The Effect of Bottom Variations

© All Rights Reserved

1 views

The Effect of Bottom Variations

© All Rights Reserved

- Piling Handbook
- PIANC Example Fender Design
- 01 Pivot Point
- Delft3D-TRIANA User Manual
- 700_Soru_USCG
- Crona Et Al 2005_Recolonization of juvenile shrimps in mangroves
- USACE Breakwaters and Jetties
- Bank Soal Ukp Dpkp Plus Jawab
- The Britannia. The Beaconsfield. The Britannia v. Cleugh. Same v. Cotton. La Compagnie Francaise De Navigation a Vapeur v. The Beaconsfield, 153 U.S. 130 (1894)
- Application Form - Draft-1
- Industry Code of Practice on Ship Recycling
- Effective Strategies for Shipping Companies
- Oceans
- Stop Oil Pollution
- FULL-SCALE-MEASUREMENT-OF-DYNAMIC-SHIP-MOTIONS-AND-SQUAT.pdf
- Saxby - 1864 - Saxby's Weather System.pdf
- NCSE.doc
- 3 Loading Manual
- Shaldon Boards 1aw 2009 2
- PawlowiczBeardsleyLentz-TidalAnalysisMATLAB-T_Tide-CompGeosci2002.pdf

You are on page 1of 122

policy

Joris Cantaert

Counsellors: Dr. Maxim Candries, Ir. Evert Lataire

Master of Science in Electromechanical Engineering

Chairman: Prof. dr. ir. Peter Troch

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture

Academic year 2013-2014

The effect of bottom variations in a probabilistic access

policy

Joris Cantaert

Counsellors: Dr. Maxim Candries, Ir. Evert Lataire

Master of Science in Electromechanical Engineering

Chairman: Prof. dr. ir. Peter Troch

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture

Academic year 2013-2014

Preface

Foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof Marc Vantorre. You taught me

how to reset my goals and not to be satisfied too easily. Thank you for your advice

during our meetings.

I wish to thank Maxim Candries for being second observer. You were always there

whenever I needed help. Thank you for your advice, your support and for reading

over this thesis.

encouragement and support in times of pressure and stress.

The author gives permission to make this master dissertation available for

consultation and to copy parts of this master dissertation for personal use. In the

case of any other use, the limitations of the copyright have to be respected, in

particular with regard to the obligation to state expressly the source when quoting

results from this master dissertation.

Joris Cantaert

Overview

policy

Author Joris Cantaert

Supervisor Prof. dr. ir. Marc Vantorre

Counsellors Dr. Maxim Candries, Ir. Evert Lataire

of science in Electromechanical Engineering

Academic year 2013-2014

Het effect van bodemvariaties in een probabilistisch

toelatingsbeleid

Joris Cantaert

bodemdiepte van een scheepstraject best geïmplementeerd kan II. HET TRAJECT

worden in ProToel. ProToel is een beslissingsondersteunend

hulpmiddel om tijvensters te bepalen gebaseerd op zowel A. Algemene informatie

deterministische als probabilistische criteria.

De berekeningen werden uitgevoerd voor een

Trefwoorden - Vlaamse havens, bodemdiepte, ProToel,

toelatingsbeleid, tijvensters containerschip (W092) met een lengte van 365,0m en een

breedte van 51,2m. De diepgang werd telkens gevarieerd met

stappen van 2dm in een relevant bereik tussen 145dm en

I. INLEIDING 159dm.

Er werd besloten om de afvaart tussen Deurganckdok en

Voor de berekening van de tijvensters voor diepliggende Kwintebank te bestuderen. Schepen maken hiervoor gebruik

schepen die toegang willen tot de Vlaamse havens wordt van een lang tijgebonden zeekanaal (Westerschelde-

momenteel nog een deterministische aanpak gehanteerd. Deze Wielingen-Scheur Oost-Scheur West), zoals weergegeven in

schrijft een minimale kielspeling voor, soms in combinatie Afbeelding 1.

met een maximale dwarsstroom. Een vergelijkend onderzoek

[1] heeft reeds aangetoond dat een probabilistisch

toelatingsbeleid globaal leidt tot een duidelijke verruiming

van de toegankelijkheid van de Scheldehavens. Vanuit

economisch standpunt is het dan ook aangewezen de

tijvensters te bepalen aan de hand van zowel deterministische

als probabilistische criteria.

berekenen gebaseerd op een maximale kans op bodemraking

gedurende de reis. Bovendien wordt een minimale

manoeuvreermarge geëist om de manoeuvreerbaarheid en

beheersbaarheid van het schip te garanderen. Voor de Afbeelding 1: Ligging van de vaargeul

berekeningen is een scheepsdatabase beschikbaar die

karakteristieken bevat met betrekking tot scheepsdimensies, De probabilistische parameters zijn gebaseerd op een

squat en golfresponsies. aanvaardbaar risico. Een typische waarde voor een

acceptabele kans op bodemraking is 10−4 . Voor de

De voorbije jaren werden inspanningen gedaan om de manoeuvreermarge wordt een waarde van 5% van de

werking van ProToel te optimaliseren. Zo werd recent nog de scheepsdiepgang gekozen zoals vooropgesteld in PIANC [3].

invloed van wind en draaimanoeuvres op de tijvensters van

schepen komende van of aankomend in Zeebrugge bestudeerd B. Bodemdiepte

[2]. Bovendien kan het programma nu ook gebruikt worden Om te kunnen inschatten welke bodemdiepte in ProToel

voor scheepstrajecten van en naar de haven van Antwerpen, dient meegegeven te worden werd eerst een analyse

daar waar vroeger enkel de toegang tot Zeebrugge bestudeerd uitgevoerd van de beschikbare dieptepeilingen voor de meest

werd. Deze masterproef heeft als doel de impact te bestuderen kritische zones in het zeetraject. Voor Scheur Oost I en Scheur

van de diepte-parameter. Voorlopig wordt voor verschillende Oost II (het gebied tussen trajectpunten 7 en 9, zie Afbeelding

trajectpunten de streefdiepte meegegeven als input voor de 1) werd de absolute minimale diepte bepaald gebaseerd op

berekeningen. Het is nu de bedoeling om het werkelijke gemiddelden van 1m2 en gebaseerd op gemiddelden van

bodemprofiel zo goed mogelijk te implementeren in ProToel. gridcellen van 3m bij 3m, resp. gem1 en gem3 genaamd.

Hiervoor werd gebruik gemaakt van dieptepeilingen voor de Deze laatste methode middelt de meest extreme waarden uit

Belgische kust. waardoor het absolute minimum wat toeneemt. Voor de

berekeningen werd telkens een kanaalbreedte van 400m

verondersteld, niettegenstaande de Scheur 500m breed is. Dit

werd gedaan om ondiepere waarden aan de rand van het

kanaal niet in de berekeningen mee te nemen. Bovendien

zullen de diepliggende schepen zelden zo dicht tegen de rand

van de vaargeul varen.

Een gedetailleerder beeld van het bodemprofiel werd werden gewichtsfactoren samengesteld. Deze

verkregen door het uitzetten van de dieptemetingen in een gewichtsfactoren bevatten het aandeel van de metingen in een

histogram. De minimale bodemdieptes voor verschillende beschouwd interval van 1dm.

gridcel afmetingen werden uiteengezet met een stapgrootte Vervolgens werd de totale kans op bodemraking

van 1dm. Zo werden histogrammen op basis van de minima samengesteld als de som van kansen op bodemraking bij een

voor een gebied van 50m op 100m en voor een gebied van beschouwde diepte vermenigvuldigd met de fractie van de

10m op 10m opgesteld. Op die manier konden de metingen die in dat beschouwde interval liggen. De tijvensters

bodemkarakteristieken (gemiddelde, standaardafwijking, werden tenslotte berekend met de nieuwe waarden voor de

minimum) vergeleken worden. kans op bodemraking. Een vergelijking van de bekomen

tijvensters met de resultaten op basis van een uniforme diepte

III. RESULTATEN (min(gem1) of min(gem3)), leert dat de tijvensters op basis

van de combinatie van criteria (BTP en MM) vergroten, zoals

A. Uniforme bodemdiepte getoond in Afbeelding 2. De streefdiepte (TD) geeft echter

In eerste instantie werd een uniforme bodemdiepte nog steeds de beste resultaten.

verondersteld voor de gebieden tussen 2 trajectpunten.

Ondanks deze sterke vereenvoudiging wordt deze methode

momenteel nog toegepast. Aan de trajectpunten wordt dan een

diepte toegekend met een kleine standaardafwijking (0,01m).

Wanneer deze methodiek wordt toegepast is men verplicht de

minimale waarde van een gebied aan het overeenkomstig

trajectpunt toe te kennen. Als input worden dan ook de

minimale waardes bekomen op basis van gem1 en gem3

gebruikt. Bij gem3 worden de meest extreme waarden wat

uitgemiddeld. Wanneer dit over een voldoende kleine gridcel

gebeurt is dit aanvaardbaar. Die ondiepste waarden kunnen

immers meetfouten zijn en zelfs indien ze werkelijk optreden,

zullen ze het schip nooit schade berokkenen bij een eventuele

bodemraking.

Uit de resultaten voor Scheur Oost I en Scheur Oost II bleek

dat het absolute minimum op basis van gem1 ongeveer 2dm

minder diep ligt dan de streefdiepte. Wanneer vertrokken

wordt van gem3 is de minimale waarde ongeveer 1dm minder

diep dan door de baggermaatschappij wordt voorgeschreven.

Voor de verdere berekeningen werd vervolgens aangenomen

dat deze bevindingen voor Scheur Oost I en Scheur Oost II

geldig zijn voor alle trajectpunten op het zeetraject en de

tijvensters werden voor beide scenario’s berekend.

Afbeelding 2: Tijvensters uitgaande van een uniforme bodemdiepte

B. Gemiddelde bodemdiepte met standaardafwijking en een werkelijk bodemprofiel

Om het eigenlijke bodemprofiel beter te benaderen werd

eerst geprobeerd de tijvensters te berekenen aan de hand van IV. CONCLUSIES

de gemiddelde diepte (van de minima voor gridcellen van

Het effect van een variërende bodemdiepte op de tijvensters

50m op 100m) met de standaardafwijking op deze waarde.

voor containerschepen die Deurganckdok verlaten werd

Voor Scheur Oost I werd berekend dat de gemiddelde diepte

onderzocht aan de hand van verschillende strategieën. Op

0,30m dieper ligt dan de streefdiepte van 15,50m. De

basis van de resultaten van een bodemanalyse van de meest

standaardafwijking van 0,22m zorgde echter dat de tijvensters

kritische gebieden in het zeetraject werden de tijvensters eerst

kleiner werden ondanks de grotere diepte. ProToel

berekend volgens een uniforme diepte door het meest ondiepe

veronderstelt een normale verdeling van bodemdieptes en

punt. Om meer informatie omtrent het eigenlijke

wanneer de standaardafwijking oploopt, wordt ook een

bodemprofiel in een bepaald gebied aan een trajectpunt te

aanzienlijk deel metingen verondersteld die minder diep

kunnen meegeven, werd vervolgens een methode ontwikkeld

liggen dan in werkelijkheid het geval is. De diepere zones

om de totale kans op bodemraking samen te stellen uit de

hadden zo een averechts effect. Deze methode werd dan ook

kansen verkregen voor verschillende dieptes. In Afbeelding 2

als ongeschikt beoordeeld.

wordt een vergelijking van beide methodes weergegeven.

Door het werkelijke bodemprofiel in ProToel te

C. Bodemprofiel op basis van histogram implementeren, zal de gemiddelde kielspeling vergroten

Om ProToel te kunnen gebruiken zonder grote wijzigingen aangezien ook de diepere gebieden meegerekend worden. De

aan de programmatie aan te brengen, werd het bodemprofiel vereiste manoeuvreermarge wordt hierdoor makkelijker

nu als volgt geïmplementeerd. Vooreerst werd met behulp van gehaald waardoor dit criterium minder bepalend wordt.

ProToel de kans op bodemraking voor alle trajectpunten Voorlopig wordt de bodemdistributie van Scheur Oost I als

berekend voor dieptes variërend tussen de minimale diepte (de representatief beschouwd voor het volledige zeetraject. In de

streefdiepte -2dm) en de streefdiepte +6dm met stappen van toekomst zou men elk kritisch gebied apart kunnen

1dm. De standaardafwijking werd hierbij telkens op 0,01m implementeren.

gezet. Op basis van een histogram van de bodemmetingen

REFERENTIES

vs . Probabilistisch Toelatingsbeleid Vergelijkend onderzoek voor

de Scheldehavens. Verslag. Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium.

ondersteuning van het toelatingsbeleid tot de Vlaamse havens. MA

thesis. Universiteit Gent.

Tech. rep. Nr. 121. PIANC.

