
11,65
9,96
11,29
10,31
9,90
8,47
2,93
2,68
2,57
2,20
0,29
0,25
0,23
0,17
0,0
2,0
3,0
7,8
0,29
0,55
0,72
1,30
0,83
1,54
2,01
3,64
54
54
54
54
36
8
4,50
4,50
4,50
243,0
202,5
139,5
28,5
28,5
28,5
Column (A) = actual vessel speed V as 85% of critical speed Vcr (km/h)
Column (B) = waterlevel drawdown / squat - a first estimate of amplitude of waves (m)
Column (C, C') = squat projected on banks a speed V and Vcr (m)
Rectangle is allowing the higher speed, but also produces the higher squat / deeper waves
..but projected on banks this squat amplitude is the smallest
The profile close to triangle is producing the less squat..but also allows the smallest speed
..but that squat while projected on banks is on a higher amplitude..
Even for the same cross section , the Triangle shape allows a lower speed (-25% /
Trapezoidal) and the rectangle shape allows the highest speed (+10% / Trapezoidal)
8-9-2015
15
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Kind of models
Self propelled vessels
"Canal type" conditions (m<15-30, 2<W/B<12)
Viscous resistance : return flow u, V replaced
by V+u for x% (0,9-0,98) of viscous resistance
Energy method (Schijf)
solved formulas
no losses
on canal &
boat
Quantity of movement method

(numerical resolution)
Bouwmeester
losses on boat
CNR
losses on boat&canal
Critical speed
V cr ,
return current u ,
depression of
water level z
Wave making resistance at V = resistance at V

critical speed Vcr -> link between V & V
River (Shallow water)
Karpov & Arjushkov diagrams
Squat formula->distance of influence
Canal method
Common shallow water methods (Landweber, Lackenby)
Pushed convoys
Towing tank methods (Howe & Marchal et al diagrams &Formulas)
also : Return flow, critical speed as for self propelled vessels in canal
16
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
(there are 1D and 2D theories for confined water)
From principles for the design of Bank and bottom protection for inland waterways , Karlsruhe, 2005
8-9-2015
17
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Self-Propelled vessels :
Range and look of available methods
<- Canal, Small rivers -><- Seine, Rhone -><"Canal"
case (highly confined) :

Bc/B <= 5 ...12 Ac/Ab <= 1530
Rf, u, z,Vcr:
ter, CNR methods
Schijf, Bouwmeester,
Wave Resistance :
Rhine
->
"River" case (quite confined)&Shallow water:

Karpov curves (depth) : 1,5 h/T 10
Artjushkov
jushkov
v tables (width) : 3,3 Bc/B 25
25
<- Danube , Sea - >

"River" conditions (not so confined) :
Schlichting (
to 1,6)
Landwber (
to 1,9)
Lackenby
to 1,6)
B
Ab
Ac
Waterway
cross-section
Rh
Waterway-Vessel
hydraulic radius
Bc = Ac/h
18
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Energy method (Schijf Pianc 1949-1953)

W
Water level (quiet)
B
T
Ab
Aw = Ac - z(W-pz) - Ab Ac - zW - Ab
Hm = Ac / W
slope p = (W-w)/2h
Ac = h (W+w)
( w) / 2
w
Bc = Ac / h
Ab BT Pb 2T+B
19
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Schijfs solutions
20
8-9-2015
8
9 2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Schijf : solved formulas
8-9-2015
21
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Canal Conditions& Highly confined

Resistance in restricted water
(construction from the curve in open water - "Canal" case)
80
Rt = Total Resistance (restricted water)
Rf = Viscous resistance
70
Rw = Wave making resistance

Rt = Rf + Rw
Rt = Total resistance (open water)

60
Total Resistance (kN)

Rw(V)
Rw(V) = Rw(V)
50
40
30
20
Rf (V) = x Rf (V+u) + (1-x) Rf (V) Rf(V+xu)
xRf (V+u)
x (2LT+LB)/(2LT+LB+2BT)
10
(1-x)Rf (V)
0
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
Velocity relative to the water (km/h)
8,0
10,0
V
12,0
14,0
V+u
16,0
18,0
20,0
V
Resistance in confined water at V speed (red/blue) from open water

curves (green) at V (Campine barge Lwl= 56m, B = 6,70m, T=2,60 m, section 32x18x4m)
22
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
river case : Karpov &Artjushkov diagrams & tables

Karpov diagram (1946) :
using depth Froude number Fnh,
thesee diagrams give values of a*
and a** allowing to compute
V1=V/a* and V2 = V/a** to be used
instead of speed V to modify the
friction and the residual rsistance
depending of depth h constant and
laterally infinite when 1,5 h/T 10
These diagrams exist also as
formulas (given in the Artemis
European Study, 2004) mainly valid
for 1,5 h/T 4 and Fnh 0,7
From:
University of Michigan (1982) quoting Karpov
(1946, Leningrad)
8-9-2015
23
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
river case : Karpov &Artjushkov diagrams & tables

V'/V
B/Bc=
h/T=
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
5
6
8
10
0,04
0,08
0,12
0,16
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,968
0,978
0,982
0,986
0,989
0,992
0,996
0,997
0,999
0,999
0,933
0,950
0,962
0,970
0,977
0,983
0,990
0,993
0,996
0,996
0,894
0,921
0,938
0,952
0,965
0,974
0,983
0,989
0,994
0,994
0,849
0,886
0,913
0,934
0,952
0,964
0,976
0,983
0,989
0,990
0,795
0,843
0,885
0,915
0,938
0,953
0,968
0,977
0,985
0,987
0,699
0,780
0,846
0,889
0,918
0,937
0,957
0,967
0,977
0,980
0,685
0,796
0,859
0,895
0,916
0,941
0,954
0,965
0,971
Cr
B/Bc=
h/T=
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
5
6
8
10
0,04
0,08
0,12
0,16
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,040
0,034
0,028
0,023
0,018
0,013
0,008
0,005
0,003
0,003
0,097
0,081
0,067
0,054
0,041
0,030
0,016
0,011
0,007
0,007
0,161
0,137
0,112
0,089
0,068
0,050
0,028
0,020
0,011
0,011
0,247
0,203
0,162
0,127
0,096
0,072
0,042
0,032
0,019
0,018
0,348
0,279
0,218
0,166
0,125
0,094
0,057
0,043
0,028
0,026
0,482
0,386
0,300
0,225
0,168
0,126
0,082
0,062
0,045
0,038
0,570
0,418
0,302
0,223
0,172
0,115
0,089
0,066
0,055
24
8-9-2015
Artjushkov (1968) :
These tables give the values of V/V and Cr
allowing to modify the speed V and the residual
resistance coefficient taking into account the
width Bc of the waterway when :
1,5 h/T 10
0,04 B/Bc 0,3
3,3 Bc/B 25.
From:
University of Michigan (1982) quoting Artjushkov
and Report on collected data resulting methodology for
inland shipping, European Study Artemis, 2004
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
River case & marine shallow water methods

