ERASMUS MUNDUS MSC PROGRAMME

COASTAL AND MARINE ENGINEERING AND

MANAGEMENT
COMEM

ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PIANC

GUIDELINES ON PROTECTING BERTHING
STRUCTURES FROM SCOUR CAUSED BY SHIPS

Delft University of Technology

24 June 2015

Mustafa Pasaoglu
4342607
The Erasmus Mundus MSc Coastal and Marine Engineering and Management is an integrated programme
organized by five European partner institutions, coordinated by Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU).

The joint study programme of 120 ECTS credits (two years full-time) has been obtained at three of the five
CoMEM partner institutions:

 Norges Teknisk- Naturvitenskapelige Universitet (NTNU) Trondheim, Norway

 Technische Universiteit (TU) Delft, The Netherlands
 City University London, Great Britain
 Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, Spain
 University of Southampton, Southampton, Great Britain

The first year consists of the first and second semesters of 30 ECTS each, spent at NTNU, Trondheim and Delft
University of Technology respectively.
The second year allows for specialization in three subjects and during the third semester courses are taken with a
focus on advanced topics in the selected area of specialization:
 Engineering
 Management
 Environment
In the fourth and final semester, an MSc project and thesis have to be completed.
The two year CoMEM programme leads to three officially recognized MSc diploma certificates. These will be
issued by the three universities which have been attended by the student. The transcripts issued with the MSc
Diploma Certificate of each university include grades/marks for each subject. A complete overview of subjects
and ECTS credits is included in the Diploma Supplement, as received from the CoMEM partner university, Delft
University of Technology (TU Delft).

Information regarding the CoMEM programme can be obtained from the programme coordinator and director:

Dr. Ir. Øivind A. Arntsen

Associate Professor in Marine Civil Engineering
Deputy Head, Department of Civil and Transport Engineering
NTNU Norway
Telephone: +4773594625 Cell: +4792650455 Fax: + 4773597021
Email: oivind.arntsen@ntnu.no
 Assessment of the Applicability of the PIANC
Guidelines on Protecting Berthing Structures
from Scour Caused by Ships

MSc Candidate

Mustafa Pasaoglu

Thesis Committee

Prof. ir. T. Vellinga (Chairman, TU Delft)

Ir. H.J. Verheij (TU Delft and Deltares)
Ir. H.J. Verhagen (TU Delft)
CoMEM Thesis

This thesis was completed by:

Mustafa Pasaoglu

under the supervision of:

Prof. ir. T. Vellinga (TU Delft)
Ir. H.J. Verheij (TU Delft and Deltares)
Ir. H.J. Verhagen (TU Delft)

as a requirement to attain the degree of

Erasmus Mundus Master of Science in Coastal and Marine Engineering and Management
(CoMEM)

taught at the following educational institutions:

Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)

Trondheim, Norway

Delft University of Technology (TUD)

Delft, The Netherlands

University of Southampton
Southampton, Great Britain

at which the student has studied from August 2013 to June 2015.
Abstract
As the shipping industry is growing, more and more propulsion systems are being developed
with better propulsion capabilities. These current and newly developing systems in ships are
expected to cause scour at beds around berthing structures with greater likelihood than the
systems preceding them, which increases the importance of protection methods used to deal
with this issue. In early 2015, the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure
(PIANC) has published a report titled ‘Guidelines for Protecting Berthing Structures from Scour
Caused by Ships’ with the aim of providing practical guidelines and detailed background
information about vessel propulsion systems in order to allow designers to make a proper design
of the bed protection in front of the berth structures or to estimate the scour expected to develop.
However, the applicability of these guidelines to real scenarios remains to be assessed. The
limitations and uncertainties associated with the guidelines have been determined by applying
the aforementioned guidelines to the riprap type of bed protection design of both open and solid
berthing structures in an inland mooring facility located in the Rotterdam harbour. In examining
these guidelines, it was revealed that several assumptions are necessary due to lack of
information on various parameters and some specifications of the design ship, along with
shortcomings and limitations of the methods and equations presented. The significance of these
assumptions on the applicability of the guidelines has been investigated. In cases where
limitations have been found, owing to assumptions or otherwise, certain solutions can be
offered to overcome these. The guidelines were found to be applicable and provide decent
instructions for a proper bed protection design in spite of the requirement of some assumptions.
The effectiveness of the guidelines can be improved thanks to further research with bed
protection designs for different case study locations and various bed protection methods to
verify the conclusions reached in this study. Moreover, supplementary resources like a
catalogue containing detailed information about several ship characteristics with relatively
higher influences in the design process can help designers to gather more accurate data to be
used in the calculations.

i
ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and sincere appreciation to all people who have
helped and inspired me during the preparation of this thesis.