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1

1.1 PROBLEM ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2 GOAL ............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 GENERAL APPROACH ......................................................................................... 3

LITERATURE STUDY .......................................................................................... 5

2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 5

2.2 THE FLEMISH HARBOURS ................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 The port of Zeebrugge ........................................................................... 6

2.2.2 The port of Antwerp .............................................................................. 9

2.3 DETERMINISTIC ACCESS POLICY ......................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Under Keel Clearance .......................................................................... 12

2.3.2 Current window ................................................................................... 15

2.4 PROBABILISTIC ACCESS POLICY – PROTOEL .......................................................... 16

2.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 16

2.4.2 Probabilistic parameters [11] .............................................................. 17

2.4.3 Input data ............................................................................................ 19

2.4.4 Calculation method ............................................................................. 23

2.4.5 The calculations ................................................................................... 27

2.5 BOTTOM ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 28

2.5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 28

2.5.2 The effect of bottom variations on the needed under keel clearance . 28

PRELIMINARY STUDIES ................................................................................... 37

3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 37

3.2 TIDAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR CONTAINERSHIPS (W092) LEAVING DEURGANCKDOK ... 39

3.3 DETERMINATION OF THE CRITICAL TRAJECTORY POINTS ......................................... 40

3.3.1 With the target depths allocated to the TP ......................................... 40

3.3.2 With an increased depth for the most critical TP ................................ 40

3.4 STUDY OF THE STANDARD DEVIATION ................................................................. 44

STUDY OF THE MOST CRITICAL AREAS............................................................. 45

4.1 SCHEUR OOST I .............................................................................................. 45

4.1.1 Study of S511 ....................................................................................... 47

4.1.2 Study of S513 ....................................................................................... 56

4.2 SCHEUR OOST II ............................................................................................. 62

INFLUENCE OF BOTTOM DEPTH ON THE TIDAL WINDOWS............................... 69

5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 69

5.2 UNIFORM BOTTOM DEPTH ............................................................................... 69

5.3 HIGHER DEPTH WITH VARYING STANDARD DEVIATION ........................................... 72

5.4 ACTUAL DEPTH BASED ON THE HISTOGRAM OF THE BOTTOM DISTRIBUTION .............. 75

5.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TARGET DEPTH AND THE ACTUAL BOTTOM PROFILE ....... 80

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 83

6.1 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BOTTOM DEPTH IN PROTOEL .................................. 83

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .................................................... 85

APPENDIX A: BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR SCHEUR OOST I ........................ 86

APPENDIX B: BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR SCHEUR OOST II ....................... 94

APPENDIX C: NORMAL DISTRIBUTION TABLE .................................................. 99

List of figures

FIGURE 2: EXAMPLE OF TIDE CURVE FOR TERNEUZEN .........................................................................2

FIGURE 3: THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE ..............................................................................................6

FIGURE 4: RELATION BETWEEN CHARTED DEPTH AND ACTUAL DEPTH .....................................................7

FIGURE 5: TIDAL CURVE AT ZEEBRUGGE ...........................................................................................8

FIGURE 6: ACCESS CHANNELS FOR THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE AND THE WESTERN SCHELDT ........................9

FIGURE 7: RESULT OF THIRD DEEPENING IN THE WESTERN SCHELDT [10] .............................................10

FIGURE 8: EXAMPLE OF INBOUND AND OUTBOUND SHIP PASSAGE USING THE TIDE [11] ..........................11

FIGURE 9: CONTAINER TERMINALS IN THE PORT OF ANTWERP ............................................................11

FIGURE 10: SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION UKC [11] .......................................................................12

FIGURE 11: SQUAT PHENOMENON (SQUAT AT THE BOW) [11]...........................................................13

FIGURE 12: SHIP MOTIONS RELATED TO THE AXIS OF THE HULL [13] ....................................................14

FIGURE 13: NUMERICALLY DETERMINED CURRENT PROFILE IN THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE: 1H30 BEFORE HIGH

TIDE, MAXIMUM FLOOD CURRENT [15] .................................................................................15

FIGURE 14: TURNING CIRCLE TO PORT (35 DEG) FOR DIFFERENT H/D RATIOS [15] .................................18

FIGURE 15: LOCATION OF THE WAYPOINTS.....................................................................................20

FIGURE 16: LOCATIONS FOR THE DATA FOR THE WAVE SPECTRA .........................................................22

FIGURE 17: PRINCIPLE OF THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM IN RELATION TO SQUAT (A) ...................................29

FIGURE 18: PRINCIPLE OF THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM IN RELATION TO SQUAT (B) ...................................29

FIGURE 19: PRINCIPLE OF THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM IN RELATION TO SQUAT (C) ...................................30

FIGURE 20: PRINCIPLE OF THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM IN RELATION TO SQUAT (D) ...................................31

FIGURE 21: VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE SHIP ABOVE A HORIZONTAL BOTTOM ....................................32

FIGURE 22: RELATIVE VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE SHIP IN RELATION TO THE ACTUAL BOTTOM ...............33

FIGURE 23: EFFECTIVE BOTTOM ...................................................................................................33

FIGURE 24: VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE SHIP ABOVE THE EFFECTIVE BOTTOM .....................................34

FIGURE 25: RELATIVE VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE SHIP ABOVE THE AVERAGE EFFECTIVE BOTTOM ...........35

FIGURE 26: REPRESENTATION OF THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM..............................................................35

FIGURE 27: LOCATION OF KWINTEBANK, SLOEHAVEN AND DEURGANCKDOK ........................................37

FIGURE 28: LOCATIONS FOR THE DATA FOR THE WAVE SPECTRA .........................................................37

FIGURE 29: TIDAL WINDOW CHARACTERISTICS FOR DGD-KWI ..........................................................39

FIGURE 30: LOCATION OF TRAJECTORY POINT 7 ..............................................................................41

FIGURE 31: EFFECT OF THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE BOTTOM DEPTH ON THE TIDAL WINDOW

CHARACTERISTICS FOR A CONTAINER VESSEL SAILING FROM ANTWERP TO KWINTEBANK

(W092_DGDKWI) .........................................................................................................44

FIGURE 32: DETAILED VIEW OF SCHEUR OOST I ..............................................................................45

FIGURE 33: LOCATION OF SCHEUR OOST I .....................................................................................46

FIGURE 34: SOUDINGS OF S511, AVG1.........................................................................................47

FIGURE 35: POSITIONING GRID CELLS WITH RESPECT TO THE SEA CHANNEL ...........................................48

FIGURE 36: SOUNDINGS OF S511 (ROTATED), AVG1 .......................................................................48

FIGURE 37: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S511............................................................50

FIGURE 38: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S511 (400M WIDE) ........................................50

FIGURE 39: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S511 .............................................................................51

FIGURE 40: STD50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S511 ..............................................................................52

FIGURE 41: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S511 (400M WIDE) ...............................................53

FIGURE 42: HISTOGRAM MIN30AVG1 FOR S511 (400 WIDE) ..........................................................53

FIGURE 43: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1-MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S511 ..................................................54

FIGURE 44: HISTOGRAM MIN10AVG1 FOR S511 (400M WIDE) .......................................................55

FIGURE 45: SOUNDINGS OF S513, AVG1.......................................................................................56

FIGURE 46: SOUNDINGS OF S513 (ROTATED), AVG1 .......................................................................56

FIGURE 47: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S513 (400M WIDE) ........................................57

FIGURE 48: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S513 (400M WIDE) ...............................................57

FIGURE 49: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S513 .............................................................................58

FIGURE 50: STD50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S513 ..............................................................................59

FIGURE 51: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1-MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S513 ..................................................60

FIGURE 52: HISTOGRAM MIN30AVG1 FOR S513 (400M WIDE) .......................................................61

FIGURE 53: HISTOGRAM MIN10AVG1 FOR S513 (400M WIDE) .......................................................61

FIGURE 54: SOUNDINGS OF SCHEUR OOST II (BETWEEN TP 8 AND 9), AVG1 ........................................62

FIGURE 55: SOUNDINGS OF SCHEUR OOST II (BETWEEN TP 8 AND 9) (ROTATED), AVG1 ........................62

FIGURE 56: LOCATION OF SCHEUR OOST II ....................................................................................63

FIGURE 57: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SOII (400M WIDE) .........................................64

FIGURE 58: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG1 FOR SOII (400M WIDE) .................................................64

FIGURE 59: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 1) ..................................................................65

FIGURE 60: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 2) ..................................................................66

FIGURE 61: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1-MIN50_100AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 1).......................................67

FIGURE 62: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1-MIN50_100AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 2).......................................68

FIGURE 63: TIDAL WINDOWS FOR DIFFERENT UNIFORM DEPTHS .........................................................71

FIGURE 64: HISTOGRAM OF MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 COMPARED WITH NORMAL DISTRIBUTION ..............72

FIGURE 65: HISTOGRAM OF MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 WITHOUT VALUES ABOVE 16,0M .........................73

FIGURE 66: HISTOGRAM OF MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SCHEUR OOST I ..........................................75

FIGURE 67: HISTOGRAM OF MIN10AVG1 FOR SCHEUR OOST I ..........................................................75

FIGURE 68: TIDAL WINDOWS FOR AN UNIFORM BOTTOM DEPTH AND FOR THE ACTUAL BOTTOM DEPTH .....79

FIGURE 69: CONTAINER CARRIERS (W092) LEAVING DEURGANCKDOK: FRACTION OF THE TIDE CYCLES FOR

WHICH THE BTP IS DETERMINATIVE FOR THE OPENING AND/OR CLOSURE OF THE TIDAL WINDOW OR

WHICH INFLUENCES THE LENGTH OF THE TIDAL WINDOW IN COMBINATION WITH A MINIMUM MM

(CALCULATIONS PERFORMED WITH TD AND Σ=0,01M) ............................................................80

FIGURE 70: CONTAINER CARRIERS (W092) LEAVING DEURGANCKDOK: FRACTION OF THE TIDE CYCLES FOR

WHICH THE BTP IS DETERMINATIVE FOR THE OPENING AND/OR CLOSURE OF THE TIDAL WINDOW OR

WHICH INFLUENCES THE LENGTH OF THE TIDAL WINDOW IN COMBINATION WITH A MINIMUM MM

(CALCULATION PERFORMED WITH ACTUAL BOTTOM) ..............................................................81

FIGURE 71: MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S511.....................................................................................87

FIGURE 72: STD50_100AVG1 FOR S511 .....................................................................................88

FIGURE 73: THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM FOR S511 ...........................................................................89

FIGURE 74: EQB50_100-MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S511 .................................................................90

FIGURE 75: EQB50_100-MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S511 .........................................................91

FIGURE 76: MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S513.....................................................................................92

FIGURE 77: THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM FOR S513 ...........................................................................93

FIGURE 78: MIN50_100AVG1 FOR SOII (PART1) ..........................................................................95

FIGURE 79: MIN50_100AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 2) .........................................................................96

FIGURE 80: STD50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 1) ...................................................................97

FIGURE 81: STD50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 2) ...................................................................98

List of tables

TABLE 2: PROTOEL SHIP DATABASE ...............................................................................................20

TABLE 3: OVERVIEW TRAJECTORY POINTS.......................................................................................21

TABLE 4: SHIP DIMENSIONS OF W092 ..........................................................................................38

TABLE 5: TIDAL WINDOW CHARACTERISTICS DGD-KWI (DECEMBER 2011) .........................................39

TABLE 6: NUMBER OF TIMES A TRAJECTORY POINT BECOMES CRITICAL FOR THE OPENING OR CLOSURE OF THE

TIDAL WINDOW ................................................................................................................42

TABLE 7: NUMBER OF TIMES A TRAJECTORY POINT BECOMES CRITICAL FOR THE OPENING OR CLOSURE OF THE

TIDAL WINDOW (WITH DEPTH OF POINT 7: +1DM) ..................................................................43

TABLE 8: PARAMETERS WITH THEIR SPECIFIC NAMING ......................................................................49

TABLE 9: BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR S511 ..............................................................................55

TABLE 10: BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR S513 ............................................................................61

TABLE 11: BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR SCHEUR OOST II (BETWEEN TP8 & TP9) .............................64

TABLE 12: TIDAL WINDOWS FOR DIFFERENT DRAUGHTS WHEN A UNIFORM DEPTH BASED ON MIN(AVG1)

AND MIN (AVG3AVG1) IS ASSUMED ....................................................................................70

TABLE 13: TIDAL WINDOWS FOR DIFFERENT DRAUGHTS WHEN A HIGHER DEPTH WITH VARYING STANDARD

DEVIATIONS IS ASSUMED ....................................................................................................74

TABLE 14: DETERMINATION OF THE WEIGHT FACTORS FOR MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 (SCHEUR OOST I) .....76

TABLE 15: DETERMINATION OF THE WEIGHT FACTORS FOR MIN10AVG1 (SCHEUR OOST I) .....................76

TABLE 16: TIDAL WINDOWS FOR DIFFERENT DRAUGHTS BASED ON THE HISTOGRAMS OF THE ACTUAL BOTTOM

(AB) AND FOR TD WITH Σ=0,01M .....................................................................................78

TABLE 17: CRITICAL DRAFT (DM) FOR DIFFERENT BOTTOM DEPTH IMPLEMENTATIONS.............................79

TABLE 18: NUMBER OF TIMES A TRAJECTORY POINT BECOMES CRITICAL FOR THE OPENING OR CLOSURE OF

THE TIDAL WINDOW (ACTUAL BOTTOM IMPLEMENTED) ...........................................................82

TABLE 19: NORMAL DISTRIBUTION TABLE [19] ...............................................................................99

List of abbreviations

AB Actual Bottom

BAW Bundesantstalt für Wasserbau

BEN Boundary Element Method

BTP Bottom Touch Probability

CD Chart Datum

CP Critical Point

DGD Deurganckdok

ECS Electronic Chart System

GM Metacentric Height

HW High Water

JONSWAP Joint Noth Sea Wave Observation Project

KWI Kwintebank

LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide

LNG Liquid Natural Gas

LW Low Water

MARIN Maritime Research Institute Netherlands

MLLW Mean Lower Low Water

MLLWS Mean Lower Low Water Spring

MLW Mean Low Water

MLWS Mean Low Water Spring

MM Manoeuvring Margin

NaN Not A Number

NAP Normaal Amsterdams Peil (Normal Amsterdam Level)

PIANC Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses

ProToel Probabilistisch Toelatingsbeleid (Probabilistic access policy)

RAO Response Amplitude Operator

RM Relative Movement

SLO Sloehaven

SO Scheur Oost

TD Target Depth

TP Trajectory Point

UKC Under Keel Clearance

UTM Universal Transfers Mercator

VM Vertical Movement

WF Weight Factor

List of symbols

A amplitude (m)

Am midship area (m2 )

B beam (m)

d ship draft (m)

Fnm Froude number (-)

g gravitational acceleration (m/s 2 )

h water depth (m)

Hs significant value of the vertical motion (m2 s)

k wave number (1/m)

L ship length (m)

Loa length over all (m)

m blockage (-)

rpm rotations per minute (1/s)

SWW transverse area of the water way (m2 )

Sz spectral density motion spectrum (m2 s)

S𝛇 spectral density wave spectrum (m2 s)

Te encounter period (s)

z heave (m)

ε phase (-)

θ pitch angle (°)

λ wavelength (m)

μ propagation direction (°)

σ spreading (m)

φ roll angle (°)

ω encounter frequency (rad/sec)

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Problem

Nowadays, seaports are expected to receive increasingly large ships. Due to depth

limitations, those deep-drafted ships can only reach the harbour using dredged sea

channels. The access channels to the Belgian seaports of Zeebrugge and Antwerp

are shown in Figure 1. The Scheur West channel links the deeper Wandelaar area

in the southern North Sea via the Pas van het Zand to the port of Zeebrugge, and

via the Scheur East and Wielingen channels to the mouth of the river West

Scheldt, which gives access to the port of Antwerp [1].