Methods by decreasing speed in laterally infinite waterway
Formulas
&diagram :
<-Lackenby
Apuktin->
V, loss of speed, is estimated to build curve Rt(V0-V)

from curve Rt (V0), where V0 is the speed obtained in open
water and V is the speed in water of limited depth h.
Lackenbys formula (1963) :
8-9-2015
25
SMART RIVERS 2015

PJ Pompe
River case & shallow water

Schlichting (1934), Landweber (1939), Lackenby (1963) methods
A
80
1,00
Rt = Total Resistance (limited depth h)
AW= AIW I
(AAI) // (WW I)
70
Schlichting's formula
0,98
Ah
0,96
AI
60
Total Resistance (kN)
0,94
0,92
Rt(Vh) = Rf(Vi) + Rw(V)
50
0,90
40
0,88
Lackenby formula
0,86
30
0,84
W
20
0,82
Bh
WI
10
0,80
0,00
Schlichting's measured curve y = V h / V I

x<=1,11
6
5
4
y -0,0155x - 0,0897x + 0,3867x 0,4418x3 + 0,0441x2 - 0,0013x + 1
1,11<x<1,6
y -0,0716 x 2 - 0,0924x + 1,0463
Landweber's measured curve y = V h / V I
x<=1,56
6
5
4
3
2
y 0,0269x - 0,1664x + 0,3827x - 0,3729x + 0,0429x 0,0045x + 1,0001
1,56<x<1,90
2
y -0,1406x + 0,2077x + 0,8177
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
1,40
1,60
0
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
Velocity relative to the water (km/h)
1.
2.
8,0
Vh
10,0
Vh
12,0
V
14,0
VI
16,0
18,0
20,0
V
Starting from an open water speed V, an intermediate speed VI is found

From VI is then found speed at depth h wich is Vh
References : Principles Of Naval
Laterally unrestricted : using Schlichtings curve (curve / h)

Laterally confined : using Landwebers curve (curve / )
26
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
Architecture Vol II" p.42-53

Shallow waters 1988
The society of Naval Architects
and Marine Enginneers, NJ
PJ Pompe
Rsults comparison of several models

CampineCampinois
barge T=2,60m
OPEN WATER
TE=2,60m EAU LIBRE
CampineCampinois
barge T=2,60m
Waterway
32mx18mx4m
Karpov/Arjushkov
diagrams
TE=2,60m
voie d'eau
32mx18mx4m
(abaques Karpov/Artjushkov)
CampineCampinois
barge T=2,60m
Waterway
32mx18mx4m
with modified
Rwretour
& return
flow (Schijf)
TE=2,60m
voie d'eau
32mx18mx4m
(+courant
Schijf)
TE=2,60m
voie d'eau
32mx18mx4m
(+courant
CNR/Savey)
CampineCampinois
barge T=2,60m
Waterway
32mx18mx4m
with modified
Rwretour
& return
flow (CNR/P.Savey)
TE=2,60m
voie d'eau
32mx18mx4m
(+courant
/ z Romisch)
CampineCampinois
barge T=2,60m
Waterway
32mx18mx4m
with modified
Rwretour
& return
flow <- squat (Rmisch)
TE=2,60m
voie d'eau
32mx18mx4m
( sans
courant
retour)
CampineCampinois
barge T=2,60m
Waterway
32mx18mx4m
modified
Rw &
WITHOUT
return flow
40 000
Total
Resistance
Effort de
remorquageRt
(N) (N)
35 000
30 000
At the vessels practical speed (about 85%

of Schijfs subcritical speed), estimates of
Resistances may vary from depending on
model used, and can be double, or more,
compared to open water at same speed
depending on actual speed
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5 000
0
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
14,0
Velocity
the water
Vitesse
parrelative
rapport to
l'eau
(km/h) (km/h)
Comparison of several models for campine barge (Lwl= 56m, B = 6,70m, T=2,60 m) in
a restricted canal section (canal 32x18x4m) : River method underestimates
results in canal situation because influence of return flow is essential . Methods
for calculating return flow give similar results (though some better than others).
8-9-2015
27
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Rsults (cont)
Rhine Vessel 110m T=2,80 m OPEN WATER
Rhnan
TE=2,80
EAU LIBRE
Rhine
Vessel110m
110m T=2,80
m Waterway
156mx120mx4,5m Karpov/Arjushkov diagrams
Rhnan
TE=2,80
voie d'eau 156mx120mx4,5m
156mx120x4,5m (abaques
Karpov/Artjushkov)
Rhine
Vessel110m
110m T=2,80
m Waterway
with modified
Rw & return flow (Schijf)
Rhnan
110m
TE=2,80
voie
d'eau
156mx120x4,5m+courant
de retour
Schijf
Rhine
Vessel
110m
T=2,80
m
Waterway
156mx120mx4,5m
with
modified
Rwselon
& return
flow (CNR/P.Savey)
Rhnan 110m TE=2,80 voie d'eau 156mx120x4,5m+courant de retour selon CNR/Savey
Rhine
Vessel
110m
T=2,80
m
Waterway
156mx120mx4,5m
with
modified
Rw
&
return
flow <- squat (Barass)
Rhnan 110m TE=2,80 voie d'eau 156mx120x4,5m+courant de retour selon z/ Barass
Rhine
Vessel110m
110m T=2,80
m Waterway
modified
Rw &de
WITHOUT
Rhnan
TE=2,80
voie d'eau 156mx120mx4,5m
156mx120x4,5m SANS
courant
retour return flow
180 000
At the vessels practical speed (about

