Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Full scale measurements of pressure field induced on the quay wall by bow T
thrusters – indirect method for seabed velocities monitoring
Teresa Abramowicz-Gerigka,∗, Zbigniew Burciua, Wojciech Górskib, Maciej Reichelc
a
Faculty of Navigation, Gdynia Maritime University, Al. Jana Pawla II 3, 81-345, Gdynia, Poland
b
Enamor Ltd., Inzynierska 1, 81-512, Gdynia, Poland
c
The Foundation for Safety of Navigation and Environment Protection, Chrzanowskiego 36, 80-278, Gdansk, Poland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The paper presents the results of full-scale experimental investigation of loads generated on the quay wall by
Bow thruster jet bow thrusters during unberthing of a self-manoeuvring vessel. The presented research allowed for the com-
Full-scale measurements parison of the measurements results with generally accepted empirical prediction methods and confirmed the
utility of the developed measuring setup for the on-line monitoring of jet induced loads. The conclusions from
the research are focused on the strengths and limitations of the presented measuring method and its applicability
for the on-line monitoring of loads induced by bow thrusters on seabed protection along the quay wall.

1. Introduction
The bow thruster induced wash is the reason of degradation pro-
cesses of the seabed and seabed protections situated along the quay
wall. The sediments movement and relocation of seabed protection
elements reduce the under keel clearance and in case of large damages
can affect the stability of the quay wall. These phenomena are normally
included in design processes and should be introduced in complex
safety assessment methods of ship and port operation (Gerigk, 2015;
Rutkowski, 2016; Santos et al., 2014).
Bow thruster wash is important in shallow inland waterways, lake
and river harbours with dynamic changes of depths. In modernized sea
ports a growing number of high powered big vessels operated in con-
fined areas increase the importance of vessels impact on port con-
structions with significant share of the propeller and thruster jet in-
duced wash. Very large container vessels can perform manoeuvres in
very tight areas in strong weather conditions up to the port operational
limits using their thrusters and propellers to increase the efficiency of
manoeuvres assisted by tug boats.
The average bow thruster power of most widely operated self
manoeuvring vessels like ferries in terms of the projected windage area
is assumed from 0.5 kW/m2 to 0.96 kW/m2, which for 150 m −170 m
in length ferry gives usually bow thrusters power about 2 × 1200 kW.
The ultra large container ships over 8000 TEU (twenty feet equivalent
unit), 300–400 m in length are equipped with several 2000–3500 kW
thrusters. The power of bow thrusters installed on cruise vessels can
reach 5500 kW (Wartsila, 2016). The outflow velocity is proportional to
the cube root of the applied power which means that the outflow ve-
locities can reach several m/s.
Different types of seabed protection are used to prevent negative
effects of stress fluctuations on the surface layer of the seabed (PIANC,
2015). Ship Masters should comply with the requirements related to
operational limits for the propellers and thrusters power used during
port manoeuvers dependent on the seabed resistance to scoring or da-
mage. The limits can be exceeded in emergency cases when all available
means can be used to ensure ship safety.
The more precise estimation of berthing and unberthing loads closer
to their real values allows accepting fewer restrictions for propeller and
thruster power used during manoeuvres. The higher limits mean the
widening of an operational window for self-manoeuvring and decrease
of the operational costs related to the tug boats assistance.
There are several empirical methods commonly used for the pre-
diction of a jet velocity distribution. The existing design guidelines
provide the useful empirical formulae but some modern vessels like
large containerships are out-of-the-range of the conservative solutions
(http://www.pianc.org/edits/articleshop.php?id=2015180 PIANC,
2015).
The empirical methods and simplified CFD simulations of seabed
scoring are based on main parameters of propellers and thrusters not
considering the actual characteristics what can be also a reason for the
uncertainty in thrust assessment especially important for inland vessels
(Skupien and Prokopowicz, 2014; Jachowski, 2008).
The assessment of possible jet induced damages is dependent on the
available information of exceedance of jet velocity limits and