Firstly, I would like to thank the board and all administrators of the Erasmus Mundus Coastal
and Marine Engineering and Management (CoMEM) programme, especially those who made
this amazing experience possible: Øivind Arntsen, Marcel Stive, Robert Nicholls, Mariette van
Tilburg, Sonja Marie Ekrann Hammer and Madelon Burgmeijer.

I also want to thank the members of my graduation committee Prof. ir. T. Vellinga, ir. H.J.
Verheij, ir. H.J. Verhagen for their valuable advice, feedback and guidance during this study
conducted at Delft Universiy of Technology.

Additionally, I would like to convey my sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. Aysen Ergin who ignited
my love of coastal engineering during my bachelor studies at Middle East Technical University,
Turkey.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family and my CoMEM friends, Sourabh, Ankit,
Astrid, Clara, Wahida, Laura, Tom and Abby for their concern and great support throughout
my master studies.

Delft, the Netherlands, June 2015

Mustafa Pasaoglu

iii
iv
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem Definition .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objective.................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Approach ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Outline of the Report .............................................................................................................. 2
2 Literature ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Background Information about PIANC (2015) Report............................................................. 4
2.2 Berth Structures ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Propulsion Systems ................................................................................................................. 5
2.3.1 Types of Propellers .......................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1.1 Contra Rotating Propellers .......................................................................................... 6
2.3.1.2 Fixed and Controllable Pitch Propellers ...................................................................... 6
2.3.1.3 Ducted Propellers ........................................................................................................ 7
2.3.2 Types of Thrusters ........................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2.1 Transverse Thrusters ................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2.2 Azimuthal Thrusters .................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2.3 Water Jets and Pump Jet Thrusters ............................................................................. 9
2.3.3 Relationship between Propulsion Characteristics and Vessel Dimensions ................... 10
2.3.4 Applied Engine Power during Berthing and Departure ................................................. 11
2.4 Velocity Distribution due to Propulsion Systems .................................................................. 12
2.4.1 Free Jet Velocity Distribution ........................................................................................ 12
2.4.2 German and Dutch Methods ......................................................................................... 14
2.5 Bed Material Stability ............................................................................................................ 14
2.5.1 Turbulence ..................................................................................................................... 15
2.5.2 Stability Equations ......................................................................................................... 15
2.5.2.1 Izbash (1930) ............................................................................................................. 15
2.5.3 Shields (1936) ................................................................................................................ 16
2.5.4 Pilarczyk ......................................................................................................................... 17
3 Deterministic Design ..................................................................................................................... 20
3.1 Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................. 20
3.1.1 Hydraulic and Nautical Boundary Conditions................................................................ 21
3.1.2 Design Ship .................................................................................................................... 21
3.1.3 Bed Material .................................................................................................................. 22
3.2 Design Procedure .................................................................................................................. 23

v
 3.2.1 Bed Protection Design for Open Berth Structure .......................................................... 23
3.2.1.1 Calculation of Efflux Velocity ..................................................................................... 24
3.2.1.2 Bed Protection According to German Method.......................................................... 25
3.2.1.3 Bed Protection According to Dutch Method ............................................................. 31
3.2.2 Bed Protection Design for Solid Berth Structure ........................................................... 34
3.2.2.1 Calculation of Efflux Velocity ..................................................................................... 35
3.2.2.2 Bed Protection According to German Method.......................................................... 35
3.2.2.3 Bed Protection According to Dutch Method ............................................................. 37
3.3 Overview of the Required Stone Sizes .................................................................................. 37
3.4 Extent of Protection .............................................................................................................. 38
3.5 Overview of the Assumptions ............................................................................................... 40
4 Importance of the Identified Problems ......................................................................................... 42
4.1 Assumptions Related to the Design Ship............................................................................... 42
4.1.1 Type of Propeller for the Main Propulsion System ....................................................... 42
4.1.2 Type of Rudder Configuration ....................................................................................... 44
4.1.3 Position of the Bow Thruster......................................................................................... 45
4.1.4 Position of the Main Propellers ..................................................................................... 46
4.2 Assumptions Related to Berth Structures and Surrounding Environment ........................... 48
4.2.1 Roughness of Vertical Quay Wall .................................................................................. 48
4.2.2 Natural Currents ............................................................................................................ 49
4.3 Assumptions Related to Design Methodology and Equations .............................................. 51
4.3.1 Turbulence Factor (𝑘𝑡2) .................................................................................................. 51
4.3.2 Coefficients in Bed Protection Extent Equations........................................................... 52
4.3.3 Ship Speed through Water ............................................................................................ 52
4.3.4 Confinement of the Jet by Slope Surface and Jetty Piles .............................................. 55
4.3.5 Type of Method to Calculate the Maximum Flow Velocity In front of the Closed Berth
Structure........................................................................................................................................56
4.4 Overview of the Results......................................................................................................... 57
5 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 60
5.1 Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 60
5.1.1 Deterministic Design ..................................................................................................... 60
5.1.2 Problems and Shortcomings of the Guidelines ............................................................. 61
5.1.3 Uncertainties and Risks Associated with the Guidelines............................................... 62
5.1.4 Possible Solutions to Overcome the Identified Problems ............................................. 63
5.1.5 Overall Applicability of the Guidelines .......................................................................... 64
5.2 Recommendations................................................................................................................. 65