85% of Schijfs subcritical speed),
estimates of Resistances may vary from
depending on model used, and can be
double, or more, compared to open
water at same speed depending on
actual speed
Effort de remorquage (N)
Total Resistance Rt (N)
160 000
140 000
120 000
100 000
80 000
60 000
40 000
20 000
0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
14,0
16,0
18,0
Velocity
the(km/h)
water (km/h)
Vitesse parrelative
rapport to
l'eau
Comparaison of several models for a large Rhine vessel (Lwl= 110m, B = 11,40m,
T=2,80 m) in a wide section (river 156x120x4,5m)
Canal method underestimates results in river situation. Return flow is not
so important in river (when approaching shallow water situation).
28
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Examples
Narrow Canal
40 x 30 x 3.50m (Canal) backflow Schijf
River Oise
60 x 45 x 3,70m (Canal) backflow Schijf
Canal Class V
Seine upst Paris 160 x 120 x 3.50m (Canal) backflow / z Ankudinov (mid)
Seine dst Paris 160 x 120 x 4.50m (Canal) backflow / z Ankudinov (mid)
Rhein / Danube 400 x 350 x 5.50m (River) Landweber (unrestricted)
OPEN WATER
Maximum Engine power 1000 kW
120
100
80
Total Resistance Rt (kN)
60
40
20
Speed relative to the water (km/h)

0
0
10
15
20
Rhine Vessel (L = 110m, B = 11,40m, T=2,80 m)

one limit speed for each kind of waterway
8-9-2015
29
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe

* Behaviour


* Diagram
Conclusion
30
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Resistance is only one aspect of fuel consumption

prediction.
Hull coefficient and propeller behaviour is another !

Composition of the calculation circuit :
1. Resistance
2. Hull Coefficients (wake and thrust fraction)
3. Propeller curvesand beahaviour in confined conditions
4. Engine
31
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Propulsion efficiencies
Pbr = p Pu = m h r 0 Pu , p = m h r 0 , et Pu = Rt.V
p = Pbr/Pu propulsion efficiency from shaft to water
m = Pbr/Pd mechanical efficiency
h hull efficiency
r relative rotational efficiency (0,98 1): h r = Pt / Pu
0 open water efficiencey (free water and no hull)
32
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Hull coefficients are essentials for hull efficiency

w, wake coefficient : Va = V(1-w)
(Va = water speed seen by propeller)
t, thrust coefficient ) : Rt = FT (1-t)
(Ft =Thrust of propeller)
Hull efficiency h = (1-t)/(1-w)
p = 0 r h m = 0 r (1-t)/(1-w) m
Power on propeller = FT.Vh/ 0= Rt.V / p
33
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Particularities of inland vessels

w - single screw vessel
w - double screw vessel
Cb Taylor (1) Taylor (2) Hecksher Taylor (1) Taylor (2) Hecksher
0,45
0,175
0,138
0,048
0,018
0,50
0,200
0,230
0,174
0,075
-0,038
0,054
0,55
0,225
0,234
0,209
0,103
-0,021
0,089
0,60
0,250
0,243
0,244
0,130
0,007
0,124
0,65
0,275
0,260
0,280
0,158
0,045
0,160
0,70
0,300
0,283
0,315
0,185
0,091
0,195
0,75
0,325
0,314
0,350
0,213
0,143
0,230
0,80
0,350
0,354
0,386
0,240
-0,266
0,85
0,375
0,400
0,421
0,268
-0,301
0,90
0,400
0,477
0,456
0,295
-0,336
0,95
0,425
0,492
0,323
0,372
w may be
DOUBLE than for
marine ships due
to high block
coefficients
Table from simplified
formulae from Taylor (1) &
Hecksher, or published by
Taylor (2) in 1933
Water inflow at propeller is influenced by backflow

and outflow is limited due to confinement
w may increase up to 1 when speed approaches to
critical speed (propeller in bollard conditions)
(this makes self propelled test important for inland vessels)
34
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Particularities of inland vessels (cont)
Engine power may change from single to double depending of stern

arrangement
(here from 650 kW to 1370 kW at 11,5 km/h) (image DST, Duisbourg)
35
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Particularities of inland shipping about w et t (cont)
w can be higher than 1 and water may arrive from rear side to
propellers. (red = backflow - image DST, Duisbourg, example of
stern optimization)
36
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Efficient propeller
=> Low RPM, high diameter, high water speed
Precisely what is difficult to get for an inland

vessel !!
37
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Examples of 3 kinds of propellers
B series ( naked , rounded blades)

Kaplan + Nozzle 19A
(standard maltese cross rotor with Nozzle)
=> more efficiency (nozzle cuts vortex
at end of blades .but has a high drag)
Pump Propeller :
Nozzle + pre-swirl stator
+ Rotor optimized to repel cavitation
on overall blades surface (instead of 70%R)
=> more efficiency, less vibrations, higher speed
Imagined by Chr.Gaudin, developped by Ship-ST with a design of DGA hydrodynamics
Val de Reuil (test and evaluation center for defense applications), built by Masson Marine
In operation from 75kW to 2500 kW
38
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
o B-Screw 4-70 p/D=0,8
Kt
10xKq
o Ka+N19A 4-70 p/D=1

o PP p/D=0,486 r=0,0
0,70
Kt
Kt
10xKq
10xKq
Open water diagram

Advance coefficient
J = Va/nD
0,60
0,50
Open water efficiency

0 = J Kt / 2Kq
0,40
0,30
Torque coefficient
Kq = Q / n2D5
0,20
0,10
Advance coefficient J = Va / nD
0,00
0,00
0,20
0,40
8-9-2015
39
0,60
0,80
1,00
Thrust Coefficient
Kt = Ft / n2D4
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
and dimensional
to better understand confined water effects
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
100
pP
pA
pN
propulsion efficiency p