1

As the sea channels are subject to the tide, arrival and departure of ships may be

limited to a certain time limitations. Figure 2 shows the tidal elevation for 1 day at

Terneuzen [3]. A tidal window is the part of the tide where the ship can complete

the travel in a secure way. At present, the tidal windows are determined in a

deterministic way and guarantee a gross under keel clearance (UKC) during the

passage. The gross under keel clearance is the margin between the nominal

channel bed level and the ship’s keel. The deterministic approach accounts for

water level fluctuations due to the tides and for the loading condition of the ship.

Weather conditions, wave climate and ship characteristics however, are not

considered.

Since the UKC guarantees a safe travel, independent of the weather condition and

wave climate, this value should be sufficient for the most severe conditions. This

implies a significant margin for a ship travelling in favourable conditions. Because

of this conservative approach, the capacity of the harbours decreases. The aim

however, is to increase the productivity of the harbours preferably without the need

for new infrastructure or dredging. Therefore, one prefers to choose an admittance

policy based on probabilistic principles [4]. In a probabilistic access policy, an

acceptable value for the probability of undesired events such as bottom touch is

determined. In this study, this is done with the help of the software package

ProToel.

University and Flanders Hydraulics Research (Antwerp). It is a calculation tool to

determine tidal windows for deep-drafted ships approaching and leaving the

harbour of Zeebrugge and the Western Scheldt Estuary. As input, ProToel uses

hydro-meteo data, bottom levels, ship characteristics and the ship’s speed. The

probabilistic criteria are based on a maximal chance of bottom touch during the

trajectory of the ship and on a minimal manoeuvring margin.

2

Developments over the last couple of years, including more detailed input data and

compiling a comprehensive internal ship database, have led to more accurate

results. Yet, there is still room for improvement so the software is subject to

continuous changes. For example, the influence of wind and turning on the bottom

touch probability of container vessels arriving at and departing from Zeebrugge has

recently been studied [5] [6]. A study on the effect of bottom depth variations

however, has not been finalised yet.

1.2 Goal

An important input factor for the determination of the tidal windows with ProToel is

the bottom depth. Up to now, the target depth is used for the calculations. The

target depth is the depth that is assured by dredging companies. The aim of this

study is now to implement the bottom depth based on available sounding data. In

this way, the use of an uncertain reference depth is avoided. Afterwards, the effect

of this modification is studied as the obtained tidal windows are compared with the

tidal windows based on the target depth.

In Chapter 2 an overview of the Flemish harbours is given followed by a discussion

on a deterministic and a probabilistic access policy. Also a research assignment to

define a scientifically based algorithm for the purpose of creating ECS-charts [7] is

discussed.

Deurganckdok and Kwintebank is examined. The most critical trajectory points

were determined and the effect of the standard deviation on the target depth was

studied.

Chapter 4 focuses on a bottom analysis of the most critical areas. Different bottom

characteristics were calculated and compared.

In Chapter 5, the influence of the bottom depth on the tidal windows is described.

Three strategies for the implementation of the bottom depth are illustrated.

This study ends with a conclusion and some recommendations (Chapter 6).

3

4

Chapter 2

Literature study

2.1 Introduction

This chapter starts with an overview of the main Flemish seaports: the Port of

Zeebrugge and the Port of Antwerp. Next, all the factors defining the UKC are

briefly discussed as well as the current access policy of the harbours.

Then, the deterministic access policy is compared with a probabilistic access policy

and an introduction on ProToel is given.

This chapter ends with a discussion on a study done by MARIN and Ghent

University [7]. In this study, an algorithm is developed that converts raw sounding

data to useful ECS-charts and dredging charts.

5

2.2 The Flemish harbours

2.2.1 The port of Zeebrugge

The port of Zeebrugge is a deepsea port with modern port equipment suitable for

the largest ships [8]. Sufficient water depth is guaranteed in the access channels

(Scheur West and Pas van het Zand) and along the quays. The port consists of 3

major parts: The outer port, the inner port and the seaport of Bruges (See Figure 3)

Two breakwaters having each a length of more than 4 kilometers protect the outer

port. Due to the direct access and the substantial water depth, the outer port is

used for the fast roll-on/roll-off and container traffic. LNG vessels also moor in the

outer port. The inner port is accessible through the Pierre Vandamme lock and the

Visart lock and houses two large docks: the Northern Inlet dock and the Southern

Canal dock. The main activities are handling, storage and distribution of new cars,

breakbulk cargoes or food products. The seaport of Bruges, at last, focuses on

bulk and conventional cargoes.

6

Deep drafted ships reach the Port of Zeebrugge through the channels Scheur West

and Pas van het Zand. The Scheur West is approximately 9000 meters long and

500 meters wide. The Pas van het Zand is about 3600 meters long and 300 meters

wide. The depth is 16,20 meters Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) for the Scheur

West and 15,76 meters for the Pas van het Zand.

LAT is the lowest water level that can occur as a result of the tidal effects of

astronomical bodies and the local geographic circumstances. A water level below

LAT can only occur due to meteorological circumstances [9]. Water depths and

tidal predictions will here be referred to this reference level (Chart Datum). Due to

the variety in tidal characteristics, a large number of implementations of Chart

Datum exists, usually related to mean of low ocean surfaces. Examples are Mean

Lower Low Water Spring (MLLWS), Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), Mean Low

Water (MLW), Low Water (LW), Mean Low Water Spring (MLWS). Also the Normal

Amsterdam Level (NAP = Normaal Amsterdams Peil) is sometimes used. It is very

important to know which Chart Datum is used since the charted depth will change

and a false sense of safety might arise. This is illustrated in Figure 4.

7

The mean difference between high water (HW) and low water (LW) in Zeebrugge is

about 4 meters, as illustrated in Figure 5.

8

2.2.2 The port of Antwerp

As one of Europe’s most central seaports, Antwerp plays a major role as a port in

the world. Transport via the Port of Antwerp to European customers and factories

is quick, cheap and very ecological as the sea-going vessels can transport their

goods 80 kilometers inland [10].

After passing the channels Scheur West, Scheur Oost and Wielingen, ships

continue their travel via the Western Scheldt (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Access channels for the Port of Zeebrugge and the Western Scheldt

The central location is not the only asset of the port of Antwerp. Continuous

investments provide a modern infrastructure with high productivity and a sufficient

capacity. In 2010, Maritime Access carried out a third deepening in the Western

Scheldt. This allows the biggest container vessels in the world to visit the port of

Antwerp during larger tidal windows. Ships with a draught limited to 13,1 meters

can even enter tide-independently (Figure 7).

9

Figure 7: Result of third deepening in the Western Scheldt [10]

A distinction is made between inbound and outbound shipping. Inbound ships may

transit the channel on a rising tide. The ship starts at sea some time before high

water and reaches the port at high water. In case of outbound ships with maximum

draught transiting a long tidal channel, ships may have to sail against the tide (see

Figure 8). In this case ships will experience different water levels during the

outbound transit. Therefore, the speed over ground is an important factor for the

tidal windows, while speed through water is important for the hydrodynamic-related

factors [11].

10

Figure 8: Example of inbound and outbound ship passage using the tide [11]

Figure 9 shows the port of Antwerp and the location of the container terminals. In

section 3.2, container shipping for ships leaving the Deurganck terminal (6) will be

analysed.

11

2.3 Deterministic access policy

At present, tidal windows are determined based on deterministic criteria. For the

sea channels giving access to the port of Zeebrugge and Antwerp, a minimal gross

UKC is required. For ships sailing to Zeebrugge, an additional criterion is obtained:

the cross current is limited.

characteristics, weather conditions and the wave climate are not taken into

account. In addition, the deterministic approach is conservative and leads to

shorter tidal windows or ships carrying less cargo than possible. This is an

unfavourable economic situation and it is therefore desirable to switch to a more

accurate model based on the chance of bottom touch. This is the subject of section

2.4. First, the deterministic criteria are discussed.

PIANC divides the vertical distance between the design water level and the

channel dredge level into water level factors, ship related factors and bottom

related factors (Figure 10).

uncertainties and sedimentation between two dredging executions. The actual

bottom level will therefore lay deeper than the nominal target depth, guaranteed by

the dredging companies.

12

The water level depends on tidal and to a lesser extent on meteorological effects.

Tides are caused by the gravitational forces exerted by the moon and the sun.

They can be predicted by tide tables or mathematical models. Meteorological

effects are due to winds and atmospheric pressure variations.

Because the deterministic access policy demands a minimal gross UKC, some of

the ship related factors are discussed in more detail. In section 2.3.1.4, the

required UKC for the sea channels giving access to our harbours are described.

A ship moving through water creates a hydrodynamic pressure field in the vicinity

of its hull, causing a deviation from the static floating condition. The term ‘‘ship

squat’’ refers to the combined effect of the lowering of the mid-ship section and the

change of trim. [12]

When a ship proceeds through water, a volume of water must return down the

sides and under the bottom of the ship. This water flow induces a relative velocity

between the ship and the surrounding water that causes a water level depression

in which the ship sinks. This phenomenon is called squat and causes a dynamic

change in sink and trim (Figure 11). Squat is influenced by the ship’s speed, its

geometry, its propeller rate and the blockage factor.

Heeling will occur during turning of a vessel or due to non-oscillating motions from

wind and currents. The extent to which a ship heels during turning depends on the

ship’s speed, rate of turn, metacentric height (GM) and tugboat line forces. Wind-

induced heeling is mainly determined by the windage area of the ship. The

dynamic heel will add to the ship’s draught and is therefore of importance for the

UKC.

A ship sailing through the water has 6 degrees of freedom (Figure 12). There are

three translational motions (surge, sway and heave) and three rotational motions

(roll, pitch and yaw). The UKC is only affected by heave (translation along vertical

13

Z-axis), roll (rotation about longitudinal X-axis) and pitch (rotation about transverse

Y-axis).

Figure 12: Ship motions related to the axis of the hull [13]

The amplitudes of heave and pitch motion of a ship depend on the ship’s speed,

the wavelength (𝛌) and the propagation direction (𝛍) of the waves. Ratios of 1 ≤

𝛌⁄ ≤ 2,5 cause large wave forces and moments and can give rise to large motion

𝐿

amplitudes especially when synchronism occurs [14].

Table 1 gives an overview of the minimum required UKC for the channels giving

access to the port of Zeebrugge and Antwerp and for the channel Ghent-

Terneuzen. The UKC is expressed as a percentage of the ship’s draft.

12,5% Pas van het Zand / Western Scheldt

10,0% River Scheldt

10,0% Outer harbour of Zeebrugge, i.e. within the breakwaters

1m Channel Ghent-Terneuzen

It is clear that the needed UKC is lowered when the ship sails more inland, since

the influence of waves is less pronounced and squat effects are reduced due to the

lowered speed.

14

In areas subject to sedimentation where the bottom of the navigation areas is

covered with fluid mud, a penetration of 7% of draft in the mud layer is considered

as acceptable in case sufficient tug assistance is available [1]. This applies to the

port of Zeebrugge.

For ships approaching the port of Zeebrugge, there is an additional restriction.

Ships are not allowed to pass the breakwaters when the cross current exceeds 2

knots. For LNG-carriers, the acceptable cross current at the breakwaters is even

reduced to 1,5 knots. The transverse current causes ships to drift when it

approaches the harbour. In addition, a moment exists when the ship enters the port

since only the aft will experience the transverse current. This moment will hinder

safe entry. To counteract the external forces, abrupt propeller and rudder

commands are required. Further, sufficient speed to limit the drift angle is

necessary.