vi
 5.2.1 Recommendations for Further Research ...................................................................... 65
5.2.2 Recommendations to Improve the Use of the Guidelines ............................................ 66
References ............................................................................................................................................. 67
List of Symbols ....................................................................................................................................... 70
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ 72
List of Figures......................................................................................................................................... 73
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 74
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 75
Appendix A Flow Velocities behind Main Propellers ....................................................................... A-1
A. 1 Results from Initial Deterministic Design ............................................................................. A-1
A. 2 Results from Investigation of the Identified Problems ........................................................ A-7
Appendix B Inland Mooring Facility Drawings ................................................................................. B-1

vii
1 Introduction
Maritime transport is accounted for approximately 80 per cent of global trade by volume and
over 70 per cent by value and has an increasing trend in total trade volume throughout the last
century (UNCTAD, 2012).To meet this increasing demand shipping industry has undergone a
significant transformation in last decades, which forces the development of larger ships with
higher carrying capacity, modern facilities and more powerful propulsion systems. As a result,
berthing structures and bottom in front of the quay walls are subjected to higher loadings due
to increased flow velocities, which has to be considered during the design stage of bottom
protections and determination of bottom erosion. At this point, design guidelines, often
presenting the state of the art on a particular subject, play a crucial role in helping the
professionals to design and construct durable coastal and harbour structures as in many other
engineering disciplines.

1.1 Problem Definition

Even though there exist several standards with relevant chapters, it was not until PIANC, the
World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure, released a report titled ‘Guidelines
for Protecting Berthing Structures from Scour Caused by Ships’ in 2015 that there were
comprehensive and specific guidelines available on design of berthing structures taking modern
ship propulsion systems and different design methods into account. The report, also known as
MarCom WG 180, provides related information about ships, scour formations around and in
front of berthing structures, types of propulsion systems and design guidance for different types
of berthing structures. However, problems to be encountered during implementation and the
applicability of the guidelines given in this report are unknown and have not been identified
yet.

1.2 Objective
The objective of this master thesis is to determine the applicability of the guidelines covered in
PIANC (2015) MarCom WG 180 report during the bed protection design of berthing structures
for inland vessels?

The following questions will be answered to achieve the objective:

- How to conduct a deterministic design of a bed protection both for a solid berth structure and
an open berth structure for a real case using the PIANC guidelines?

1
-What are the problems and shortcomings encountered when designing a bed protection for the
open and solid berth structures using the guidelines?

-What are the uncertainties and risks associated with the implementation of the guidelines?

-What are the possible solutions to overcome the identified problems and shortcomings within
the implementation procedure of the guidelines?

1.3 Approach
The project can be divided into several phases as shown in Figure 1.1. In the first part,
deterministic design of a bed protection for a solid berth structure and an open berth structure
for a real case will be conducted. An inland mooring facility located in Rotterdam Harbour for
inland tankers will be used for this purpose and the corresponding boundary conditions are to
be obtained from a previous master’s thesis (Roelse, 2014).

The second phase will focus on the identification of the problems and shortcomings observed
in the deterministic design stage. Relevant literature will be reviewed in the following phase in
order to determine the potential risks and uncertainties due to identified problems along with
the possible solutions to deal with these weak points of the PIANC (2015) report. The
conclusions on the applicability of the guidelines will be discussed at the final phase based on
the findings.