Rt = Total Resistance (restricted water)
Rt = Ft (1-t) B-Series 4-70 360 RPM
Rt = Ft (1-t) Ka4-70+N19A 305 RPM
Rt = Ft (1-t) Pump Propeller 275 RPM
p B-Series 4-70 360 RPM
p Ka4-70+N19A 305 RPM
p Pump Propeller 275 RPM
70 000
Total Resistance Rt (N)
Kt - Kq - open water efficiency o
Adimensional propeller curves
90
80
70
60
50
40
pB
30
20
10
Speed of vessel V relative to the water (km/h)

0
0
0
VB 10
12
14 VA
16
Campine barge Lwl= 56m, B = 6,70m, T=2,60 m, waterway W=32 x w=18 x h=4m
40
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Effect of confined water on this example:

Speed drop from VA=15 km/h to, VB=9,9 km/h
Propulsion efficiency from pA = 52,4%, to pB= 34,5%
(from 2 times towing power, to 3 times, at the engine)
At speed VB, resistance (26 kN) > 3 x open water (8,1 kN);
From A to B, propulsion efficiency and speed dropped 35%.
Propulsion efficiencies, effect of Nozzle propellers (To get 26 kN)

B-Series pB = 34,4% (3 times towing power at the engine)
Ka+N19A pBN = 50,9 % (-32% engine power & fuel)
Pump propeller, pBP = 59,4%. (-42% engine power & fuel)
(only 1,67 times towing power at the engine)
8-9-2015
41
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe

* Behaviour


* Diagram
Conclusion
42
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Example of model
Estimated
vessel's
shape
coefficients
(Cp, Cb,
Cwp..) from
L, B, T
ARTEMIS
formulas
2004
Estimated
resistance
Open water
Fouling
Estimate
1 Guldhammer
&Harvald
2 Holtrop
&Mennen
1982 - 1984
1 ITTC 1978
2 ITTC 1984 1 "Shallow water" :
+ Newton- Schlichting,LandAertssen weber, Lackenby
2
3
4
5
6
2 Karpov & Artjushkov
Measured
vessel's
shape
coefficients
3 "Canal" :
Measured (or
CFD) curves
of resistance
data
Rotative
relative
Propellers
efficiency
curves
r
1
Basin
Holtrop 1 B-series
&Miniovich 1963 &Mennen 2 Ka4-70+N19A 2
3 Ka4-70+N37
Papmel 1934
1982
Taylor, 1975
4 Ka5-75+N19A 3
Hecksher, 1960
5 Gawn Series
Schiffbaukalender 1960
6 Meyne-VDB
4
Holtrop&Mennen 1982
K7-85 (+N19A)
Holtrop&Mennen 1984
7 Pump Propeller
ATMA
+ best p/D & Ae/Ao
+ Cavitation check
Hull
Coefficients
w, t => h
Confined water
resistance
Rf(V) = Rf(V+xu)
Rw(V) = Rw(V,Vcr)
Engine,
fuel
consumption
Fixed efficiency
Generic engine
with curve(s)
model old CAT
engines w/curve
database of
specific engines
Schijf, CNR : Vcr, z, u

7 Squat formulae (*)
(*) squat formulae :

Rmisch (1989),
Barrass (2004), Eryuzlu (1994),
Huuska-Guliev,Yoshimura-Ohtsu,
Ankudinov (2009), Millward (1990&1992)
Pushed Convoys
1 J.Marchal et al formula
2 Howe formula
3 Gebber Engels formula
(+CNR method)
8-9-2015
43
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Example of model (cont)

Vessel L =110 m - B = 11,4 m - T =2,8 m - = 3 140 T - Deadweight: 2300 T, Lightweight: 840 T - Installed power : 1000 kW
Lwl=109,240m Cb=0,8942 Cm=0,9980 Cp=0,8960 Cwp=0,9387 Lcb%=0,745 App=27,31m2 (1+k2)=1,50
Nozzle 19A KA 4-70 (2) 2 Diam 1,59 m 4 blades p/D=1,190 Ae/Ao=0,700
Waterway : W =156,00 m w =120,00 m
Hm=3,98m Bc=138,0m
h=4,50 m
Max V=15,2km/h
- Sm=1707m2 At=0,00m2 Abt=0,00m2 Hb=0,00m2
Vcr = 16,4km/h
23,9km/h
93% Vcr = 15,2km/h
Bi=198<->225m Ac=621,0m2 Ab=31,9m2 Bc/B=12,11 h/T=1,61 m=Ab/Ac=0,051 Ac/Ab=19,5
Resistance and power curves