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tagerigk@am.gdynia.pl (T. Abramowicz-Gerigk), zbj@am.gdynia.pl (Z. Burciu), wojciech.gorski@enamor.pl (W. Górski), maciejr@portilawa.com (M. Reichel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.05.036
Received 8 February 2018; Received in revised form 5 April 2018; Accepted 17 May 2018
0029-8018/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
T. Abramowicz-Gerigk et al.
underwater bed inspection.
The online monitoring of jet velocities can be a good solution to
reduce the risk of serious damages of a berth construction and seabed
protection sensitive to the jet wash. The full-scale on-line measurements
presented in the paper allowed studying the pressure field induced by
bow thrusters of a berthing and unberthing vessel on the quay wall. The
direct measurements of the jet wash on the seabed were not possible
due to the likely damage of instruments however the pressure induced
on the quay wall can be converted into the jet velocity over the seabed
using empirical methods or CFD simulation. The available empirical
methods are analysed in the paper to choose a model which could be
implemented in the development of an online monitoring system.
2. Full-scale measurements of the effective bow thruster jet
pressure on the quay wall during unberthing
The measurements of the effective bow thruster jet induced pressure
on the tight vertical wall during berthing and unberthing operations
allowed studying the phenomena related to the decay and reflection of
the bow thruster jet in real conditions. The presented summary is based
on the selected measurements collected in Port of Gdynia. The mea-
surements were analysed to recognise the highest values of jet velocities
generated by a ro-pax ferry during her operation.
The ship involved in the research was m/f Stena Baltica (Snav
Adriatico) the ro-pax ferry equipped with two transverse tunnel bow
thrusters: first from the bow: BT1: LIPS CT200M of 1275 kW, second:
BT2: LIPS CT09H-Z of 735 kW and stern thruster LIPS CT09H-Z of
735 kW. The main particulars of m/f Stena Baltica are presented in
Table 1.
The jet loads during most of the manoeuvres were small with the
collected values of the dynamic pressure less than 2.5 kPa. The highest
measured values of jet velocities on the quay wall, about 8 kPa, corre-
sponding to the flow velocity 4 m/s, were observed during unberthing
operations. The two selected unberthing manoeuvres U1 and U2 re-
presentative for the manoeuvres with the highest collected pressure
values are discussed in the paper.
2.1. Experimental setup for full scale measurements
The research was conducted at Helskie II Berth in Port of Gdynia.
The scheme of the underwater part of experimental setup with in-
dicated location of measuring instruments (PM) on the quay wall is
presented in Fig. 1.
The measuring system was composed of pressure sensors – piezo-
resistive pressure transmitters 131S (II) placed in the watertight cas-
ings, integrated with the advanced electronic system - microprocessor
control system and communication module allowing for two-step
measurements. The first step was the measurement and acquisition of
the static pressure related to the depth of each pressure sensor. This
measurement was followed by the transition of the system to the auto-
Table 1
Main particulars of ro-pax ferry – m/f Stena Baltica.
Symbol Parameter Value
LOA Length overall (m) 164.41
LPP Length between perpendiculars (m) 146.00
B Breadth (m) 27.69
T Draft max (m) 6.313
V Displacement (m3) 16618
N Main engines power (kW) 4 × 4840
NBT1 Power of bow thruster No. 1 (kW) 1275
NBT2 Power of bow thruster No. 2 (kW) 735
NST2 Power of stern thruster (kW) 735
DBT1 Diameter of bow thruster No. 1 (m) 2.100
DBT2 Diameter of bow thruster No. 2 (m) 1.750
DBT2 Diameter of stern thruster (m) 1.750
151
Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160
Fig. 1. Place of installation of the underwater part of the measuring system at
Helskie II Berth in Port of Gdynia.
calibration status resulting with the change of a reference point to the
static pressure value locally measured for each sensor. In the second
step the measurements were taken for each pressure sensor from zero
independently of the static pressure at its depth under the water surface
giving the increased accuracy of measurements.
The measuring transducer range of static pressure was 0–300 kPa.
The measuring range of dynamic pressures was 125 Pa–50 kPa with
Acc: 0,1% FS.
The signal from the analogue sensor was converted into the digital
form using A/D converter to decrease disturbances and increase
transmission distance. The assumed minimum value recognised by the