Determination of Conclusions on the

Identification of the
Deterministic Design Potential Risks and Applicability of the
Problems
Uncertainities Guidelines

Literature Review

Figure 1.1 Phases of the project

1.4 Outline of the Report

This thesis includes different chapters dealing with various topics. Chapter 2 provides an
overview of the relevant literature which is useful for this study. Chapter 3 describes the
deterministic design for the given case study location in addition to the identification of the
encountered problems. Chapter 4 discusses the importance of the shortcomings and problems
on the applicability of the guidelines and presents methods to deal with them. Finally,
2
conclusions are drawn and some recommendations regarding the further research and
improving the use of the guidelines are given in Chapter 5.

3
2 Literature
This chapter describes the reviewed literature that provides an underlying theoretical and
methodological basis for the assessment of the guidelines recommended in the PIANC (2015)
report. Since the PIANC (2015) report itself is the main focus point of this study and provides
detailed background information about this field, the review mostly includes PIANC related
literature. Additionally, results obtained from relevant recent researches and studies are also
covered to facilitate the coherence of the literature review.

2.1 Background Information about PIANC (2015) Report

The preparations related to the report under investigation started in 2004 and its present version
was finalized in early 2015 by the international members of Working Group 48 within the
Maritime Navigation Committee (MarCom). This new report is the up-to-date and extensive
format of the former report of PIANC Working Group 22 – ‘Guidelines for the Design of
Armored Slopes under Open Piled Quay Walls’ (1997) and contains practical guidelines
considering the new developments in ship industry and various types of bed protection methods.

The design methodology described in the PIANC (2015) report is based on two approaches.
The first approach is to allow scour to occur and design the berth structure accordingly, while
the other aims to protect the berth structures against erosion with the use of different types of
bed protection methods such as riprap and mattresses. Both deterministic and probabilistic
design procedures are presented in the PIANC (2015) report along with the analytical equations
to determine the flow velocity distribution induced by propulsion systems in case of open and
solid berth structures according to German and Dutch methods.

2.2 Berth Structures

Berth structures are constructed to provide a vertical front allowing ships to berth without any
problems. There exist many various berth structure types used all over the world depending on
the design parameters such as natural currents, design ship, nautical and hydraulic boundary
conditions and availability of the construction material at the site where the berth structure is
planned to be built.

Berth structures can be classified under two main categories, namely solid berth structures and
open berth structures relevant to ship propulsion actions.

4
 Figure 2.1 Solid berth structure (Thoresen, 2003)

Solid berth structures consist of vertical front wall mostly made of concrete or sheet pile to
resist the horizontal load caused from the fill behind the wall and possible live loads occurring
on the quay slab (Figure 2.1). On the other hand, open berth structures comprise a load-bearing
slab placed on columns or piles (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Open berth structure (Thoresen, 2003)

It is also possible to have hybrid type of berth structures which can be categorized under both
solid and open berth structures such as Cellular Sheet pile structures; however, in this master’s
thesis only main two berth structure types are studied for the case study design.

2.3 Propulsion Systems

This section discusses the overview of different types of propulsion systems used to provide
the necessary amount of thrust to navigate and maneuver for inland and sea-going vessels.
Propellers, the traditional and most commonly used propulsion element, together with its
different types and recently developed modern propulsion systems are outlined before
presenting relationships between propulsion characteristics and vessel dimensions to be used in
case detailed information about the design ship is not available. Moreover, recommendations
stated in the PIANC (2015) report on applied and installed power of the propulsion systems are
summarized.

5
2.3.1 Types of Propellers

2.3.1.1 Contra Rotating Propellers

Contra Rotating Propellers (CRP) consist of two propellers rotating in opposite directions about
a common axis of rotation. The front and rear propellers are designed such that rotational energy
in the wake created by the propellers is almost zero. The rear propeller regains some of the
energy and rotational loses, which decreases the required installed engine power.

Figure 2.3 Contra rotating propeller: General view (left, Rolls Royce), detailed view (right, Volvo
Penta)

2.3.1.2 Fixed and Controllable Pitch Propellers

In fixed pitch propellers (FPP), propeller blades are fixed to the hub and position of the blades
cannot be changed as the name implies. Most of the ocean-going vessels such as container
vessels, tankers, bulk carriers and dry cargo vessels are equipped with FPP. On the contrary, in
controllable pitch propellers (CPP), blades can be moved around their own axis and it is possible
to change pitch as desired, which increases the complexity of the system (Carlton, 2012).
However, CPP provides better performance in terms of maneuvering especially in dynamic
positioning conditions or where frequent berthing maneuvers are necessary, therefore, they are
usually found on cruise ships and ferries.