180
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
11
13
15
17
20
23
26
30
34
38
40
41
43
45
48
51
0,0
44
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
4
7
16
22
30
43
66
112
228
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
2,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4,0
6,0
8-9-2015
7,6
8,4
9,1
9,9
10,7
11,6
12,6
13,7
15,0
16,8
17,6
18,5
19,7
21,3
23,5
27,5
12
15
17
20
24
28
34
41
52
71
82
96
118
153
216
369
12
15
18
21
25
29
35
43
54
73
84
99
121
157
232
464
10,0
8,0
Speed relative to water (km/h)
12,0
SMART RIVERS 2015
Speed V
(km/h)
Rt= Total
Resistan
ce
GULDH
AMMER
&
0,8
1,5
2,3
3,0
3,8
4,6
5,3
6,1
6,8
7,6
8,4
9,1
9,9
10,6
11,4
12,2
12,9
13,7
14,4
14,7
15,0
15,2
15,5
15,8
16,0
0
1
1
2
4
5
7
9
11
14
16
20
23
27
32
38
45
54
68
76
87
104
132
192
391
14,0
1 200
1 000
Power (kW)
140
Resistance (kN)
160
1 400
Rt= Total Resistance (kN)
Rt= Total Resistance GULDHAMMER & HARVALD
de remorquage
Composantes
Resistance Rf(1+k1) (kN) Efforts eau libre
Viscous
Rv=effort
Rv= Viscous Rw= Wave Ra= ModelRapp=
Rf= Fouling
Rt= Total
Rt= Total
Speed V
Resistance (kN)
making
Rw= Wave
Ship
making
Resistance
Resistance
Resistance
Resistance
Resistance
(km/h)
(kN)
of
Rf(1+k1)
Rfo (kN)
Resistance correlation
(kN) OPEN
(kN)
Appendages
of
Resistance
Rapp=
(kN)
(kN)
Resistance Appendage
WATER () Guldhammer&
(kN)
s (kN)
Harvald OPEN
Resistance Rfo (kN)
Rf= Fouling
WATER ()
(kN)0
Resistance
correlation
0
0
0
0
0Ra= Model-Ship
0
0,8
0 (kN) OPEN WATER
0
1
0
1
0Rt= Total
1
1,5
()
Resistance
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2,3
WATER ()
OPEN
Guldhammer&Harvald
(kN)
Resistance
Total
Rt=
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
3,0
0
0shaft break
3
1
3
0Pb = Engine
3
power (kW)3,8
0
4
5
0
4
hull (kW)
break00 power w/ clean 4,6
Pbc = 11Engine
0
6
6
0
5
5,3
0effective power (kW)
0
8
2
8
0Pu= Hydrodynamic
7
6,1
0
0
10
2
10
0Maximum
9
6,8
speed for 1000kW
800
600
400
200
0
16,0
PJ Pompe
Example of model (cont)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hull
N=
Propeller
Fuel consumption for
propulsion
Total
Pb =
propeller
open
Wake Thrust efficiency
fuel : 42700 kJ/kg,
efficiency
propeller
Engine
h =
rotation
water fraction fraction
0,839 kg/l
p =
(s) thrust
shaft break
speed efficiency
w
t
(1-t)/(1mxrxhxo power (kW)
(kN)
(RPM)
o
w)
l/hour l/km kJ/T.km
0,235
13
51,6% 24,9% 23,8% 101,5%
49,8%
0,1
0,6
0,7
11,4
0,857
25
52,9% 24,6% 23,8% 101,1%
50,9%
0,5
1,1
0,8
11,8
1,834
37
53,6% 24,4% 23,8% 100,8%
51,4%
1,7
1,9
0,8
12,9
3,151
48
54,0% 24,3% 23,8% 100,7%
51,7%
3,9
2,9
0,9
14,6
4,801
60
54,3% 24,2% 23,8% 100,6%
52,0%
7,4
4,1
1,1
16,9
6,779
71
54,6% 24,1% 23,8% 100,5%
52,2%
12,5
5,8
1,3
19,7
9,083
83
54,8% 24,1% 23,8% 100,4%
52,4%
19,5
7,8
1,5
23,0
11,713
94
55,0% 24,0% 23,8% 100,4%
52,5%
28,7
10,4 1,7
26,8
14,671
106
55,1% 24,0% 23,8% 100,3%
52,6%
40,4
13,6 2,0
31,0
17,966
117
55,2% 24,0% 23,8% 100,3%
52,7%
54,9
17,5 2,3
35,8
21,613
128
55,3% 23,9% 23,8% 100,2%
52,7%
72,5
22,1 2,6
41,2
25,646
140
55,3% 23,9% 23,8% 100,2%
52,8%
93,8
27,6 3,0
47,1
30,119
152
55,3% 23,9% 23,8% 100,2%
52,8%
119,4
34,1 3,5
53,8
35,130
164
55,3% 23,9% 23,8% 100,1%
52,7%
150,1
41,9 3,9
61,3
40,851
176
55,2% 23,8% 23,8% 100,1%
52,6%
187,5
51,2 4,5
70,1
47,604
190
54,9% 23,8% 23,8% 100,1%
52,3%
234,1
62,9 5,2
80,6
56,040
204
54,5% 23,8% 23,8% 100,1%
51,9%
295,3
78,0 6,0
94,1
67,649
222
53,7% 23,8% 23,8% 100,0%
51,1%
383,1
99,7 7,3 113,6
86,513
247
52,1% 23,8% 23,8% 100,0%
49,6%
532,9
136,6 9,5 147,4
96,879
259
51,2% 23,8% 23,8% 100,0%
48,8%
618,6
157,6 10,7 167,0
111,092
274
50,0% 23,8% 23,8% 100,0%
47,6%
740,1
187,3 12,5 195,0
131,981
294
48,3% 23,7% 23,8% 100,0%
46,0%
926,7
232,9 15,3 238,1
165,819
323
45,8% 23,7% 23,8% 100,0%
43,6%
1 248,4
311,3 20,1 312,9
229,542
369
42,1% 23,7% 23,8% 100,0%
40,1%
1 913,7
473,2 30,0 467,5
387,062
462
36,0% 23,7% 23,8% 100,0%
34,2%
3 838,3
940,5 58,7 913,7
8-9-2015
45
Cavitation
Pu=
Hydrodyn
Speed
Rt= Total
amic
V
Resistance
effective
(km/h)
(kN)
power
(kW)
0,8
0,038
0,179
1,5
0,276
0,654
2,3
0,885
1,398
3,0
2,028
2,403
3,8
3,862
3,661
4,6
6,544
5,169
5,3
10,228
6,925
6,1
15,074
8,930
6,8
21,241
11,186
7,6
28,901
13,698
8,4
38,247
16,479
9,1
49,508
19,553
9,9
62,988
22,964
10,6
79,119
26,784
11,4
98,575
31,146
12,2 122,528
36,295
12,9 153,259
42,727
13,7 195,889
51,578
14,4 264,430
65,960
14,7 301,598
73,864
15,0 352,134
84,700
15,2 425,815 100,626
15,5 544,374 126,426
15,8 766,568 175,011
16,0 1 314,523 295,109
w & t : Holtrop&Mennen 1984 w 2 props

relative rotative efficiency r =
99,6%
mechanical efficiency m =
95,5% Engine data 1000 kW Diesel 2x500 kW
Fouling
HOLTROP & MENNEN 1984

Rf(V+v)+Rw(V/V,Vcr) Schijf
0,0354
0,0350
0,0348
0,0347
0,0345
0,0345
0,0344
0,0343
0,0343
0,0342
0,0342
0,0342
0,0342
0,0342
0,0343
0,0344
0,0346
0,0349
0,0355
0,0358
0,0362
0,0366
C 0,0372
C 0,0379
C 0,0389
1,8%
1,9%
2,1%
2,1%
2,2%
2,2%
2,3%
2,3%
2,3%
2,4%
2,4%
2,4%
2,4%
2,4%
2,4%
2,4%
2,3%
2,2%
1,9%
1,8%
1,6%
1,5%
1,2%
0,9%
0,6%
SMART RIVERS 2015
Pb/N3
PJ Pompe
Comparison measurements and model