measuring system was 10 Pa - resulting from one level of the A/D
converter and 100 Pa with the satisfactory level of measurements re-
peatability. The finally accepted assumption was the measurement
range of 100 Pa–250 kPa with the accuracy of measurement equal
to100 Pa giving 0.1% relative percentage error. The frequency of
measurements was 2 Hz and synchronization deviation of the system
was 5 ms.
The underwater support structure (Abramowicz-Gerigk and Burciu,
2014) was a system of the 8 vertical stainless steel segmented pipes. 8
pressure sensors were installed on each pipe with equal intervals be-
tween them and equipped with cables for power supply and commu-
nication. The pipes were fixed to the ridges of Larssen sheet piles with
the screw pins.
The layout of sensors of the experimental setup installed on the quay
wall is presented in Fig. 2.
A part of the Larssen sheet pile wall at the right side is marked with
vertical lines to show the ridges. The pressure sensors are marked as the
nodes of the grid composed of 8 columns and 8 rows. The perpendicular
projections of the bow thrusters' outlets are marked as the circles on the
quay wall. The seabed protection is divided into rectangular elements –
presenting the sand filled geotextile bags.
2.2. Laboratory tests of the measuring system
The full-scale tests were carried out in the towing tank of Ship
Design and Research Centre in Gdansk to confirm the correct operation
of the system, control the system stability and repeatability of mea-
surements. The pressure sensors were installed on the pole attached to
the tow bridge. The measuring surfaces of the sensors were directed
towards the tow bridge motion. They were positioned at the selected
water depths: 0.1 m, 0.25 m and 0.35 m ensuring the uninterrupted
measurements.
The results of an example measurement presented in Fig. 3 show the
dynamic pressures collected consecutively: at rest, during the accel-
eration from 0 m/s to 3.5 m/s, during the run at 3.5 m/s and during
successive decelerations and runs at 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1 and 0.5 m/s speeds.
The obtained relationship between the measured values of the dy-
namic pressure and flow velocity is presented in Eq. (1).
p = 471.2v 2 + 8.8v (1)
T. Abramowicz-Gerigk et al.
Fig. 2. Scheme of the experimental setup at Helskie II Berth in Port of Gdynia:
pressure sensors marked as the nodes of the grid on the Larssen sheet pile wall;
outlets of the bow thruster tunnels perpendicular projections on the wall
marked as circles drawn with a dashed line.
Fig. 3. Full-scale pressure measurement results – an example of the laboratory
tests carried out in the towing tank.
where: p [Pa] – is the dynamic pressure, v[m/s] is the flow velocity.
The diagram showing the difference between the dynamic pressure
values measured during the tests and calculated from Bernoulli Eq. (2)
is presented in Fig. 4. The observed relative percentage error was less
than 5%.
p = 0.5 ρv 2
(2)
where v[m/s] is the flow velocity, ρ = 1000 kg/m is the water density.
3
2.3. Full-scale field measurements of bow thruster jet induced pressure
The flow induced during unberthing of m/f Stena Baltica, observed
on the free surface at Helskie II berth in Port of Gdynia is presented in
152
Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160
Fig. 4. The relationship between the flow velocity and dynamic pressure va-
lues: pB – dynamic pressure calculated from Bernoulli equation; pm – measured
values of the dynamic pressure, pB-pm - absolute error; % relative error - re-
lative percentage error.
Fig. 5. The free surface deformation with eddies observed during unberthing of
m/f Stena Baltica at Helskie II Berth in Port of Gdynia.
Fig. 5.
The unsteady turbulent flow generated by bow thrusters near the
quay wall is the cause of pressure oscillations, periodical in a short time
of constant settings of bow thrusters. The oscillations are considered as
the main cause of braking of the polypropylene ropes connecting sand
filled bags of seabed protection. The turbulent events such as eddies and
turbulent bursting play a critical role in the sediment scouring and
transport.
The collected pressure distribution is dependent on the flow direc-
tion near the wall. The sensors positioned perpendicular to the wall can
measure the total pressure corresponding to the water velocity. Velocity
components perpendicular to the wall give the positive readings above
the static pressure value corresponding to the water depth level. The
velocity components lateral to the wall cause the pressure decrease and
T. Abramowicz-Gerigk et al. Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160