Figure 13: Numerically determined current profile in the port of Zeebrugge: 1h30

before high tide, maximum flood current [15]

15

Figure 13 shows a numerically determined current profile when the flood current is

at its highest. Unfortunately, the maximum current occurs around high tide so that

not the entire tidal window can be used.

2.4.1 Introduction

ProToel was developed for the Flemish Government by the Maritime Technology

Division of Ghent University. It is a decision support tool that can be used in

probabilistic admission policy for deep-drafted ships arriving at, and departing from

the harbour of Zeebrugge. Over the years, the software package has been

extended to include the ports of Vlissingen (Sloehaven), Terneuzen and Antwerp.

[16]

Based on data about environmental conditions, which are obtained from most

recent predictions of a remote database, and special ship characteristics, which

are stored locally, the program calculates the vertical motions of the vessel at

designated locations and gives a prediction on the under keel clearance and

bottom touch probability. Furthermore, the program analyses the speed of

transversal currents at the mouth of the harbour of Zeebrugge. Based on the

results, a tidal window is created for the calculated ship at the specified time range.

[17]

ProToel can calculate those tidal windows based on both deterministic and

probabilistic criteria. In a deterministic mode, the gross UKC clearance, relative to

both the nautical bottom and the top of fluid mud layers, and the magnitude of the

current components are taken into account. In case probabilistic criteria are used,

the chance of bottom touch due to squat and response to waves during the voyage

will be calculated and compared to a selected minimum value. Also the

manoeuvring margin may not exceed a certain maximal value if you want to obtain

a positive travel advice.

ProToel. Next, the input data and the calculation method are discussed.

16

2.4.2 Probabilistic parameters [11]

The maximal allowed bottom touch probability is set at 10−2 and 10−4 . The choice

for those values is based on published criteria. In PIANC, following values are

reported:

One of the earliest summaries of safety criteria for deep-draught vessels in port

entrance channels has been compiled by van de Kaa (1984). Four of his listed

probability criteria for ship-channel bed contact are:

Accident with heavy damage per passage for average conditions: 2,5 ×

10−4

Accident per passage under extreme environmental conditions: 10−2

Accident with heavy damage per passage for extreme conditions: 5,0 ×

10−4

groundings in Northern European ports by Dand and Lyon. This analysis showed

that grounding occurs with a probability of 0,03 incidents per 1000 ship

movements.

Savenije quotes the following criteria presently in use at the Port of Rotterdam:

During 25 years, the probability of a ship touching the channel bottom with

maximum minor damage, most not be more than 10%. This means that

only one out of ten bottom touches during a period of about 250 years

results in serious damage. This criterion is based on a shipping intensity of

250 deep-draught vessels calling at the Port of Rotterdam per year. This

would mean that one bottom touch with zero to minor damage is accepted

per 25 years, or per 6250 deep-draught shipping events. This is a

probability of bottom touching of 1,6 × 10−4 per shipping event.

The probability of bottom touch for an arbitrary ship during an individual

route can never exceed 1%.

a ship. It is a deterministic summation of UKC factors such as water depth,

draught, squat and heel intended to set a minimum gross UKC requirement to

provide adequate manoeuvrability for a moving vessel.

17

When the clearance between the channel bottom and the ship’s keel reduces, the

ability of the vessel to manoeuvre will decrease as well. The vertical MM

component will also affect horizontal motions as a vessel with a very small MM

becomes very sluggish in manoeuvring. The risks of collisions or path width

excursions will therefore increase. Figure 14 gives an example of the changing

manoeuvring behaviour of a vessel as the UKC decreases.

Figure 14: Turning circle to port (35 deg) for different h/d ratios [15]

manoeuvrability behaviour is highly dependent on the water depth-draft ratio.

PIANC demands a minimal MM of 5% of draught or 0,6m, whichever is greater.

18

2.4.3 Input data

In addition to the criteria for the access policy discussed in the previous section,

ProToel needs following input data to work properly: ship characteristics, waterway

characteristics, a chosen trajectory, nautical bottom level, top mud level, speed

over ground and trough the water, tidal elevation, directional wave spectra, current

data, wind data and a departure time.

A ship database

A database of trajectories and waypoints, containing recent soundings (or

design depths);

Forecasts or measurements of hydro meteorological data for a number of

locations as a function of time: tidal elevation, current speed and direction,

directional wave spectra, water density.

The ship database contains dynamic response characteristics and squat data for a

large range of ship dimensions and types. The most common dimensions of deep-

drafted container ships and bulk carriers that make use of the Scheur and Pas van

het Zand are covered (See Table 2: ProToel ship database). The content of the

ship database is based on seakeeping tests carried out with five ship models in the

Towing tank for manoeuvres in shallow water in Antwerp and additional numerical

calculations with the 2D strip method Seaway and the 3D Boundary Element

Method (BEM) Aqua+. The database covers a large number of draft - water depth

combinations, a realistic range of forward speeds and a variation of metacentric

heights.

19

Table 2: ProToel ship database

The chosen trajectory is built up with different trajectory points (See Figure 15).

Each waypoint contains the target depth for a certain area.

The trajectory points are also linked with a reduction point for which the input files

for wave-, tide- and current-information were generated. Table 3 shows the

coordinates (UTM), bottom depths (LAT) and reduction points for the trajectory

points used in the calculations. The displayed bottom depths are the target depths.

20

Table 3: Overview trajectory points

Reduction

Trajectory

Northings

Eastings

Name

Depth

point

point

UTM UTM LAT

# m m m -

Kwintebank 1 480161.00 5691690.00 18.8 Kwi

VG1 2 487353.00 5696994.00 18.8 vg1

Geul I West 3 492126.00 5696500.00 16.2 vg3

Geul I Oost 4 497500.00 5695937.50 16.2 vg5

Scheur west 5 503375.00 5695312.50 16.2 sc3

S507 6 507125.00 5694187.50 16.2 t24

Scheur Oost I 7 509875.00 5694375.00 15.5 t25

Scheur Oost II 8 513750.00 5694875.00 15.4 t26

Scheur Oost II-knik 9 518000.00 5695437.50 15.4 t28

Scheur Oost III 10 519000.00 5695312.50 15.4 t29

Scheur Oost IV 11 521875.00 5695062.50 15.3 Sch

Scheur Oost IV-knik 12 523000.00 5695000.00 15.3 t30

Wielingen 13 526625.00 5695375.00 14.9 t31

W7 14 531625.00 5696250.00 14.9 t34

W9 15 535250.00 5696875.00 20.0 t36

Songa 16 539007.70 5696792.66 20.0 t38

Drempel van Vlissingen 17 540929.00 5697131.00 14.5 Vli

Honte 19 546338.00 5698748.00 15.5 Hnt

Sloehaven 20 546597.00 5699706.00 18.0 Slo

Drempel van Borssele 23 549759.83 5693448.56 14.5 Pas

Tern1 24 553070.00 5690241.00 23.5 Pvt

Put van Terneuzen 25 559640.75 5688330.00 14.5 Put

Zeedorp 26 565310.00 5692194.00 22.5 ha1

Overloop_Hansweert-opw 28 567751.63 5697651.00 14.5 ha2

Bocht Hansweert 1 29 568589.00 5698883.00 29.0 ha2

Bocht Hansweert 2 30 571252.00 5697967.00 29.0 Val

Drempel van Hansweert 31 571987.63 5695348.00 14.5 Val

Kloosterzande 32 572693.00 5692318.00 29.0 Val

Overloop_Valkenisse-afw 33 576332.45 5691555.00 14.5 Val

Valk1 34 579035.00 5691769.00 16.0 Ovv

21

Drempel van Valkenisse 35 580987.63 5693279.00 14.5 Ovv

Bath 36 583452.00 5694985.00 16.0 Bat

Drempel van Bath 37 584635.50 5693553.00 14.5 Svd

CP 38 585039.00 5691153.00 20.0 cp1

Drempel van Zandvliet 39 587381.00 5689734.00 14.5 nz1

Europaterminal 41 588777.00 5687861.00 17.2 nz1

Drempel van Frederik 42 588777.88 5685348.00 14.5 Fre

Bocht DGD 43 588883.00 5684541.00 18.0 dg1

DGD 44 588550.00 5684049.00 18.0 Dgd

Tide levels, water currents, sea state (waves) and bottom depth data needed for

the computations are available through:

A remote database, located at the Hydra server of Flanders Hydraulics

Research in Antwerp, containing the most recent predictions and

measured data.

Tide and current information is available for a number of so-called reduction points.

Figure 16 shows the locations where the wave spectra are measured.

Figure 16: Locations for the data for the wave spectra

For the calculations in ProToel, all the depths are expressed with respect to LAT.

Density variations along the trajectory are not taken into account.

22

2.4.4 Calculation method

To fully understand how the calculations are performed, an examination of the

theory behind ProToel is required [17].

The vertical motions of a ship caused by the wave action will influence the draft

and the under keel clearance of the vessel. Therefore, the vertical motions will

have a major impact on the bottom touch probability.

From the non-dimensional amplitude A and the phase ε characteristics for roll φ,

heave z and pitch θ of a vessel, the response amplitude operator RAO can be

calculated for any critical point (xc , yc ) on the ships hull.

RAO

2

= √(Az − x. Aθ . cos(εθ − εz ) + y. Aφ . cos(εφ − εz )) + (y. Aφ . sin(εφ − εz ) − x. Aθ . sin(εθ − εz ))2

xcrit − xcg

x=

0,5. LPP

ycrit

y=

0,5. B

Sz (ω, µ) of a specific point through the response amplitude operator, which is the

transfer function between wave and motion spectra.

The significant value of the vertical motion Hs,z in the critical point of the vessel is

defined as four times the square root of the area underneath the motion spectrum

with a spreading σHs,z .

Hs,z = 4. √∑ ∑ Sz (ω, µ) . Δω

ω µ

σH

σHs,z = Hs,z . ( s + σ′RAO )

Hs

The mean period of the vertical motion Te,mean can be calculated from the mean

encounter frequency ωe,mean which depends on the motion spectrum and

23

encounter frequency ωe . The encounter frequency is dependent on the wave

frequency ω and direction µ.

2. π

Te,mean =

ωe,mean

∑ω ∑µ ω2e (ω, µ). Sz (ω, µ)

ωe,mean = √

∑ω ∑µ Sz (ω, µ)

ωe (ω, µ) = ω − k. V. cos(180 + µ − µs )

ω2

k. tanh(k. h) =

g

The bottom touch probability of a ship during one motion cycle P1 is a product of

probabilities and consists of the cumulative probability of net under keel clearance

PUKC and the probability of vertical motion pm .

∞

P1 = ∫ pm . PUKC

0

PN = 1 − (1 − P1 )N

The net under keel clearance is assumed to be Gaussian distributed and depends

on the stationary net under keel clearance z0 which is based on mean values for

the water depth, tide, ship draft, squat and under keel clearances standard

deviation σ.

z

1 (z−z0 )2

−

PUKC = ∫ e 2.σ2 dx

√2. π. σ

−∞

that Hs,z is Gaussian distributed with the mean value µHs,z and a standard deviation

σHs,z .

z2

16 −8 2

pm = 2 . z. e Hs,z

Hs,z

24

2

+∞ (z−µHs,z )

z2

1 2.σ2 16 −8 2

P1 = ∫ e Hs,z

. 2 . z. e Hs,z dHs,z

√2. π. σHs,z Hs,z

−∞

z2

−8 2

1 12 16 1

(µHs,z + .i.σHs,z )

∑6i=−6 e− 4i . 2 . z. e

2

√2. π 1

(µHs,z + . i. σHs,z )

P1 ≈ 2

6 1 −14i2

∑i=−6 e

√2. π

2.4.4.3 Squat

Squat can be described by the additional trim and sink at the aft perpendicular. The

following equations show formulas for the calculation of sink at the aft and trim for

ships with forward speed and a propeller rate of zero rpm. The reference draft dref

is the reference draft used to calculate the squat coefficients. The parameters csi

are the non-dimensional sink and cTRi the trim coefficients obtained from the model

trials via regression. The equations assume that a bow-side trim is positive, d is the

current ship draft, B is the ship beam and h is the local water depth.

Fn2m

d

ZAP d − dref d d − dref cS5 + . cS6

== [(cS1 . ( ) + cS2 ) . + cS3 . ( ) + cS4 ] . B

dref dref h dref Fn2m

√1 − d

cS5 + . cS6

B

Fn2m

d

d − dref h cTR4 + . cTR5

τ = [cTR1 . ( ) + cTR2 . + cTR3 ] . B

dref d Fn2m

√1 − d

cTR4 + . cTR5

B

The trim coefficients cTR4 and cTR5 are calculated by the equations below, based on

the empirical relationship with the sink coefficients.

cTR5 = 0,69. cS6

km:

v

Fnm =

√k m . g. h

3

arcsin(1 − m)

k m = [2. sin( )]

3

25

The blockage m is the fraction of the midship area Am with the transverse area of

the waterway SWW .

Am

m=

SWW

The waterway area that is considered for the blockage calculation is obtained as

follows.