1 200
1- 95mx11,40 T=2,80m = 2660 T h=5m W=w=160m
2-110mx11,40 T=3,20m = 3610 T h=5m W=w=160m
3-110mx11,40 T=2,10m = 2290 T h=10m W=w=160m
Case 1 (Canal) Return current Schijf
Case 1 (Canal) Return current / z Ankudinov (bow)
Case 1 (River) Karpov+Artjushkov
Case 1 (River) Landweber (confined)
1 000
800
Engine Power Pb (kW)
600
400
200
0
0
46
10
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
15
20
PJ Pompe
Fuel consumption depending on propellers

100
Seine downstream Paris

Seine upstream Paris
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
80 liters/hour
0,379310345
Fuel Consumption (liters/hour)
70
B-Screw
Ka5-75+N19A
Pump Propeller
B-Screw
Ka5-75+N19A
Pump Propeller
57 liters/hour
58 liters/hour
50 liters/hour
41 liters/hour
36 liters/hour
Speed (relative to the water) (km/h)
0
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
Vessel near Paris (L= 105m, B = 8,20 m, T=2,91 m)

8-9-2015
47
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
small boat in large river 455 T (load 375 T) 57%Vcr

Total resistance and its components depending from speed
Power on shaft and effective hydrodynamic power
300,0
20 000
Rt= Effort
de remorquage Total (N)
Composantes effort
de remorquage
resistance
Rf(1+k1) (N)
Rw= Wave
making
resistance (N)
Vitesse V
(km/h)
Rapp= appendix resistance (N)
16 000
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
15
58
179
466
1 056
1 291
1 568
1 891
2 265
2 697
3 194
3 762
4 409
5 143
5 975
6 914
7 970
158
14 000
Resistance in N
Ra= modelRapp=
Rf= Fouling
Rf= Viscous
resistance
Rf(1+k1) (N)
reality
appendix Resistance Rfo
resistance
resistance
(N)
Rw= Wave
making resistance
(N)
(N)
(N)
332
564
851
12 1000
191
1 583
2 027
10 2000
522
3 067
3 661
305
8 4000
4 999
5 196
5 396
6 000
5 600
5 807
6 018
4 6000
233
6 451
6 674
900
2 6000
7 129
7 363
7 600
0
0,0
Rf= Fouling Resistance Rfo (N)
5
1
1
0,7
1,5
48
5
8
2,2
Rt= Total resistance (N) open water ()
85
8
13
3,0
Total
Engine
power
on
shaft
Pb
(CV)
132
12
21
3,7
191
16
30
Total Engine power on shaft with clean hull (CV) 4,4
260
22
41
5,2
Effective
hydrodynamic
340
28
54power (CV)
5,9
430
35
68
6,6
532
42
84
7,4
644
50
102
8,1
767
59
122
8,9
901
69
143
9,6
939
72
149
9,8
979
74
155
10,0
1 019
77
162
10,2
1 059
80
168
10,4
1 101
83
175
10,6
1 143
86
182
10,8
1 187
89
188
11,0
1 231
92
195
11,2
1 276
95
203
11,4
1 322
98
210
11,6
1 368
101
217
11,8
1 416
105
225
12,1
Ra=
resistance
(N)
21 model-reality
2
3
2,0
4,0
Rt= Total
Rt= Effort de
resistance (N) remorquage
open water ()
Total (N)
Guldhammer&
Harvald eau
libre ()
50
179
380
649
983
1 382
1 844
2 369
2 965
3 652
4 477
5 526
6 938
7 407
7 921
8 486
9 108
9 793
10 547
11 378
12 294
13 303
14 415
15 641
16 992
6,0
33
120
258
447
690
996
1 378
1 860
2 473
3 265
4 297
5 654
7 444
8 021
8 644
9 317
10 043
10 828
11 676
12 593
13 585
14 659
15 823
17 085
18 456
8,0
Rt= Effort
remorquage
GULDHAM
MER &
HARVALD
Vitesse V
(km/h)
0,7
1,5
2,2
3,0
3,7
4,4
5,2
5,9
6,6
7,4
8,1
8,9
9,6
9,8
10,0
10,2
10,4
10,6
10,8
11,0
11,2
11,4
11,6
11,8
12,0
10,0
34
123
265
459
709
1 023
1 415
1 908
2 535
3 342
4 391
5 767
7 579
8 162
8 792
9 470
10 203
10 993
11 847
12 769
13 765
14 844
16 011
17 275
18 647
250,0
200,0
150,0
Horse power (HP)
Rf=000
Viscous
18
Efforts eau libre
100,0
50,0
0,0
12,0
Speed relative to water km/h
h/T=2,00 - Ab/Ac=0,018 - Ac/Ab=55,45 - B/Bc=0,04 - Bc/B=27,72 - h=5,00m - Hm=4,38m - Bc=140,0m - Ac=700,0m2 - Ab=12,6m2 - Vcr = 19,7 km/h
Spits ( Pniche ) (Lwl=38,5m, B=5,05 m, T=2,50m / waterway =160mx120mx5m)

48
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
small boat in small river 455 T (load 375 T) 75%Vcr

50 000
300,0
Effort
ComposantesRt=
effort
de remorquage
resistance
Rf(1+k1) (N)
Vitesse V
(km/h)
40 000
32
111
35 000
234
397
599
30 000
838
1 115
1 429
779
25 1000
2 166
2 589
050
20 3000
3 549
4 086
4 664
15 5000
285
5 952
6 668
107000
443
7 731
8 028
335
58000
8 654
8 984
9 329
Resistance in N
Efforts eau libre
Rw= Wave
Ra= modelRf= Fouling
Rf=
ViscousRapp=
resistance
Rf(1+k1) (N)
making
reality
resistance (N) Rw=
resistance
(N)
Waveresistance
making resistance
(N)
(N)
(N)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
11
35
97
233
512
1 048
2 052
3 911
7 404
9 292
11 702
14 803
18 849
24 239
31 441