Fig. 6. Full scale measurements - time history of pressure collected during unberthing manoeuvre U1: Ci, i = 1, …,8 number of a column of pressure sensors; PMj,
j = 1, …,8 - pressure sensors in each column.

153
T. Abramowicz-Gerigk et al. Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160

Fig. 6. (continued)

154
T. Abramowicz-Gerigk et al. Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160

The significant values were collected at the beginning of the man-

oeuvre in front of working bow thruster BT2 in columns C3 and C4 for
the sensors PM4 about 6 kPa, PM2 and PM3 about 4 kPa. The area of
higher pressures, decreased to 4 kPa, appears at column 5 after 40 s due
to the forward ship motion. Ship movement was also the reason of
negative pressure collected in columns C7 and C8.
3D distribution of the pressure field in successive seconds of the
unberthing manoeuvre U2 is presented in Fig. 9.
The maximum and minimum dynamic pressure values collected
during several unberthing manoeuvres are presented in Fig. 10. Their
absolute values are corresponding to the flow velocities from 0 to 5 m/s.

3. Applicability of the empirical methods for the prediction of the

bed velocities produced by bow thruster

Three values and their relations are crucial when calculating velo-
cities behind a working propeller: efflux velocity, longitudinal decay
and radial decay of axial velocity. Different empirical methods pre-
sented in the literature can be used to calculate these values, all di-
viding the description of propeller velocities in two regions, i.e. zone of
flow establishment and zone of established flow (Hamill, 1987).

3.1. Efflux velocity

The proper prediction and estimation of outflow velocities from the

bow thruster may be based on the assumption that a bow thruster is
sufficiently represented by a ducted propeller. In such a situation, first
step in the calculation of bed velocities caused by bow thruster wash
should be the estimation of flow velocity directly in front of the outflow
opening of the bow thruster. Assuming uniform and undisturbed flow
velocity across the thruster cross section, the volumetric flow may be
determined by Eq. (3).
π
Q = U0 DP 2
4 (3)

where Q – is the volumetric flow [m /s], U0 – is the initial flow velocity

3

in front of the bow thruster [m/s], DP is the bow thruster propeller

diameter [m].
The initial flow velocity from Eq. (3) can be derived from the energy
balance in Eq. (4).

Pd = 1 2 ρw U0 2Q (4)
Fig. 7. 3D distribution of the bow thruster induced pressure field [kPa] mea-
sured in the successive seconds t = 3,5 s and t = 7 s on the quay wall during where Pd – is the bow thruster generated power [W], ρw - is the water
unberthing manoeuvre U1: Ci, i = 1, …,8 - columns of pressure sensors, PMj, density [kg/m3].
j = 1, …,8 - pressure sensors in each column.
Combining equations (3) and (4) the resultant formula for calcula-
tion of the initial flow velocity U0 in front of a bow thruster may be
negative readings below the pressure values corresponding to the water written a follows:
depth level. The time histories of pressure generated on the quay wall 1
3
collected during unberthing manoeuvre U1 are presented in a separate P
U0 = 1.37 ⎜⎛ d 2 ⎟⎞
drawing for each from 8 columns Ci, i-1, …,8 of 8 pressure sensors PMj,
⎝ ρw DP ⎠ (5)
j = 1, …,8 (Fig. 6).
The most frequent unberthing procedure of a ferry was a combi- From a practical point of view, it is more suitable to transform Eq.
nation of transverse and forward ship motion. The significant pressure (5) to the form including the bow thruster diameter DBT (6). Usually the
values were collected in column C6 at sensors PM2, PM3 and PM4 in bow thruster diameter is about 2%–5% larger than the propeller dia-
front of the outlet opening of working bow thruster BT1 at the begin- meter:
ning of the manoeuvre and in columns C7 and C8 when the ship started DBT = 1.02 − 1.05DP (6)
to move forward. No pressure changes were observed in column C1.
Negative values about −4 kPa were collected in columns C2 and C3 Eq. (5) may be transformed to Eq. (7):
after 10 s of the manoeuvre, the lower values about −6 kPa were ob- 1
3
served in columns C4 and C5 just at the beginning of the manoeuvre Pd ⎞
U0 = 1.41 ⎜⎛ 2
⎟
and they increased to −2 kPa after 15 s, when the ship moved forward. ⎝ ρw DBT ⎠ (7)
3D distribution of pressure field in successive seconds t = 3,5 s and
It should be also noted that two factors reducing the efflux velocity
t = 7 s during unberthing manoeuvre U1 is presented in Fig. 7.
have to be taken into account: energy loss coefficient and thrust loss
The time history of pressure generated on the quay wall collected
coefficient. Actually, it is not possible to estimate both factors properly,
during unberthing manoeuvre U2 is presented in Fig. 8.
however based on experiments (Blaauw and van de Kaa, 1978) the most

155
T. Abramowicz-Gerigk et al. Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160

Fig. 8. Full scale measurements - time history of pressure collected during unberthing manoeuvre U2: Ci, i = 3, …,7 - number of a column of pressure sensors; PMj,
j = 1, …,8 - pressure sensors in each column.

common formula to calculate the efflux velocity, including losses, is (PIANC, 2015) of necessary bed protections.
presented in Eq. (8).