IB+

SWW = ∫ h(y) dy

IB−

transversal position y on the waterway. The integration bounds IB+ and IB- can be

obtained by the following equation, with w as the distance of the shore towards the

vessel and Fnh as the depth dependent Froude number.

wstarboard

IB+= min {+(5. F + 5). B

nh

wport (< 0)

IB−= min {

−(5. Fnh + 5). B

v

Fnh =

√g. h

Tide

Currents

Directional wave spectrum

The tide information is relevant for the calculation of the net UKC while the

directional spectrum also influences the bottom touch probability. The currents

have an influence in the region of the harbour mouth of Zeebrugge, where the

transverse currents may not exceed 2 knots because otherwise the ship is not able

to enter the port.

The directional wave spectra consists of the wave energy and the mean direction,

both in dependence of the wave frequency. Standard wave spectra (without

direction information) can be used to describe typical sea states. For the North

Sea, the 2 parameter JONSWAP (Joint North Sea Wave Observation Project)

spectrum SJ (ω) is applicable, because it takes limited fetch into account. The

spectrum depends on the significant wave height HS and the average period T1 .

26

944

Hs2 (− 4 4 )

T1 ω . 3,3γ

SJ (ω) = 155. . e

T14 . ω5

(0,191.ω.T1 −1)2

[− ]

γ=e 2.σ2

σ={

0,09ω > 5,24/T1

Based on those input parameters, ProToel calculates the UKC, the manoeuvring

margin and the bottom touch probability for a specific ship following the route with

a chosen speed along the trajectory. The route is split into several intervals. In

each interval, the UKC are calculated based on bottom depth, up-to-date current

and tide data and the speed dependent squat. The bottom touch probability and

manoeuvring margin are calculated from the directional wave spectrum for that

time, location and the motion characteristics of the ship. The results of each

interval are stored and can be displayed after computation.

27

2.5 Bottom analysis

2.5.1 Introduction

In a research assignment conducted by MARIN and Ghent University (division of

Maritime Technology), an algorithm was developed to convert raw sounding data

of the sea bottom into manageable ECS-charts and dredging charts [7]. A

conservative approach is safe but can lead to lower allowed drafts or high dredging

costs. A progressive approach may compromise the safety. The ultimate aim of the

study was to formulate a proposal for an algorithm that converts the soundings in a

value of the equivalent depth for each grid cell in such a way that this depth doesn’t

influence the safe sailing behaviour of the ship.

Today, two different algorithms are in use. Rijkswaterstaat, part of the Dutch

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, uses the lowest depth of each grid

cell of 10 to 10 meters. Afdeling Kust works with the average depth of a grid cell of

10 to 10 meters. In area’s where the bottom is rather flat, these algorithms will lead

to similar results. In ribble area’s though, large differences can occur.

Since the aim of this thesis is to link a certain depth value to the trajectory points,

the assumptions made in this assignment are very interesting. The most important

results are discussed in this section.

under keel clearance

2.5.2.1 Squat

Sinkage and trim of the ship under the influence of its own speed depends on

several parameters: the ship’s speed, geometric characteristics, water depth, and

the nature of the channel. A variety of (semi-) empirical formulas give an estimation

of the squat as a function of these parameters. The influence of the water depth is

clear: a greater depth leads to a smaller return flow, which results in a smaller

sinkage of the ship. The effect of bottom variations has been studied by the

Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau (BAW) in Hamburg [18]. This study showed that the

squat above a bottom with large depth variations approached the squat above a

horizontal bottom with a level corresponding with the average depth of the ribble

area. This squat reduction allows a smaller gross UKC with respect to this

shallowest point or it allows defining an equivalent bottom level that results in the

same margin with respect to this most shallow point. This reasoning is explained in

Figure 17 to Figure 20.

28

Figure 17: Principle of the equivalent bottom in relation to squat (a)

The sinkage of the ship due to squat above the actual bottom, can approximately

be set equal to the sinkage that the ship would undergo above a horizontal, flat

bottom through the most shallow point.

The squat that would occur when the ship sails above a horizontal bottom through

the most shallow point of the channel is larger than the squat occurring above the

actual bottom.

29

Figure 19: Principle of the equivalent bottom in relation to squat (c)

This means that the margin between keel and bottom is larger when the ship sails

above the actual, variable bottom, in comparison with the situation in which the

ship sails above a horizontal bottom through the shallowest point. If one decides to

choose the red dot and dash line as a representation of the actual bottom, the

displayed margin is smaller than in reality.

The equivalent bottom can now be defined in such a way that the actual margin

remains the same; this is shown by the green dot and dash line. The equivalent

bottom for squat is therefore located under the minimal bottom depth. The level

difference equals the difference in squat between the actual and the minimal

bottom.

30

Figure 20: Principle of the equivalent bottom in relation to squat (d)

To define the magnitude of this squat reduction, a method was used based on the

calculation of the return flow around the ship sailing in a (wide) channel. Starting

from a certain draft (14,1m) and gross UKC (15%), the effect of increased water

depth was tested. Under these conditions, the increased water depth gave rise to a

decrease of the sinkage of 10 to 12% of the deepening.

In the determination of the equivalent bottom, this squat effect will be taken into

account. The squat will be calculated starting from the average depth and not the

minimal depth. This leads to the following expression when only the effect of squat

is contemplated.

(squat)

heq = hmin + 0,10(hgem − hmin ) = 0,90hmin + 0,10hgem

For a uniform ribble area with peak to valley values of 1m, this means a deepening

of about 0,05m.

The vertical movement of the water level caused by the wave action can only be

described in a probabilistic way. To calculate the probability of exceedance of a

value for the wave height, it is sufficient to only know one parameter: the significant

wave height Hs . The significant wave height equals 4 times the standard deviation

of the time lapse of the instantaneous water level. The distribution of these water

levels can be assumed to be normal.

For all (linear depending) effects of the wave action, for example the ship’s vertical

movements, an analogous reasoning applies. The vertical position of the ship

31

oscillates around an average level; the time lapse of the instantaneous level is

characterized by the significant amplitude and equals 2 times the standard

deviation of the vertical position.

If the significant amplitude of the vertical movement of a point of the ship is known,

the probabilities of exceedance of a certain critical value can be calculated. For a

ship sailing in a shallow channel this critical value will match the available UKC

after deduction of other vertical movements like squat.

The safety margin against bottom tough for a ship sailing in waves above a

horizontal bottom depends therefore on two parameters:

The fraction of the UKC available for the vertical movements under the

influence of waves.

The size of the significant amplitude of the vertical movement of the ship,

or the related standard deviation of the time lapse of the vertical position of

the most critical point around the average level.

In Figure 22, the actual bottom is considered. The relative vertical distance

between a point of the ship and the underlying point of the bottom isn’t relevant for

an area with short ribbles. The ship’s keel can never reach this area without

touching it at some point. It makes no sense to consider the vertical movement in

relation to the actual bottom. A more accurate method is to define an effective

bottom shown in Figure 23.

32

Figure 22: Relative vertical movement of the ship in relation to the actual bottom

The effective bottom consists of grid cells of 10m to 10m, each containing a

horizontal level through the most shallow point. In this way, the unattainable points

of the ship are eliminated and the relative movement of the ship in relation to the

effective bottom is considered (See Figure 24).

This is done over a sufficiently large zone, relevant for the dimensions of the tide

dependent ships. With this in mind, grid cells of 50m to 100m are considered.

33

Figure 24: Vertical movement of the ship above the effective bottom

The relative vertical movement of the ship in relation to the effective bottom

oscillates around an average value with a standard deviation. The standard

deviation can be composed of the standard deviations of both the absolute vertical

movements as well as the effective bottom.

2

𝛔RBeff = √𝛔2VM + 𝛔eff

B

To obtain the same safety margin above the effective bottom as for the horizontal

bottom, the space ZVM is calculated next. First, the relative vertical movement of

the ship in relation to the average effective bottom level is considered; therefore,

the standard deviations of the vertical movement and the standard deviation of the

effective bottom are composed.

To remain the same safety level, the needed space between the average keel level

and the average effective bottom has to increase proportionally:

2

√𝛔VM + 𝛔Beff2 2

𝛔eff

RB 𝛔eff

B

ZRB = ZVB = ZVB = ZVB √1 + ( )

𝛔VB 𝛔VB 𝛔VB

34

Figure 25: Relative vertical movement of the ship above the average effective bottom

The needed space ZRM between the average levels of keel and effective bottom is

larger than the needed space ZVM between the average keel level and a horizontal

bottom. The difference is ZRM − ZVM . In Figure 26, a horizontal plane at this

distance above the average effective bottom is shown.

35

Between this plane and the average keel level, a minimal space of ZVM needs to be

provided, in order to obtain the same safety level as above a horizontal bottom. If

the ship uses the same UKC with respect to this level as to the horizontal bottom,

the same safety margin is used. The surface defined in this way, can therefore be

regarded as the equivalent bottom.

2

𝛔eff

B

heff

gem − heq = ZRB − ZVB = (√1 + ( ) − 1) ZVB,min

𝛔VB

made. The fraction of the UKC needed for the vertical movements of the ship can

be estimated by 1,0m and for the significant amplitude of motions, 2𝛔VM , a value of

0,5m is taken.

If also the effect of squat is considered, the following equation for the equivalent

bottom is obtained:

eff 2 eff

heq = heff

gem − (5,45(𝛔B ) + 0,28𝛔B ) + 0,10(hgem − hmin )

36

Chapter 3

Preliminary studies

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, ProToel is used to investigate container shipping between

Deurganckdok – Kwintebank and between Kwintebank – Sloehaven. The

calculations on the trajectory KWI – SLO were performed before the choice to

investigate DGD – KWI as the main trajectory. However, the results of this section

were also useful and are added in this chapter.

The calculations are based on predicted sea states and environmental data of the

year 2011. To shorten the calculations, only the month December is taken into

account, which represents 58 possible tidal windows. The selected locations of the

measurements for the wave spectra are shown in Figure 28

Figure 28: Locations for the data for the wave spectra

37

Table 4 shows the dimensions of ship W092 for which the calculations were

performed. The draft will be varied within a relevant range of loading conditions

with steps of 2 dm.

Type Containership

Length over all (m) 365,0

Breadth (m) 51,2

Draft (dm) 145-159

Bottom touch probability (BTP) < 10−4 AND Manoeuvring Margin (MM) >

5%

For a relevant range of drafts, it was examined whether the criteria were met in

function of the departure time. For this purpose, December was divided into 4392

intervals of 10 minutes so that the departure time was changed in a 10 minutes

interval.

First, the tidal window characteristics are calculated for DGD-KWI. For this

calculation, the target depth of each region (and therefore trajectory point) is

chosen with a very small standard deviation: σ = 0,01m. Next, the critical trajectory

points were determined and the influence of a change in depth for the most critical

point was investigated. This chapter ends with a test on the influence of the bottom

depth’s standard deviation on the tidal windows.

38

3.2 Tidal characteristics for containerships

(W092) leaving Deurganckdok

For two probabilistic criteria, the maximal duration of the tidal window is determined

for each tide cycle. The results of the post processing in Matlab are shown in Table

5 and Figure 29.

Window for 90%

of cycli (min)

Draught (dm)

of cycli (min)

of cycli (min)

of cycli (min)

# windows /

# windows /

# tidal cycli

# tidal cycli

145 190 373 1,05 150 333 1,03

147 157 333 0,98 127 276 0,98

149 130 300 0,97 90 240 0,95

151 97 260 0,97 50 200 0,95

153 81 220 0,93 37 170 0,93

155 51 183 0,95 7 130 0,93

157 0 150 0,90 0 100 0,84

159 0 120 0,84 0 70 0,72

420

Length of tidal window (min)

percentile

300 BTP<0,0001: 10%

percentile

240

BTP<0,0001 &

180 MM>5%: 90%

percentile

120 BTP<0,0001 &

MM>5%: 10%

percentile

60

140 150 160

Draft (dm)

Figure 29: Tidal window characteristics for DGD-KWI

39

3.3 Determination of the critical trajectory points

3.3.1 With the target depths allocated to the TP

In this section, the regions causing the largest constraint for the duration and

number of the tidal windows are determined. ProToel defines the most critical

trajectory point both for the opening and for the closure of the tidal windows. An

overview of the critical trajectory points and the number of times they are critical is

shown in Table 6. On Belgian territory, especially Scheur Oost I (point 7) is critical,

mostly for the closure of the tidal windows. Scheur Oost I becomes even more

critical as the draught increases. For example, at a draught of 145dm, point 7 is 15

times the critical point (based on the combined criteria of bottom touch probability

and manoeuvring margin) for closure. This corresponds with 28% of the tidal

windows. At a draught of 153dm, this is 31 times or 58% of the tidal windows. At

even larger draughts, the number of times point 7 becomes critical decreases but

so does the number of available tidal windows.

For ships sailing from Deurganckdok to Kwintebank, this means that the area

between trajectory points 8 and 7 causes the tidal window to close in a majority of

the cases when the draught is more than 145dm. It was decided to concentrate on

this region for the bottom analysis (Chapter 4). The location of trajectory point 7 is

shown in Figure 30.

When the bottom depth of trajectory point 7 increases with 1dm, the most critical

trajectory point shifts to TP8. In Table 7, it can be seen that trajectory point 8 is

now the most critical and that TP7 is never determinative for the opening or closure

of the tidal windows. This relative small increase of the bottom depth for section

Scheur Oost I resulted in a new critical section: Scheur Oost II. It was decided to

perform the bottom analysis also for Scheur Oost II (between TP 8 and 9). This

makes a comparison of the results for both regions possible.