4
0,6
1,2
1,8
2,4
3,0
3,6
4,1
4,7
5,3
5,9
6,5
7,1
7,7
8,3
8,9
9,6
10,3
11,1
11,9
12,3
12,7
13,1
13,5
14,0
14,5
Ra=14model-reality
resistance
(N)
2
2
3
Rt=33
Total resistance
(N) 5open water ()
58
5
9
Total Engine power on shaft Pb (CV)
90
8
14
Total
Engine
power
on
shaft
130
12
21 with clean hull (CV)
178
15
28
Effective
hydrodynamic
power (CV)
233
20
37
295
24
47
365
30
58
443
36
70
528
42
84
622
49
99
725
56
115
836
64
133
957
73
152
1 088
82
173
1 230
92
195
1 384
102
220
1 442
106
229
1 502
111
238
1 564
115
248
1 629
119
259
1 696
124
269
1 766
128
280
0,0
2,0
4,0
Rt= Total
Rt= Effort de
open water ()
Total (N)
Guldhammer&
Harvald eau
libre ()
33
119
252
430
652
915
1 220
1 566
1 952
2 379
2 852
3 381
3 990
4 722
5 656
6 923
8 758
11 592
16 271
18 648
21 595
25 293
30 010
36 165
44 252
22
79
170
293
449
639
869
1 144
1 473
1 870
2 352
2 944
3 681
4 614
5 820
7 425
9 636
12 826
17 727
20 113
23 011
26 590
31 099
36 918
44 659
6,0
Rt= Effort
remorquage
GULDHAM
MER &
HARVALD
Vitesse V
(km/h)
0,6
1,2
1,8
2,4
3,0
3,6
4,1
4,7
5,3
5,9
6,5
7,1
7,7
8,3
8,9
9,5
10,1
10,7
11,3
11,5
11,7
11,9
12,1
12,3
12,5
8,0
23
86
183
316
484
690
937
1 233
1 587
2 012
2 526
3 154
3 931
4 903
6 146
7 773
9 982
13 123
17 893
20 203
23 003
26 456
30 803
36 416
43 889
10,0
250,0
200,0
Horse power (HP)
Rf= Viscous
45
000
150,0
100,0
50,0
0,0
12,0
h/T=1,40 - Ab/Ac=0,048 - Ac/Ab=20,79 - B/Bc=0,07 - Bc/B=14,85 - h=3,50m - Hm=2,92m - Bc=75,0m - Ac=262,5m2 - Ab=12,6m2 - Vcr=14,2 km/h
Spits ( Pniche ) (Lwl=38,5m, B=5,05 m, T=2,50m / waterway =90mx60mx3,5m)

8-9-2015
49
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
small boat in Canal 455 T (load 375 T) : >90%Vcr

300,0
25 000
Rt= Effort
Composantes effort
de remorquage
Rw= Wave
making
resistance (N)
Vitesse V
(km/h)
20 000
Resistance in N
Ra= modelRapp=
Rf= Fouling
Rf=
Viscous
resistance
Rf(1+k1) (N)
reality
resistance
resistance
(N)
Rw= Wave
making resistance
(N)
(N)
(N)
21
74
155
262
396
15 000
555
741
951
1 189
1 453
1 746
068
10 2000
2 423
2 813
3 241
3 715
4 244
4 843
5 5000
539
5 816
6 117
6 449
6 823
7 263
7 829
0,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
7
21
61
188
639
1 033
1 744
3 133
6 207
14 580
50 378
Rf=2 Fouling Resistance

0
0Rfo (N)
21
2
3
Rt=
(N)6open water ()
37Total resistance
4
58 Engine5power on 9
Total
shaft Pb (CV)
83
8
13
Total
Engine10power on18
shaft with clean hull (CV)
114
150
13
24power (CV)
Effective
hydrodynamic
190
16
30
237
20
38
289
24
46
347
28
55
412
33
65
484
39
77
564
45
90
654
51
104
755
58
120
871
67
138
1 007
76
160
1 061
80
168
1 120
84
178
1 186
89
188
1 261
94
200
1 348
100
214
1 462
108
232
0,4
0,8
1,2
1,6
2,1
2,5
2,9
3,3
3,7
4,1
4,5
5,0
5,4
5,8
6,3
6,8
7,4
8,2
9,1
9,6
10,1
10,8
11,7
13,0
15,6
1,0
4,0
9 model-reality
1
1
Ra=
resistance
(N)
2,0
3,0
Rt= Total
Rt= Effort de
open water ()
Total (N)
Guldhammer&
Harvald eau
libre ()
17
61
129
219
332
465
620
795
990
1 206
1 442
1 700
1 985
2 306
2 675
3 119
3 692
4 520
5 995
6 891
8 233
10 457
14 721
25 031
65 024
11
40
86
147
224
317
426
552
695
858
1 043
1 256
1 503
1 799
2 166
2 644
3 314
4 352
6 256
7 386
9 017
11 575
16 139
26 338
64 643
5,0
Rt= Effort
remorquage
GULDHAM
MER &
HARVALD
Vitesse V
(km/h)
0,4
0,8
1,2
1,6
2,1
2,5
2,9
3,3
3,7
4,1
4,5
4,9
5,4
5,8
6,2
6,6
7,0
7,4
7,8
8,0
8,1
8,3
8,4
8,5
8,7
6,0
7,0
15
54
116
200
304
431
580
753
951
1 176
1 433
1 725
2 061
2 450
2 913
3 482
4 223
5 285
7 094
8 132
9 611
11 922
16 059
25 440
61 691
8,0
250,0
200,0
150,0
Horse power (HP)
Rf= Viscous
resistance
Rf(1+k1) (N)
Efforts eau libre
100,0
50,0
0,0
9,0
Spits ( Pniche ) (Lwl=38,5m, B=5,05 m, T=2,50m / waterway =30mx18mx3m)

50
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
small boat in small Canal 328 T (load 248 T) >95%Vcr

80,0
10 000
Rt= Effort de remorquage Total (N)
Rf= Viscous
9 000
resistance
Rf(1+k1) (N)
Rw= Wave
making
resistance (N)
Resistance in N
8 000
Rf= Viscous resistance Rf(1+k1) (N)
Ra= modelRapp=
Rf= Fouling
realityWave
appendix
Rfo (N)
Rw=
makingResistance
resistance
resistance resistance
(N)
Rapp=
appendix
resistance (N)
(N)
(N)
Efforts eau libre