1 3.2. Longitudinal decay of axial velocity

3
Pd ⎞
U0 = 1.15 ⎛⎜ 2
⎟
ρ D
⎝ w BT ⎠ (8) Since the beginning of research on the propeller jet velocity, dif-
ferent approaches to the issue of longitudinal decay of the axial velocity
The formula recommended by the Committee for Waterfront have been presented. The difference between the methods is the as-
Structures, Harbours and Waterways (Recommendations of the sumed length of the zone of flow establishment, where the jet velocity is
Committee for Waterfront Structures Harbours and Waterways EAU, constant and consequently the mathematical description of the velocity
2012, 2015) contains a different constant factor equal to 1.04 instead of decay in the zone with established flow.
1.15, giving 10% less values of U0. Albertson et al. (1950) assumed the length of the zone of flow es-
Flow velocities in transverse thruster jets in the design practice are tablishment as 6.2 propeller diameters, Berger et al. (1981) as one
often calculated according to German and Dutch methods. These two propeller diameter, Verhey (1983) - 1.5 propeller diameters, Hamill
methods may give different results in the determination of the flow (1987) - 2 propeller diameters, with a transition phase between 0.35
velocities, and they are used as the comprehensive design methods and 2 propeller diameters.

156
T. Abramowicz-Gerigk et al. Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160

Fig. 8. (continued)

The generally accepted methods recommended by PIANC (PIANC, where: r is the radial distance to the propeller axis.
2015) and used in practice called German method (Fuehrer and Table 3 presents the radial decay of axial velocity at the propeller
Römisch, 1977) and Dutch method (Blaauw and van de Kaa, 1978) radius r equal to half propeller diameter and distance from the bow
estimate the zone of flow establishment as 2.6 and 2.8 propeller dia- thrusters x equal to 0.4 B for bow thrusters BT1 and BT2 calculated with
meters respectively. different methods.
Stewart (1992) and Hashmi (1993) in their latest research propose a The radial decay of axial velocity is about 90%, only in the method
value of 3.25 propeller diameters as the end of the zone of flow es- proposed by Albertson et al. (1950) is about 50%.
tablishment, while Lam et al. (2011) suggested 3.68 propeller dia-
meters. 3.4. Quay wall and bed velocities
In most of the cases the proposed description for the maximum axial
velocity in the zone of established flow may be written according to Eq. When a bow thruster, assumed as the ducted propeller, is directed
(9). towards a quay wall, the water jet strikes the wall directly and is de-
x 2
c flected from this area in all directions. The five zones of flow dis-
Umax / U0 = c0 + c1 ⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟
tinguished by Schmidt (2000) are presented in Fig. 11.
D
⎝ P⎠ (9)
The bow thruster jet observed in CFD simulation is presented in
where: Ct is the thrust coefficient, β - is the blade area ratio, P’ - is the Fig. 12.
pitch ratio equal to propeller pitch related to the propeller diameter. The jet velocity in the zone of flow establishment (Zone 1) is as-
Table 2 presents the values of coefficients c0, c1 and c2 of Eq. (9) sumed as:
proposed by different authors.
Umax = U0
Hashmi (1993) presented another way to describe the axial velocity
decay using an exponential equation Eq. (10). In Zone 2 i.e. zone of established flow, the equations presented in
paragraphs 2.1–2.3 may be used to predict the jet velocities. The
Umax / U0 = 0.638e(−0.097x / DP ) [−] (10)
equation describing jet velocity in Zone 2 is valid for the distance up to
0.7 L, where L is the distance between bow thruster outlet opening and
3.3. Radial decay of axial velocity quay wall, because of the velocity decrease when jet is approaching the
wall.
It is assumed that the radial decay of axial velocity has a normal Zone 3 where the jet hits the wall is called the pressure zone, since
(Gaussian) distribution around the axis and is valid only in the zone of the kinetic energy is converted into pressure, which finds its maximum
established flow. The equation for radial decay has therefore the fol- where the velocity is zero. The conversion of the flow velocity to
lowing form: pressure takes place over a distance of 0.3 L in front of the wall.
Zone 4, radial wall jet zone, is characterised by the conversion of the
1 r2 ⎞ pressure back to kinetic energy, flowing radially from the pressure
Ux , r / Umax = exp ⎛−
⎜
2 2
⎟

⎝ 2C r x ⎠ (11) point. At the distance of 0.3 L, the flow velocity reaches its maximum

157
T. Abramowicz-Gerigk et al. Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160

Fig. 10. Maximum and minimum dynamic pressure values collected during
unberthing manoeuvres: Ci, i = 1, …,8 - number of the column of pressure
sensors; PMj, j = 1, …,8 - pressure sensors in each column.