40

Figure 30: Location of trajectory point 7

41

Table 6: Number of times a trajectory point becomes critical for the opening or closure of the tidal window

Draft (dm) 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159

BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP

Criteria BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP

& MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM

Tidal window O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C

3 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 6

7 1 12 1 15 14 20 1 16 1 25 21 28 25 31 31 28 29 26 23 20

8 5 9 8 11 10 7 9 3 7

13 34 27 28 19 23 17 14 13 12 12 10 11 1 10 1 10 10 9

Trajectorypoints

23 5 2 1

25 5 2

33 10 1 6 2 1

35 19 2 12 1 9 3 2

37 15 2 15 1 27 1 9 1 27 1 3 1 23 1 1 1 12 4 1 1 1 1 2 1

39 3 2

42 2 35 2 2 2 44 2 12 3 50 3 27 6 53 6 39 7 53 7 49 11 51 9 49 12 43 6 48 13 39 5

42

Table 7: Number of times a trajectory point becomes critical for the opening or closure of the tidal window (with depth of point 7: +1dm)

Draft (dm) 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159

BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP

Criteria BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP

& MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM

Tidal window O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C

3 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 4 3 5 2 5 4 6 8 15

7

8 1 16 1 23 22 31 1 24 1 30 29 29 30 28 28 24 24 22 17 10

13 34 27 28 19 23 17 14 14 13 13 12 13 1 11 1 11 10 10

Trajectorypoints

23 5 2 1

25 5 2

33 10 1 6 2 1

35 19 2 12 1 9 3 2

37 15 2 15 1 27 1 9 1 27 1 3 1 23 1 1 1 12 4 1 1 1 1 2 1

39 3 2

42 2 35 2 2 2 44 2 12 3 50 3 27 6 53 6 39 7 53 7 49 11 51 9 49 12 43 6 48 13 39 5

43

3.4 Study of the standard deviation

For the calculations of the tidal windows, one of the input parameters is the bottom

depth in combination with a certain standard deviation on this value. A well-chosen

value for this parameter will depend on the chosen bottom depth and on the

considered area. Calculations were therefore carried out in order to estimate the

effect of the standard deviation on the number and duration of the tidal windows for

a ship (W092) with a draft of 159dm sailing from Kwintebank to Sloehaven. The

duration of the tidal windows is shown for following standard deviations:

0,01m-0,05m-0,10m-0,20m-0,30m

Figure 31 shows the result. As expected, the tidal windows become smaller with

increasing variation on the bottom depth.

Figure 31: Effect of the standard deviation of the bottom depth on the tidal window

characteristics for a container vessel sailing from Antwerp to Kwintebank

(W092_DGDKWI)

44

Chapter 4

Scheur Oost I is the most critical area of the sea route for ships sailing from

Deurganckdok to Kwintebank. This region will therefore be used as the main test

section for the bottom analysis. Figure 33 shows the complete Scheur (Oost and

West). The trajectory is subdivided in smaller areas, each with a specific target

depth. The trajectory points are situated at the beginning and at the end of each

section, in the middle of the channel.

Scheur Oost I is situated between the eastings 509875-513750 and the northings

5694375-5694875. The target depth is 155dm. Figure 32 shows that the area is

further divided into sections S511 and S513.

First, the soundings of S511 are analysed. Over 50 million soundings are available

for this specific area. Section S513 is treated separately as the soundings for this

area had to be selected from a data file containing the soundings of the entire

Scheur Oost area. Afterwards, the results are put together.

45

Figure 33: Location of Scheur Oost I

46

4.1.1 Study of S511

First, the existing Matlab code was adapted in order to read the large data files

containing the sounding data of S511. Once read, the area was divided into grid

cells of 1m2 each containing the average depth of all measurements of that m2 .

Those values form the basis for further calculations and contain the highest level of

detail. In Figure 34, S511 is plotted based on the average values for 1m2 . The sea

channel is located at the top of the figure.

Later on, larger grid cells (50m to 100m) will be introduced. Those grid cells are

positioned horizontally in contrast to the channel that has a certain inclination.

Without a modification of the Matlab code, some of the soundings located outside

the channel are used for the calculation of bottom characteristics from the channel.

Those shallow areas are not of interest and will influence the results in a negative

way. The solution consists of a rotation of the area. The grid cells of 50m to 100m

can now be chosen in a way that they are located completely in the channel, see

Figure 35. The result of this rotation is shown in Figure 36.

47

Figure 35: Positioning grid cells with respect to the sea channel

48

Because the sea channel is 500m wide, only the area between 150m and 650m

northings is considered from now on. For different sized grid cells, the average and

minimum bottom depth is calculated as well as the standard deviation. An overview

of the most interesting characteristics is given in Table 8.

Min(Avg1) Absolute minimum of Avg1 values

Avg3avg1 Average of 9 avg1 (3m by 3m)

Min(Avg3avg1) Absolute minimum of Avg3avg1 values

Min10avg1 Minimum of 100 avg1 (10m by 10m)

Min30avg1 Minimum of 900 avg1 (30m by 30m)

Avg10avg1 Average of 100 avg1 (10m by 10m)

Avg50_100min10avg1 Average of 50 min10avg1 (50m by 100m)

Avg50_100avg10avg1 Average of 50 avg10avg1 (50m by 100m)

Min50_100min10avg1 Minimum of 50 min10 avg1 (50m by 100m)

Std50_100min10avg1 Standard deviation of 50 min10avg1 (50m by 100m)

Avg50_100avg3avg1 Average of 556 avg3avg1 (50m by 100m)

Min50_100avg3avg1 Minimum of 556 avg3avg1 (50m by 100m)

Std50_100avg3avg1 Standard deviation of 556 avg3avg1 (50m by 100m)

Avg50_100avg1 Average of 5000 avg1 (50m by 100m)

Min50_100avg1 Minimum of 5000 avg1 (50m by 100m)

Std50_100avg1 Standard deviation of 5000 avg1 (50m by 100m)

Now, bottom characteristics for different grid cell sizes are calculated. For some

grid cells, the calculation resulted in Not A Number (NaN). For these cells, at least

1m2 didn’t contain information about the bottom depth. To avoid this problem, the

commands nanmean and nanmin were used. Those commands allow calculating

average and minimum values neglecting the empty grid cells.

The results for grid cells of 50m to 100m are displayed graphically. The most

important results are discussed next. Sometimes, reference is made to an

Appendix, as not all figures are attached in the actual text. The calculations are

also executed for grid cells of 10m to 10m and for 30m to 30m. Those results are

summarized in histograms.

49

Figure 39 shows the minima for each grid cell of 50m to 100m starting from the

values for avg3avg1. To compare those minima with the target depth, the values

are plotted in a histogram with steps of 1dm.

The average bottom depth is 15,59m. The absolute minimum for section S511 is

14,66m. This is almost 1m lower than the target depth (15,50m) in this area.

However, the grid cell with this value is found at the edge of the channel and

probably contains soundings that do not belong to the channel. Indeed, the lowest

values are located in the upper and lower row grid cells. It is assumed that the

deep drafted ships won’t sail so close to the edge of the channel so that the width

of the channel is limited to 400m for the further calculations. When the values at

the edge of the channel are disregarded, the histogram shown in Figure 38 is

found.

The minimum value is now 15,40m and only 3 grid cells don’t reach the target

depth. The average value is 15,67m. The standard deviation is lowered from 0,21m

to 0,10m as only the 400m-width channel is regarded. This is because the less

deep values at the edge are not taken into account.

50

Figure 39: Min50_100avg3avg1 for S511

51

Figure 40: Std50_100avg3avg1 for S511

52

Now the minima are determined starting from the average values for each m2

(avg1), the result of this calculation is attached in Appendix A. The effect of this

modification is shown in Figure 43 where the difference between the two methods

is illustrated. Starting from the average value for an area of 3m to 3m, the lowest

values are averaged so that the minima for each grid cell are somewhat higher.

This is also illustrated in Figure 41.

The average and minimum values are around 5cm lower than for

Min50_100avg3avg1.

When smaller grid cells are considered (30m by 30m or 10m by 10m), the average

bottom depth will increase. Indeed, when a small depth is linked to a larger grid cell

(the minimum of this cell), it will weight more than if this value is linked to a grid cell

of 10m by 10m. In the second case, the neighbouring cells can contain a higher

value, leading to a larger average depth. The absolute minimum however does not

change. The histograms and characteristics for grid cells of 30m to 30m and for

cells of 10m to 10 m are shown in Figure 42 and Figure 44.

53

Figure 43: Min50_100avg3avg1-Min50_100avg1 for S511

54

Figure 44: Histogram Min10avg1 for S511 (400m wide)

(m) (m) (m) (m)

Min50_100avg1 (m) 15,63 0,11 15,33 15,87

Std50_100avg1 (m) 0,05 0,01 0,02 0,10

Min50_100avg3avg1 (m) 15,67 0,10 15,40 15,90

Std50_100avg3avg1 (m) 0,04 0,01 0,02 0,10

Min50_100avg3avg1 –

0,04 0,05 0,00 0,33

Min50_100avg1 (m)

Min30gem1 15,68 0,11 15,33 15,94

Min10gem1 15,73 0,11 15,33 16,07

EqB50_100 (m) 15,72 0,10 15,51 15,94

EqB50_100 –

0,09 0,05 0,03 0,29

Min50_100avg1 (m)

EqB50_100 –

0,05 0,02 0,01 0,20

Min50_100avg3avg1 (m)

55

4.1.2 Study of S513

Section S513 is located next to S511 between the eastings 512000 and 513750

and northings 5694500 and 5696000. The study of this area is analogous to the

one of S511. Again, the average value of the soundings for each m2 is used to plot

the area (Figure 45 and Figure 46).

56

In Figure 49 the values for Min50_100avg3avg1 are displayed. As illustrated in the

histogram (Figure 47), it can be noticed that some values are significantly deeper

than the target depth. This deeper area causes a larger average depth but also a

larger standard deviation.

Figure 50 shows the standard deviation of the avg3avg1-values in each grid cell of

50m to 100m. These values are higher than for S511 because of the presence of

so-called ribbles. Those ribble areas are characterized by relative large bottom

depth variations within a small distance.

When the avg1 is used for the calculations, the following histograms are

composed. The conclusions are similar to those of section S511.

57

Figure 49: Min50_100avg3avg1 for S513

58

Figure 50: Std50_100avg3avg1 for S513

59

Figure 51: Min50_100avg3avg1-Min50_100avg1 for S513

60

Figure 52: Histogram Min30avg1 for S513 (400m wide)

(m) (m) (m) (m)

Min50_100avg1 15,86 0,24 15,38 16,48

Min50_100avg3avg1 15,94 0,23 15,46 16,53

Std50_100avg3avg1 0,12 0,05 0,05 0,28

Min50_100avg3avg1-

0,08 0,06 0,00 0,25

Min50_100avg1

Min30gem1 15,94 0,25 15,32 16,67

Min10gem1 16,04 0,26 15,32 16,94

EqB50_100 16,01 0,23 15,54 16,62

EqB50_100 –

0,15 0,06 0,07 0,35

Min50_100avg1

EqB50_100 –

0,07 0,05 -0,05 0,20

Min50_100avg3avg1

61

4.2 Scheur Oost II

The second most critical area in the sea trajectory is situated in Scheur Oost II

between trajectory points 8 and 9 (See Figure 56). For this section (between the

eastings 513750 and 518000), a target depth of 154 dm is valid. It is useful to

investigate also this area because the results can be compared with those of test

section Scheur Oost I.

Figure 54 and Figure 55 show the depth measurements for the area between

trajectory points 8 and 9. Again, the sea channel is rotated. To be able to visualise

the results of the calculations, the channel is divided in two sections.

62

Figure 56: Location of Scheur Oost II

63

The histograms shown in Figure 57 and in Figure 58 show that few grid cells don’t

reach the target depth. A lot of areas are much deeper that 15,40m.

Table 11: Bottom characteristics for Scheur Oost II (between TP8 & TP9)

(m) (m) (m) (m)

Min50_100avg1 15,87 0,37 15,23 17,03

Min50_100avg3avg1 15,97 0,39 15,30 17,02

Std50_100avg3avg1 0,13 0,06 0,02 0,29

Min50_100avg3avg1-

Min50_100avg1

EqB50_100 16,03 0,39 15,36 17,16

EqB50_100 –

0,16 0,06 0,00 0,41

Min50_100avg1

EqB50_100 –

0,06 0,06 -0,05 0,27

Min50_100avg3avg1

64

Figure 59: Min50_100avg3avg1 for SOII (part 1)

65

Figure 60: Min50_100avg3avg1 for SOII (part 2)

66

Figure 61: Min50_100avg3avg1-Min50_100avg1 for SOII (part 1)

67

Figure 62: Min50_100avg3avg1-Min50_100avg1 for SOII (part 2)

68

Chapter 5

windows

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the tidal windows for the route Antwerp Deurganckdok –

Kwintebank (DGD-KWI) are calculated using different strategies. The choice for a

certain bottom depth is based on the results of Chapter 4. For the different bottom

depth parameters, the name codes given in Table 8 are used in this chapter. The

duration of the obtained tidal windows is compared to the results of section 3.2.

In the first method, a bottom profile with a uniform depth is assumed. A uniform

depth can be implemented in ProToel when a very small standard deviation is

chosen. The calculations were executed with a standard deviation of 0,01m for 2

choices of the bottom depth.