Vitesse V
(km/h)
11
38
7 000
80
136
205
6 000
288
384
494
618
5 000
757
912
083
4 1000
1 273
1 484
1 718
3 1000
980
2 276
2 618
2 3000
026
3 192
3 376
583
1 3000
3 824
4 125
4 578
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
14
30
72
210
884
12 163
0,0
1 model-reality
0
0
Ra=
resistance
(N)
0,3
0,5
0,8
18 Engine2 power on 3shaft Pb (CV)
1,1
Total
29
3
5
1,4
Total
Engine4 power on 7shaft with clean hull (CV) 1,6
42
57
5
9power (CV)
1,9
Effective
hydrodynamic
76
7
12
2,2
96
9
15
2,4
120
11
19
2,7
147
13
23
3,0
177
15
28
3,3
211
18
34
3,5
249
21
40
3,8
292
24
46
4,2
341
28
54
4,5
396
32
63
4,9
461
37
73
5,4
539
42
86
6,1
571
45
91
6,4
607
47
96
6,8
647
50
103
7,3
694
53
110
8,1
753
58
120
9,3
843
64
134
12,8
5
Rt=
(N)2 open water ()
10Total resistance
1
1,0
2,0
Rt= Total
Rt= Effort de
open water ()
Total (N)
Guldhammer&
Harvald eau
libre ()
7
24
50
86
130
182
242
310
385
469
560
661
771
896
1 039
1 209
1 422
1 707
2 141
2 365
2 662
3 091
3 821
5 605
20 779
3,0
4
16
34
58
89
125
167
215
269
329
396
470
553
647
759
896
1 073
1 326
1 744
1 975
2 296
2 787
3 659
5 784
20 959
4,0
Vitesse V
(km/h)
Rt= Effort
remorquage
GULDHAM
MER &
HARVALD
0,3
0,5
0,8
1,1
1,4
1,6
1,9
2,2
2,4
2,7
3,0
3,3
3,5
3,8
4,1
4,3
4,6
4,9
5,2
5,2
5,3
5,4
5,5
5,6
5,7
8
28
59
102
155
219
294
381
479
589
713
852
1 007
1 181
1 378
1 605
1 873
2 208
2 670
2 895
3 185
3 598
4 296
5 983
19 175
5,0
70,0
60,0
50,0
40,0
30,0
Horse power (HP)
Composantes effort de remorquage
20,0
10,0
0,0
6,0
Spits ( Pniche )(Lwl=38,5m-B=5,05 m -T=1,80m/waterway =16,5mx10,50mx2,20m)

8-9-2015
51
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Examples engine power

1 400
Narrow Canal
River Oise
Canal Class V
OPEN WATER
1 200
1 000
Engine Power Pb (kW)
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
Rhine Vessel (L= 110m, B = 11,40 m, T=2,80 m)

52
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Examples (cont) fuel consumption

350
Narrow Canal
River Oise
Canal Class V
OPEN WATER
300
250
Fuel Consumption (liters/h)
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20

8-9-2015
53
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
Examples (cont) fuel consumption per transported ton

Narrow Canal
River Oise
Canal Class V
OPEN WATER
250
Energy per Ton.km (kJ/T.km)
200
150
100
50

0
0
10
15
20

54
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
CONCLUSION
From open water to confined water :
Resistance may be doubled or tripled
Propulsion efficiency may drop by 30% or 50%
The speed is limited by the subcritical speed
The power requested at the engine shaft in confined

water can be easily X3 or X4 compared to open water
and this is a key to transport efficiency; The propulsion
has to be optimized, but this has limits anyway.
The maximum speed Vcr (and profitability of capital
invested and personnel cost) is determined by the
geometry of the waterway which has to be optimized
55
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe
56
8-9-2015
SMART RIVERS 2015
PJ Pompe

Design Guidelines For Inland Ships

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Design Guidelines For Inland Ships

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SMART RIVERS 2015

Workshop on DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INLAND

Buenos Aires, 18-09-2015

1. Presentations held at the Workshop

1. Presentations held at the Workshop

4. Content of the future report with examples

2. Terms of reference of WG 141

2. Terms of reference of WG 141

2. Terms of reference of WG 141

Defining lower limits of navigational

3. WG 141: Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways

Katrien Eloot, Flanders

Interim meeting, May 2012, SIPORT, Madrid, Spain

12th meeting, July 2015, DST, Duisburg

3. WG 141: Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways

Katrien Eloot, Flanders

WG 141 consists of governmental

Interim meeting, May 2012,

12th meeting, July 2015, DST, Duisburg

4. Content of the future report with examples

Chapter 2: DISCUSSION OF EXISTING GUIDELINES

Data from guidelines

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

Data from practice

The data vary widely!

8.2 (t), 4.9 (d),

4.3 (t), 3.3 (d)

Chapter 2: DISCUSSION OF EXISTING GUIDELINES

Lock approach widths and lengths

Nevertheless, one needs concrete waterway dimensions at least for preliminary

Chapter 3: DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING

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

Chapter 4: TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Classification of reference vessels

Chapter 5: CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY AND EASE

Different boundary conditions in our waterways

Different international guidelines reflect these different

There are several rational reasons speaking e.g. for

Definition of three different ease qualities (standards)

Chapter 5: CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY AND EASE

Different boundary conditions in our waterways

Different international guidelines reflect these different

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

Definition of three different ease qualities (standards)

Concept Design (simplified approach):

All the recommended waterway dimensions are

Example fairway width

Chapter 5: CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY AND EASE

Different boundary conditions in our waterways

Different international guidelines reflect these different

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

Definition of three different ease qualities (standards)

Concept Design (simplified approach):

All the recommended waterway dimensions are

A scoring system helps to define the necessary

Chapter 5: CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY AND EASE

Different boundary conditions in our waterways

Different international guidelines reflect these different

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

Definition of three different ease qualities (standards)

Concept Design (simplified approach):

A scoring system helps

Chapter 5: CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY AND EASE