Table 2
Coefficients c0, c1, c2 proposed in different methods.
Method c_0 c_1 c_2

Albertson et al. (1950) 6.2 −1.0

Fuehrer and Römisch (1977) 2.6 −1.0
Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978) 2.8 −1.0
Berger et al. (1981) 1.025 −0.6
Verhey (1983) 1.275 −0.7
Hamill (1987) for transition 0.87 -β/4
phase ((0.35 ≤ x)⁄D_P ≤ 2)
Hamill (1987) for established − 11.4Ct + 6.65β+ − Ct −0.216β1.024+
flow (x⁄D_P ≥ 2) + 2.16P' + (P')−1.0
Stewart (1992) 0.543 −0.0281 1.0
Schmidt (2000) 1.9 −1.0
Lam et al. (2011) for the zone of 1.0 −0.1592 1.0
flow establishment

Table 3
Radial decay of axial velocity for BT1 and BT2 calculated with different
methods.
Method cr −
1 Ux,r/Umax(Dp/2)
2Cr 2

BT1 BT2

Albertson et al. (1950) 0.08 −76.2 0,47 0,59

Fuehrer and Römisch (1977) 0.15 −22.2 0,87 0,86
Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978) 0.18 −15.4 0,86 0,9
Schmidt (2000) 0.39 −3.3 0,97 0,98

again.
According to Römisch (1975) the loss of velocity during the change
of flow direction due to the wall is negligible. The velocity in Zone 5,
i.e. at the bottom, is therefore equal to the velocity just in front of the
quay wall.
Introducing the dimension L in Eq. (9) and using the most common
value proposed by Schmidt (2000) the axial velocity of the jet induced
by the bow thruster may be calculated according to Eq. (12) used in
German method (PIANC, 2015):
−1.0
L
Umax / U0 = 1.9 ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟

⎝ DP ⎠ (12)
The maximum velocity at the seabed in front of the quay wall:
−1.0
L
Fig. 9. Distribution of the bow thruster induced pressure field [kPa] measured Umax seabed/ U0 = α1.9 ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟

D
⎝ P⎠ (13)
in the successive seconds t, t = 9 s, 10 s, 12 s, on the berth wall during un-
berthing manoeuvre U2: t – time; Ci, i = 3,…,7 - columns of pressure sensors, Where α is the correction factor of value between 0 and 1, dependent
PMj, j = 1, …,8 - pressure sensors in each column. on L/Dp ratio and z – the distance between the propeller axis and

158
T. Abramowicz-Gerigk et al. Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160

Fig. 11. Five zones of bow thruster jet induced flow near a vertical tight wall
originally presented by Schmidt (2000): z – height of bow thruster axis above
seabed, DBT – bow thruster tunnel diameter, L – distance between the wall and
bow thruster outlet opening.

Fig. 13. Changes of water level at the quay wall: time history of the whole
measurement and measurement in time from 0 to 10 min.

Fig. 12. CFD simulation of bow thruster jet during unberthing in shallow water:
h/T = 1.7.

Table 4
Bed velocities calculated using online pressure measurements and empirical
methods.
Measurement Calculation German method Dutch method Fig. 14. Scheme of the monitoring system for loads generated on the quay wall
(Römisch, 1975) and seabed.

pm Ubed U0_BT1 U0_BT2 Umax_BT1 Umax_BT2 Umax_BT1 Umax_BT2

−1.0
z + L⎞
kPa m/s m/s m/s m/s Umax seabed/ U0 = 2.8 ⎛
⎜ ⎟

⎝ DP ⎠ (14)
4 2,83 7,57 7,12 2,88 2,25 2,74 2.15
Both German and Dutch methods should be used as complete design
procedures independently. PIANC (2015) report does not distinguish
seabed (PIANC, 2015). Eq. (13) can be used when L/Dp is in the range any formula, however for vessels with bow thrusters situated close to
between 3 and 8, in other cases Eq. (12) should be applied. the quay wall, like inland cargo vessels, German method gives more
The Dutch method compiled from the studies done by Blaauw and than twice bigger bed velocities than Dutch method.
van de Kaa (1978), Verhey (1983), Blokland and Smedes (1996) re-
commend Eq. (14) to calculate the maximum velocity caused by bow 4. Indirect method of monitoring the seabed velocities generated
thruster jet at the bottom: by bow thrusters near the quay wall