The absolute minimum value of avg1, Min(Avg1), for Scheur Oost I is 15,32m

(15,32m for S511 and 15,38m for S513). In Scheur Oost II, the minimum of all

avg1’s is 15,23m. In both cases, the absolute minimum is about 0,20m smaller

than the target depth (15,50m and 15,40m respectively). It was decided to allocate

a bottom depth of (target depth – 0,20m) for all waypoints located in the sea

trajectory (TP1 to TP14).

The absolute minimum of the avg3avg1 values, Min(Avg3avg1), for Scheur Oost I

is 15,40m (15,40m for S511 and 15,46m for S513) and for Scheur Oost II 15,30m.

In both cases, this is exactly 0,10m below the target depth. Again, the tidal

windows are determined based on the assumption that the bottom depth in

ProToel can be put in as the (target depth – 0,10m) for all the trajectory points

located in the sea trajectory.

69

Table 12: Tidal windows for different draughts when a uniform depth based on Min(Avg1) and Min (Avg3avg1) is assumed

Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # windows / # tidal Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # windows / # tidal

cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli

Draught

Min(Avg3avg1)

Min(Avg3avg1)

Min(Avg3avg1)

Min(Avg3avg1)

Min(Avg3avg1)

Min(Avg3avg1)

(dm)

Min(Avg1)

Min(Avg1)

Min(Avg1)

Min(Avg1)

Min(Avg1)

Min(Avg1)

145 181 194 425 442 1,15 1,17 134 144 273 280 0,95 0,95

147 154 160 330 340 1,09 1,05 97 114 233 236 0,98 0,95

149 117 124 280 290 0,97 1,02 57 57 190 200 0,93 0,95

151 100 100 253 260 0,97 0,95 34 44 160 170 0,93 0,93

153 37 60 210 220 0,95 0,95 7 14 130 133 0,91 0,93

155 0 7 170 180 0,90 0,90 0 0 100 113 0,84 0,84

157 0 0 140 150 0,88 0,90 0 0 80 80 0,72 0,78

159 0 0 120 130 0,88 0,84 0 0 50 50 0,66 0,69

70

When the duration of the tidal windows determined for both input depths

(Min(Avg1) and Min(Avg3avg1)) is compared, it can be noticed that an increase of

the bottom depth of 1dm causes the tidal windows to become somewhat larger.

When the target depth is used, an additional increase is obtained. Especially the

tidal windows resulting from the combined criteria of BTP and MM benefit from this

larger bottom depth. In Figure 63, the duration of the tidal windows is shown for 3

different input parameters.

71

5.3 Higher depth with varying standard deviation

In this section, the tidal windows are calculated starting from the average depth

based on Min50_100avg3avg1 with the standard deviation of those values. When

the values for Scheur Oost I are plotted, it can be noticed that the average depth is

0,30m deeper than the target depth (see Figure 64). The standard deviation of all

the Min50_100avg3avg1 values is 0,22. For the calculations of the tidal windows

with ProToel, a bottom depth of (TD-0,30m) with a standard deviation of 0,20m is

assumed for all the waypoints located in the sea trajectory. The results are shown

in Table 13 and can be compared with the tidal windows obtained using the target

depth as input.

It can be noticed that the tidal windows are shorter even tough an increased

bottom depth was used. This illustrates again the importance of the standard

deviation. ProToel assumes a normal distribution of bottom depths and therefore

expects some measurements to be smaller than the actual minimum value. This is

also illustrated in Figure 64. In this example, the percentage covered by the

marked area can be determined using the following formula and the normal

distribution table (Table 19 in Appendix C).

15,40 − 15,80

P(X ≤ 15,40) = P (Z ≤ ) ≈ ϕ(−1,80) = 3,5%

0,22

1 percentage of the assumed bottom distribution will even be smaller than 15,29m.

The BTP for those small bottom depths will be significantly higher than for the

actual minimal depth. This causes the tidal windows to shorten.

72

The influence of the standard deviation can also be shown by calculating the tidal

windows for a bottom profile without taking into account the deepest areas. Figure

65 shows the same histogram as before but leaves out all the values higher than

16,0m. The average bottom depth is of course lowered but so is the standard

deviation. The tidal windows are now determined for bottom depth values of 0,20m

below the target depth with a standard deviation of 0,14m. This last adjustment

causes larger tidal windows than those calculated with the deeper areas, which is

not realistic. It can be concluded that this method is not suitable for the

implementation of the bottom depth.

73

Table 13: Tidal windows for different draughts when a higher depth with varying standard deviations is assumed

Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # Windows / # tidal Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # Windows / # tidal

Draught cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli

(dm)

TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD-

TD TD TD TD TD TD

0,30m 0,20m 0,30m 0,20m 0,30m 0,20m 0,30m 0,20m 0,30m 0,20m 0,30m 0,20m

σ=0,01 σ=0,01 σ=0,01 σ=0,01 σ=0,01 σ=0,01

σ=0,20 σ=0,14 σ=0,20 σ=0,14 σ=0,20 σ=0,14 σ=0,20 σ=0,14 σ=0,20 σ=0,14 σ=0,20 σ=0,14

145 190 155 168 373 386 415 1,05 1,12 1,16 150 100 124 333 273 290 1,03 0,97 0,97

147 157 118 144 333 310 323 0,98 1,07 1,05 127 67 87 276 223 240 0,98 0,95 0,95

149 130 37 107 300 270 283 0,97 0,97 0,95 90 21 51 240 200 210 0,95 0,90 0,91

151 97 0 64 260 240 260 0,97 0,93 0,97 50 0 21 200 170 190 0,95 0,90 0,93

153 81 0 7 220 193 210 0,93 0,90 0,91 37 0 0 170 140 150 0,93 0,83 0,88

155 51 0 0 183 160 170 0,95 0,84 0,90 7 0 0 130 110 120 0,93 0,74 0,81

157 0 0 0 150 130 150 0,90 0,76 0,86 0 0 0 100 80 93 0,84 0,64 0,74

159 0 0 0 120 100 120 0,84 0,71 0,76 0 0 0 70 50 70 0,72 0,50 0,55

74

5.4 Actual depth based on the histogram of the

bottom distribution

To solve the problem explained in section 5.3, the following method was applied.

Firstly, the bottom depth measurements were plotted in a histogram with a step

width of 1dm. This way, the measurements were assigned to a certain interval

each containing a percentage of the total number of depth-values. For the following

calculations, the distributions of Min50_100avg3avg1 and Min10avg1 obtained

from Scheur Oost I will be used. Theretofore, the histograms of sections S511 and

S513 were combined (Figure 66 and Figure 67).

75

Each interval now contains the number of grid cells with the corresponding depth.

The contribution of a certain interval on the total bottom touch probability will

depend on the number of measurements within the interval. In this way weight

factors are introduced. The weight factors for Min50_100avg3avg1 and Min10avg1

are obtained after rounding the actual percentages of measurements in the

interval. The results are shown in Table 14 and Table 15.

Table 14: Determination of the weight factors for Min50_100avg3avg1 (Scheur Oost I)

Number of

Interval Percentage Weight factor

measurements

[TD-1dm, TD] 7 2,5 2,5

[TD, TD+1dm] 44 15,8 15,0

[TD+1dm, TD+2dm] 68 24,4 25,0

[TD+2dm, TD+3dm] 45 16,1 15,0

[TD+3dm, TD+4dm] 40 14,3 15,0

[TD+4dm, TD+5dm] 25 9,0 10,0

[TD+5dm, TD+6dm] 25 9,0 10,0

[TD+6dm, TD+7dm] 12 4,3

[TD+7dm, TD+8dm] 5 1,8 7,5

[TD+8dm, …] 8 2,8

Table 15: Determination of the weight factors for Min10avg1 (Scheur Oost I)

Number of

Interval Percentage Weight factor

measurements

[TD-2dm, TD-1dm] 6 0,0 0,0

[TD-1dm, TD] 126 0,9 1,0

[TD, TD+1dm] 1160 8,2 10,0

[TD+1dm, TD+2dm] 2520 17,8 15,0

[TD+2dm, TD+3dm] 2980 21,0 20,0

[TD+3dm, TD+4dm] 1960 13,8 15,0

[TD+4dm, TD+5dm] 1590 11,2 10,0

[TD+5dm, TD+6dm] 1190 8,5 10,0

[TD+6dm, TD+7dm] 1060 7,5

[TD+7dm, TD+8dm] 670 4,7 19,0

[TD+8dm, …] 914 6,4

Secondly, the bottom touch probability for different bottom depth intervals needs to

be considered. In order to take this difference into account, the bottom touch

probability was calculated with ProToel for bottom depths varying from TD-2dm to

TD+6dm with a standard deviation of 0,01m.

76

This resulted in 9 csv-files, each containing the bottom touch probability for all

trajectory points for the month of December (with intervals of 10min) and based on

a certain bottom depth. The results show quite logically that the bottom touch

probabilities overall decrease for the deeper bottom depth intervals.

The third and final step of the method is to combine the weight factors derived from

the bottom depth distribution with the bottom touch probability for the different

bottom depth intervals. The total bottom touch probability can now be determined

according to following formula:

The calculation of the total BTP is done in Excel for eight different draughts. The

obtained files are saved as csv-files. Those csv-files are than used for the post

processing with Matlab. This resulted in the tidal windows shown in Table 16. (It is

striking that the tidal windows are exactly equal for both histograms. Apparently,

the level of detail of the bottom profile is not that important. As long as the grid cells

are not too high, the tidal windows will not differ much.

77

Table 16: Tidal windows for different draughts based on the histograms of the actual bottom (AB) and for TD with σ=0,01m

Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # Windows / # tidal Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # Windows / # tidal

Draught cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli

(dm)

AB AB TD AB AB TD AB AB TD AB AB TD AB AB TD AB AB TD

50_100 10_10 σ=0,01 50_100 10_10 σ=0,01 50_100 10_10 σ=0,01 50_100 10_10 σ=0,01 50_100 10_10 σ=0,01 50_100 10_10 σ=0,01

145 184 184 190 343 343 373 0,97 0,97 1,05 144 144 150 310 310 333 0,97 0,97 1,03

147 137 137 157 310 310 333 0,97 0,97 0,98 117 117 127 260 260 276 0,97 0,97 0,98

149 110 110 130 270 270 300 1,00 1,00 0,97 64 64 90 220 220 240 0,98 0,98 0,95

151 94 94 97 240 240 260 0,93 0,93 0,97 44 44 50 190 190 200 0,93 0,93 0,95

153 57 57 81 210 210 220 0,95 0,95 0,93 21 21 37 163 163 170 0,93 0,93 0,93

155 7 7 51 173 173 183 0,90 0,90 0,95 0 0 7 130 130 130 0,84 0,84 0,93

157 0 0 0 150 150 150 0,90 0,90 0,90 0 0 0 100 100 100 0,78 0,78 0,84

159 0 0 0 120 120 120 0,84 0,84 0,84 0 0 0 70 70 70 0,69 0,69 0,72

78

When the tidal windows (for the combined criteria of BTP & MM) are compared

with the tidal windows obtained, starting from a uniform depth, the effect of

implementing the actual bottom profile becomes clear. Implementing the actual

bottom profile leads to larger tidal windows compared to those based on a uniform

depth through the most shallow point (Min(Avg1) or Min(Avg3avg1)). For the 10%

percentile, a prolongation of about 20 minutes is attained. This is illustrated in

Figure 68. The tidal windows based on the target depth however, still give the best

results. A more detailed comparison between the usage of the target depth and the

actual bottom is given in section 5.5.

Figure 68: Tidal windows for an uniform bottom depth and for the actual bottom depth

In Table 17, the maximum draught resulting in a tidal window in 90% and 10% of

the tide cycles is shown for the different cases. The minimum duration of a tidal

window is set at 60 minutes.

Table 17: Critical draft (dm) for different bottom depth implementations

90% 10%

Actual bottom 149,4 >159,0

Min(Avg3avg1) 148,9 158,3

Min(Avg1) 148,9 158,3

TD(σ=0,01m) 150,5 >159,0

79

5.5 Comparison between the target depth and

the actual bottom profile

The effect of the implementation of the actual bottom profile on the tidal windows

can best be illustrated when a comparison is made with the implementation of the

reference depth (TD with σ=0,01m). Figure 69 shows the influence of the required

manoeuvring margin. The MM turns out to be very dominant especially for the

opening of the tidal windows. In about 25% of the tidal windows, the MM is

determinative for the closure of a window. In maximum 2% of the tidal windows,

the bottom touch probability will be determinative for the length of the tidal

windows.

Figure 69: Container Carriers (W092) leaving Deurganckdok: fraction of the tide

cycles for which the BTP is determinative for the opening and/or closure of the tidal

window or which influences the length of the tidal window in combination with a

minimum MM (Calculations performed with TD and σ=0,01m)

The influence of the manoeuvring margin can also be studied in the case that the

actual bottom profile was implemented in ProToel (Figure 70). Still, the opening

and the length of the tidal windows are mostly determined by the manoeuvring

margin. However, it can be seen that the BTP has become increasingly important

for the closure of the tidal windows. Especially for the smaller draughts, the

manoeuvring margin won’t lead to an additional restriction. The MM will now be

determinative for the closure of the tidal windows in maximum 20% of the tidal

windows. This value is even a lot smaller for most draughts.

80

Figure 70: Container Carriers (W092) leaving Deurganckdok: fraction of the tide

cycles for which the BTP is determinative for the opening and/or closure of the tidal

window or which influences the length of the tidal window in combination with a

minimum MM (Calculation performed with Actual Bottom)

By implementing the actual bottom depth instead of the target depth, the average

UKC will increase. Therefore, the required manoeuvring margin is reached more

easily. This effect is only observed for the closure of the tidal windows because the

areas critical for the opening of the tidal windows are not located in the sea

channel (See Table 18). The actual bottom depth has only been implemented for

the waypoints located in the sea trajectory. Only for those areas, bottom data was

available.

81

Table 18: Number of times a trajectory point becomes critical for the opening or closure of the tidal window (Actual Bottom implemented)

Draft (dm) 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159

BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP

Criteria BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP

& MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM

Tidal window O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C

3 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 20 22 22 24 23 23

7 15 15 18 18 1 25 1 24 26 27 23 22 14 11 8 6 3 4

8

13 1 31 1 31 26 26 18 18 1 14 1 13 12 12 12 13 11 11 10 9

Trajectorypoints

23 1

25

33 6 1 2 1

35 12 3 8 2 3 1

37 30 1 16 33 11 20 3 11 1 4 2 1 1

39 5 2

42 2 33 2 9 3 41 3 29 3 50 3 41 4 52 4 50 8 54 8 51 7 52 6 51 10 47 7 50 14 41 6

82

Chapter 6

Conclusion

ProToel

Using historic hydro-meteorological data, the tidal windows for containerships

(W092) leaving the Deurganckdok Terminal were determined based on different

input-values for the bottom depth in order to estimate the effect of this parameter.

To shorten the calculations, only the month of December was considered. For this

month the highest significant wave heights were observed in 2011. The tidal

windows were calculated with the aid of ProToel according to 2 probabilistic

criteria:

An acceptable bottom touch probability (BTP) of 10−4 and a minimal

required manoeuvring margin of 5% of the ship’s draft

To be able to make a well-advised choice for the bottom depth, this study started

with a detailed bottom analysis of the most critical areas located at the sea

trajectory between Deurganckdok and Kwintebank. Scheur Oost I and part of

Scheur Oost II were found to be frequently determinative for the closure of the tidal

windows. It was therefore decided to concentrate on those two regions for a study

of the bottom depths.

The critical areas were plotted based on the average values for 1m2 and different

bottom characteristics (average, standard deviation, minimum) were illustrated and

compared. On the basis of these results, it was decided to concentrate on the

soundings located within a channel width of 400m. In this way the soundings at the

edges of the channel were eliminated for the further calculations.

The absolute minimum of the Avg1-values was found to be 2dm lower than the

target depth. When the Avg3avg1 values were used, the absolute minimum is

about 1dm lower than the bottom depth. Using the average values for a grid cell of

3m to 3m results in a higher bottom depth because the lowest soundings are

averaged. Histograms of for example Min50_100avg3avg1 showed that there are

also a lot of areas with a depth (much) larger than the minimal depth insured by the

dredging company. The bottom profile in the Scheur Oost is certainly not uniform.

83

The implementation of the bottom depth as an input for ProToel was done in 3

ways. First, a uniform bottom profile through the most shallow point (Min(Avg1) or

Min(Avg3avg1)) was assumed. Setting the standard deviation on a low value of

0,01m resulted in a quasi-uniform bottom depth. This method is still being used but

now the target depths are allocated to the trajectory points. If one wants to use the

sounding data instead of the hypothetic target depth, the use of Min(Avg3avg1) is

recommended. Using up to date bottom data is safer because the target depth is

not always reached. By sedimentation the sea channel can silt between two

dredging executions.

To implement the actual bottom profile, a second method was tried. A higher

bottom depth was allocated to the trajectory points: the target depth (TD) plus

0,30m. Indeed, the average value of Min50_100avg3avg1 for Scheur Oost I was

found to be 0,30m deeper than the TD. The standard deviation was 0,22m. This

region was supposed to be representative for the other trajectory points on the sea

trajectory. The tidal windows were calculated using TD-0,30m and σ=0,20m and

compared to those obtained with the uniform bottom depth. Using the average

bottom depth with the standard deviation resulted in smaller tidal windows than

when a uniform depth through the least deep point is assumed. When the standard

deviation becomes too high, the probability of unrealistic shallow areas will

increase. ProToel assumes a normal distributed bottom profile but in reality, the

shallowest areas are constantly removed due to dredging.

In the end, a method was developed to approach the actual bottom profile, without

the use of a high standard deviation. The bottom touch probability was composed

based on the BTP’s for varying input depths with a small standard deviation. The

contribution of each BTP depended on the number of depth measurements found

in the respective interval. The tidal windows were then calculated using the

composed bottom touch probability.

This study ended with a comparison between the results obtained when the target

depth is used as an input parameter and when the actual bottom is used. The

implementation of the actual bottom profile resulted in a higher average UKC and

therefore a higher manoeuvring margin. The most critical area in the sea trajectory,

Scheur Oost I, is still critical for the closure of some tidal windows but the bottom

touch probability is now more determinative.

The manoeuvring margin turned out to be still very important for the length of the

tidal windows. The opening of the tidal windows is almost always determined by

the MM. For the areas critical for the opening of the tidal windows, the target depth

was used because no bottom data was available for these regions. Therefore, the

tidal windows didn’t increase when they were compared to those based on the

target depth. Still, the actual bottom based on recent soundings should be

implemented, as the target depth remains an uncertain factor.

84

6.2 Recommendations for further research

The bottom distribution for each route section can be linked with the

corresponding trajectory point. In this study, the distribution of Scheur Oost

I is used for all the trajectory points but it can be interesting (and more

accurate) to treat the most critical areas separately. It would also be useful

to implement the regions outside the sea trajectory.

When the tidal windows calculated for 2011 are studied, it can be seen that

the MM is more determinative for the closure of the tidal windows than

when only December 2011 is taken into account [4]. In December, the

highest wave heights were found and therefore the BTP becomes more

determinative. The effect of an implementation of the actual bottom profile

will probably be larger under less severe weather. This could be

investigated.

85

Appendix A: Bottom Characteristics

for Scheur Oost I

86

Figure 71: Min50_100avg1 for S511

87

Figure 72: Std50_100avg1 for S511

88

Figure 73: The equivalent bottom for S511

89

Figure 74: EqB50_100-Min50_100avg1 for S511

90

Figure 75: EqB50_100-Min50_100avg3avg1 for S511

91

Figure 76: Min50_100avg1 for S513

92

Figure 77: The equivalent bottom for S513

93

Appendix B: Bottom Characteristics

for Scheur Oost II

94

Figure 78: Min50_100avg1 for SOII (part1)

95

Figure 79: Min50_100avg1 for SOII (part 2)

96

Figure 80: Std50_100avg3avg1 for SOII (part 1)

97

Figure 81: Std50_100avg3avg1 for SOII (part 2)

98

Appendix C: Normal distribution table

99

Reference

[1] Eloot, K.; Vantorre, M.; Richter, J.; Verwilligen, J. (2009). Development of

decision supporting tools for determining tidal windows for deep-drafted

vessels. Marine navigation and safety of sea transportation. Balkema CRC

Press. ISBN 9780415804790. 227–234 pp.

[2] Dumon, G.; Balcaen, N.; Huygens, M.; Hyde, P.; Haerens, P.

Hydrodynamica ter hoogte van de Vlakte van de Raan.

Probabilistisch Toelatingsbeleid Vergelijkend onderzoek voor de

Scheldehavens. Verslag 2.0. Universiteit Gent/Waterbouwkundig

Laboratorium.

ter ondersteuning van het toelatingsbeleid tot de Vlaamse havens. MA

thesis. Universiteit Gent

ondersteuning van het toelatingsbeleid tot de Vlaamse havens. MA thesis.

Universiteit Gent.

[7] Vantorre, M.; Candries, M.; Lataire, E.; van Doorn, J.; van Heel, D. (2012).

Algoritme equivalente bodem ECS-kaarten – Eindrapport. Bestek nr.

16EN2011/10 i.o.v. De Staat der Nederlanden & De Vlaamse Overheid

t.b.v. Gemeenschappelijk Nautisch Beheer – Scheldegebied. Versie 3.0.

Universiteit Gent / MARIN, 23 maart 2012

[9] Elema, I.A.; Kwanten, M.C. Introduction of vertical reference level Lowest

Astronomical Tide (LAT) in the products of the Netherlands Hydrographic

Service

100

[11] PIANC (2014) Harbour Approach Channels – Design Guidelines. Tech.

Rep. Nr. 121. PIANC.

[12] Härting, A.; Laupichler, A.; Reinking, J. (2009). Considerations on the squat

of unevenly trimmed ships. Ocean Eng., vol. 36, no. 2, pp.193-201.

Maritime Constructions

[15] Eloot, K. (May 2014) Ship Behaviour in Shallow and Confined Water.

Lecture 5

[16] Candries, M.; Vos, S.; Peeters, P.; Mostaert, F. (December 2013). ProToel

v13.1 User Manual

[17] Richter, J.; Vantorre, M.; Laforce, E.; Eloot, K.; Mostaert, F. (2009) Support

of a probabilistic access policy for the Flemish harbours: Implementation of

the software ProToel for the harbour of Zeebrugge: ProToel theoretical

manual. Version 2_0. WL Rapporten, 801_03. Flanders Hydraulics

Research & Ghent University: Antwerp, Belgium

Container Ships in extremely Shallow Water.

101

- Piling HandbookUploaded bysuvra
- PIANC Example Fender DesignUploaded byFiona Keir
- 01 Pivot PointUploaded byNuman Kooliyat Ismeth
- Delft3D-TRIANA User ManualUploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- 700_Soru_USCGUploaded byMETIN
- Crona Et Al 2005_Recolonization of juvenile shrimps in mangrovesUploaded bybcrona
- USACE Breakwaters and JettiesUploaded byIgnatius Samraj
- Bank Soal Ukp Dpkp Plus JawabUploaded bysonywisnuu
- The Britannia. The Beaconsfield. The Britannia v. Cleugh. Same v. Cotton. La Compagnie Francaise De Navigation a Vapeur v. The Beaconsfield, 153 U.S. 130 (1894)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- Application Form - Draft-1Uploaded byMiha Ella
- Industry Code of Practice on Ship RecyclingUploaded bySwapneel Kulkarni
- Effective Strategies for Shipping CompaniesUploaded by091413071
- OceansUploaded byJignesh Solanki
- Stop Oil PollutionUploaded bySailorprof
- FULL-SCALE-MEASUREMENT-OF-DYNAMIC-SHIP-MOTIONS-AND-SQUAT.pdfUploaded byUser
- Saxby - 1864 - Saxby's Weather System.pdfUploaded byAna Diana
- NCSE.docUploaded byBangi Sunil Kumar
- 3 Loading ManualUploaded byนัทเดช เรืองสวน
- Shaldon Boards 1aw 2009 2Uploaded byClint Lake
- PawlowiczBeardsleyLentz-TidalAnalysisMATLAB-T_Tide-CompGeosci2002.pdfUploaded bysendy brammadi
- Tidal EnergyUploaded byLeslie Joy Anastacio Vizcarra
- NAV IIIUploaded byMark Mc Pillo
- Buoys-Dolphins 0 RotterdamUploaded byVisveswaran Inbasekaran
- Bishop PaperUploaded bykogi3075
- P7-2007bUploaded byJoão Paulo Mendes Ferreira
- Standard Oil vs CasteloUploaded bymelfabian
- Meeting HW.docUploaded byAjay Singh
- #1 MARINE PIPING SYSTEMS - Course Contract.pdfUploaded byryo asg5
- fireside chatsUploaded byapi-248473371
- faqUploaded byEduard Cristian

- Development of a Probabilistic Admittance Policy for the Flemish HarboursUploaded byFrank RmDett
- The Effect of Bottom Variations in a Probabilistic Access PolicyUploaded byFrank RmDett
- A Methodology for Evaluating the Controllability of a Ship Navigating in a Restricted ChannelUploaded byFrank RmDett
- Part VI Chap 5.pdfUploaded byFrank RmDett
- Design Slab SpansUploaded byAdanz Cerron
- AkuUploaded byFrank RmDett
- TobinUploaded byFrank RmDett
- Installation Guide jUploaded byFrank RmDett
- Installation GuideUploaded byFrank RmDett
- Ngs Guidelines for Real Time g Nss NetworksUploaded byFrank RmDett
- CORS GuidelinesUploaded byFrank RmDett
- Fluent Adv Multiphase 13.0 AgendaUploaded byFrank RmDett

- NectarDelft280308_CarisUploaded byPankaj Gahlawat
- Study on the Port of RotterdamUploaded byJulio César Alcaraz
- Divergence Regionalization FinalUploaded byRostislav Ryabko
- 50 Major Ports of World.Uploaded byAyush Madaan
- 5. Ship Behavior in Shallow WaterUploaded byTomas Grigolius
- Topic 01Uploaded byIban Santana Hernandez
- Annabella ReportUploaded byBinh Pham
- Beyond Sand and Sea - 50 Years of Maritime MasterpiecesUploaded byTagore Pavan Kumar
- Tug Safety ProceduresUploaded byPetar Saydenov
- Antwerpen DelwaidedokUploaded byMichael Dixon
- General Description of Quay Wall Type.pdfUploaded bydndudc
- Terra Et Aqua 145 CompleteUploaded byPramona
- ceg_obrer_20070315Uploaded byalfavector
- Iadc Book Beyond Sand and SeaUploaded byManop Metha