The absolute maximum and mean dynamic pressure values mea-

sured during the experiments presented in paragraph 2.3 in the area

159
T. Abramowicz-Gerigk et al.
where the turbulent jet hits the wall in Zone 3 are about 8 kPa and 4 kPa
respectively. The related velocities are 4 m/s and 2.8 m/s.
The mean pressure value obtained from full scale measurements on
the on the quay, velocity related to this pressure assumed as bed ve-
locity, initial velocities U0_BT1 and U0_BT2 for BT1 and BT2 thrusters
accordingly, velocities calculated at the distance L = 0,4 B – measured
from the bow thruster outlet opening to the wall and z = 0.9 T (distance
between the bow thruster axis and seabed) using both German and
Dutch methods are presented in Table 4.
The bed velocities calculated using German method for transverse
thrusters are equal 2.88 m/s and 2.25 m/s for BT1 and BT2 accordingly.
The same values obtained using Dutch method are equal to 2.74 m/s
and 2.15 m/s. There is a good agreement of empirical prediction and
full scale measurement for the measured mean values.
The maximum pressure values observed during a few seconds of the
manoeuvres U1 and U2 were about 8 kPa for BT1 and 7 kPa for BT2.
The corresponding velocities are 4 m/s and 3.74 m/s accordingly.
The difference of 1 m/s is not significant if we assume the seabed
protection designed for 7 m/s velocities. Considering high powered bow
thrusters of 5000 kW in shallow water the predicted bed velocities using
empirical methods are over 5 m/s and related dynamic pressure is
about 14 kPa. The temporary pressure increase should be recognised as
it could be a reason of seabed protection damage by jets with more than
7 m/s velocity.
4.1. Compensation of external disturbances
The procedure of measuring system calibration presented in para-
graph 2.1 allowed to set the initial value of total pressure equal to zero
before a measurement. This is the correct procedure in calm water
conditions for the single measurements, however for the long time
online monitoring all disturbing phenomena should be considered. The
small changes of pressure due to water level changes at the quay wall
observed before the manoeuvre U2 are presented in Fig. 13.
The small disturbances as small waves presented in Fig. 13 can be
neglected however 1 m change of water level magnitude is the reason of
10 kPa pressure change corresponding to 4,5 m/s of flow velocity when
the dynamic pressure value is considered.
The scheme of the module detecting a crossing of the warning limit
to be implemented in the online monitoring system for loads generated
on the quay wall and seabed protection is presented in Fig. 14.
The important phenomena influencing pressure measurements at
the quay wall are changes related to the water level and flow velocity
influenced by tides, wind waves, ship waves, swell, natural water cur-
rents, tidal currents or groundwater flow out near the quay wall. The
first system calibration allows taking into account hydrostatic pressure
and periodically changed phenomena. The velocity profile of tide waves
can be input directly as a time-history of water level and velocity of
tidal current at a place of measurement.
The introduction of online corrections to the measurements should
be based on on-line readings and time history of measurements to de-
termine the character of changes. For example the water level change
means the same change of pressure value at each sensor in the same
column. In case of the natural groundwater flow it should be super-
posed with natural current velocities based on the direction of the flow
and input into the calibration module.
5. Conclusions
The loads monitoring system presented in the paper should allow
for the detection of all emergency situations, when ship master uses the
power of thrusters above the permissible limits. This is the most im-
portant factor in the prediction of the condition of seabed protections in
160
Ocean Engineering 162 (2018) 150–160
the form of a mattress of geotextile sand filled bags. It can save main-
tenance cost related to the replacement of a wide area of damaged
elements and allows avoiding the maintenance delays in operation of
the berth.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the projects: RPPM.01.01.01-22-0068/
16-00, “Development of a prototype of a system for monitoring the
loads on berths and bed protection in the area of ship berthing along
with the implementation of the final product on the market by Enamor
Ltd. company from Gdynia” within “Smart Specialisations of Pomerania
Region – offshore technology, ports and logistics” European program
and 6/2010 NCBiR/MARTEC-2009/2-1/2010 “Safe Port Entry and
Berthing Ship and Port Advising System as an Element of Port ITS” –
project within ERA-NET MARTEC European Initiative, part conducted
at Gdynia Maritime University, Poland, sponsored by The National
Centre for Research and Development.
References
Abramowicz-Gerigk, T., Burciu, Z., 2014. Patent Application P.409435 Measuring System
of Pressure Distribution on the Surface of Hydrotechnical Constructions. http://
regserv.uprp.pl/register/application?number=P.409435.
Albertson, M.L., Dai, Y.B., Jensen, R.A., Rouse, H., 1950. Diffusion of submerged jets. pp.
639–664 Transcript of the A.S.C.E 115, Paper No. 2409.
Berger, W., Felkel, K., Hager, M., Oebius, H., Schale, E., 1981. Courant provoque par les
bateaux protection des berges et solution pour eviter l’erosion du lit du haut rhin. In:
PIANC 25th Congress, Section I-1, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Blaauw, H.G., van de Kaa, E.J., 1978. Erosion of bottom and sloping banks caused by the
screw race of manoeuvring ships. In: 7th International Harbour Congress, pp. 1–12.
Antwerp. http://publications.deltares.nl/Pub202.pdf.
Blokland, T., Smedes, R.H., 1996. In situ tests of current velocities and stone movements
caused by a propeller jet against a vertical quay wall. In: Proc. Of 11th International
Harbour Congress, Antwerp, Belgium, pp. 425–432.
Fuehrer, M., Römisch, K., 1977. Effects of modern ship traffic on islands and ocean wa-
terways and their structures. In: PIANC 24th Congress, Leningrad, USSR.
Gerigk, M.K., 2015. In: Nowakowski (Ed.), Modeling of Event Trees for the Rapid
Scenario Development. Safety and Reliability: Methodology and Applications. Taylor
& Francis Group, London, pp. 275–280.
Hamill, G.A., 1987. Characteristics of the Screw Wash of a Manoeuvring Ship and the
Resulting Bed Scour. PhD Thesis. Queen’s University of Belfast, United Kingdom.
Hashmi, H.N., 1993. Erosion of a granular bed at a quay wall by a ship’s screw wash.
PhD Thesis. Queen’s University of Belfast, United Kingdom.
Jachowski, J., 2008. Assessment of ship squat in shallow water using CFD. Archives of
Civil and Mechanical Engineering 8 (1), 19–38.
Lam, M., Hamill, G.A., Song, Y.C., Robinson, D.J., Raghunathan, S., 2011. Experimental
investigation of the decay from a ship's propeller. China Ocean Eng. 25 (2), 265–284.
PIANC, 2015. Guidelines for Protecting Berthing Structures from Scour Caused by Ships.
Maritime Navigation Commission Report No. 180. .
Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures Harbours and Waterways
EAU. Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2015.
Römisch, K., 1975. Der Propellerstrahl als erodierendes Element bei An- und
Ablegmanövern im Hafenbecken. Seewirtschaft 7, 431–434.
Rutkowski, G., 2016. Determining Ship's safe speed and best possible speed for sea
Voyage Legs. The International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation 10 (3), 425–430.
Santos, T.A., Marquez, M., Soares Guedes, C., 2014. In: Guedes Soares, Santos (Eds.),
Methodology and Tools to Design Container Terminals. Maritime Technology and
Engineering. Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp. 55–66.
Schmidt, E., 2000. Belastungen durch Bugstrahlruder. In: Technische Universität Dresden,
Institut für Wasserbau und technische Hydromechanik (Hrsg.): Belastung,
Stabilisierung und Befestigung von Sohlen und Böschungen wasserbaulicher Anlagen.
Dresdner Wasserbauliche Mitteilungen 18. Dresden, Germany, pp. 145–168.
Skupien, E., Prokopowicz, J., 2014. Methods of calculating ship resistance on limited
waterways. Pol. Marit. Res. 21 (4), 12–17.
Stewart, D.P., 1992. Characteristics of a Ships Screw Wash and the Influence of Quay wall
Proximity. PhD Thesis. Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Verhey, H.J., 1983. The stability of bottom and banks subjected to the velocities in the
propeller jet behind ships. In: 8th International Harbour Congress, pp. 66–77
Antwerp, Belgium.
Wartsila, 2016. A high power level transverse thruster. Wärtsilä CorporationTrade press
release. www.wartsila.com/media/news/14-03-2016-wartsila-launches-new-high-
power-level-transverse-thruster.