6
 Figure 2.4 Fixed pitch propeller (left, Wärtsilä), Controllable pitch propeller (right, Schottel)

2.3.1.3 Ducted Propellers

Propellers surrounded by a circular pipe, nozzle, or located within a tunnel are called ducted
propellers. In ducted propellers, diminishing energy losses caused by centrifugal forces and
pushing water more efficiently and equalizing the pressure at each blade point are the two main
purposes. Ducted propellers can be used both as main propellers and bow thrusters. This kind
of propellers are mostly found on vessels such as tugs and auxiliary ships that sail at low speed
and require high power to maneuver. Ducted propellers increase efficiency by 25 % when
compared to non-ducted propellers at low speeds whereas the efficiency reduces as the ship
speed through water gets closer to full speed (PIANC, 2015). Influence of the type of propeller
(ducted or non-ducted) used in the design ship on flow velocity distribution near berth structures
is one of the points discussed in this study.

Figure 2.5 Controllable pitch propellers surrounded by a nozzle (Promac)

7
2.3.2 Types of Thrusters

2.3.2.1 Transverse Thrusters

The transverse thruster is one type of ducted propellers used to sustain high maneuvering
capacity and installed in the bow or stern of the ship through the hull. The number and
positioning of the transverse thrusters vary depending on desired power and ship characteristics.
Transverse thrusters are called bow thrusters when installed near the bow while thrusters at
other locations are termed as stern thrusters. Bow thrusters can result in significant flow
velocities near open and solid berth structures, therefore, play a crucial role in bed protection
design to prevent scouring caused by the ships.

Figure 2.6 Tunnel thruster (left, Global Marine Engineering BV), Position of a bow thruster in the hull
of a seagoing ship (right, Veth)

2.3.2.2 Azimuthal Thrusters

Azimuthal thrusters consist of propellers placed in pods that are able to rotate to any required
horizontal angle. They can fulfill both propulsion and steering functions in the ships, which
makes the use of a rudder unnecessary. Azimuthal thrusters are mainly preferred when high
maneuvering capacity is required for cases such as dynamic positioning. Ducted and non-ducted
forms of azimuthal thrusters are in use in the ship industry and examples are shown in Figure
2.7 below.

8
 Figure 2.7 Ducted (left, Kawasaki Rexpeller) and Non-ducted azimuthal thrusters (right, Schottel)

2.3.2.3 Water Jets and Pump Jet Thrusters

Water jet propulsion systems provide thrust created by the reaction generated when the stream
of water is forced to pass through a nozzle located at the stern of the ship. The nozzle is designed
such that the flow accelerates and considerable jet of water is impelled backward through the
aft pipe where two sets of pistons, acting on flaps or diverters, produce a jet deviation. Partially
or totally lowering of one of these diverters yields neutral or backward thrust. Water jets are
used mostly in high-speed vessels like Catamaran Ro-Ro fast ferries, which might cause severe
scouring especially near the closed berth structures (PIANC, 2015).

Figure 2.8 Fast ferry equipped with water jet (Damen)

Pump jet thruster works on the same principle with water jets. Intake section draws water into
pump jet and the water is ejected at high velocities through the outlet nozzles located in the keel
of the ship. Pump jet thrusters are able to rotate 360 degrees and, therefore, provide thrusts in
9
all directions. They are commonly installed in inland vessels thanks to their effectiveness in
shallow waters.

Figure 2.9 Pump jet thruster (left, Veth) and Compound pump jet thruster (right, Schottel)

2.3.3 Relationship between Propulsion Characteristics and Vessel

Dimensions

Bed protection design for the berth structures requires information about the propulsion systems
of the design ship likely to use the facilities. However, it is generally hard to obtain detailed
information about the vessels because of the competition in the market whereas characteristic
dimensions of the ship within a particular classification are relatively easier to access. PIANC
(2015) describes relationships between the installed power of the propulsion systems and ship
dimensions for seagoing vessels referring to Sievers (2011) and Roubos (2006) that derived the
equations based on collected pilot cards in German and Dutch harbors as follows:

𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 87.5 ∙ 𝐵𝑠 − 1350 (2.1)

𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 0.05 ∙ 𝐵𝑠 + 0.5 (2.2)

𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 = 2800 ∙ 𝐵𝑠 − 60000 (2.3)

𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 = 0.15 ∙ 𝐵𝑠 + 1.2 (2.4)

where

𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 : Installed thruster power (kW)

𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 : Installed main propulsion system power (kW)
𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 : Bow thruster diameter (m)
𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 : Main propulsion system diameter (m)

10
𝐵𝑠 : Beam of the ship (m)
Similar to seagoing vessels, It is possible to use the following relationships derived by Verheij
(2010) to estimate the average installed power of the thruster and main propeller for the inland
vessels depending on the ship type:

𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 = 2 ∙ 𝐿𝑠 ∙ 𝑇𝑠 − 250 (2.5)

𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 = 1.75 ∙ 𝐿𝑠 ∙ 𝑇𝑠 − 150 (2.6)

𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟 = 0.8 ∙ 𝐿𝑠 ∙ 𝑇𝑠 + 250 (2.7)

𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 = 275 kW (2.8)

𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 = 0.66 ∙ 𝐿𝑠 ∙ (2 ∙ 𝑇𝑠 + 𝐵𝑠 ) (2.9)

where
𝐿𝑠 : Ship’s length (m)
𝑇𝑠 : Ship’s draught (m)
It should be noted that above-mentioned equations were obtained from averaging of the
observed relationships in the field. The ship dimensions and hence the estimated installed
powers might be different for individual cases (PIANC, 2015).

2.3.4 Applied Engine Power during Berthing and Departure

A ship slows down as it gets closer to the berth structure to achieve safe and smooth berthing
and departure procedures. For this reason, speed during berthing and departure operations are
smaller than full speed, which decreases the applied engine power, especially in main
propulsion systems. The percentage of installed power to be used in determining the flow
velocities created by bow thruster and main propeller jets depends on the stage of the departure
maneuver and type of the vessel. PIANC (2015) recommends applying 100 % of the installed
engine power for bow thrusters and propulsion systems of the tug boats. As far as main
propellers are concerned, it is recommended to apply 5-15 % of the installed power for seagoing
vessels. However, for inland navigation vessels this rate increases up to 50 % and 100 % for
small ships and larger inland container vessels (with a length of 100 m or larger), respectively.
In deterministic design chapter of this study, applied engine power percentages are taken
according to those recommendations.

11
2.4 Velocity Distribution due to Propulsion Systems
There has been considerable amount of study conducted to determine the velocity distribution
of the jets induced by different propulsion systems. Since there exist many different propulsion
systems, corresponding velocity fields might differ from each other. In deterministic design
chapter of this study, two most commonly used propulsion types, main propellers and transverse
thrusters are considered to identify the problems encountered when using the guidelines
recommended by PIANC (2015).

2.4.1 Free Jet Velocity Distribution

Jets created by propellers are generally compared with free jets which can be defined as water
flowing into surrounding water out of an orifice without any disturbance (PIANC, 2015).

Figure 2.10 Zones of the jet flow (Blaauw and Van de Kaa, 1977)

As shown in the Figure 2.10, flow pattern induced by jet flow is divided into two zones, namely
the zone of flow establishment and zone of established flow. Flow establishment zone occurs
right behind the propeller and can be considered as a transition to established flow. Albertson

12
et al (1948) describe a theory providing equations to estimate the flow distribution in both zones
based on the following assumptions:

 The pressure is distributed hydraulically throughout the flow field

 The diffusion process is dynamically similar under all conditions

 Within the diffusion zone, the longitudinal component of flow velocity varies based on
the normal probability function at each cross-section.

According to Albertson et al (1948) formulae the flow distribution behind propellers in the zone
of established flow are given in the PIANC (2015) as follows:

𝑉𝑜 = 𝐶1 ∙ 𝑓𝑛 ∙ 𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∙ 𝐷𝑝 ∙ √𝐾𝑇 (2.10)

and

𝐷𝑝 𝑎 1 𝑟2 (2.11)
𝑉𝑥,𝑟 = 𝐴 ∙ ( ) ∙ 𝑉𝑜 ∙ 𝑒𝑥𝑝 (− ∙ ) ∙ 𝑓1 (𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑟, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)
𝑥 2 ∙ 𝐶22 𝑥 2
where

𝑉0 : Efflux velocity (m/s)

𝑉𝑥,𝑟 : Flow velocity at location x, r (m/s)

𝑓𝑛 ∶ Percentage of maximum number of revolutions (-)

𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∶ Maximum number of revolutions (1/s)

𝐷𝑝 : Propeller diameter (m)

𝐾𝑇 : Thrust coefficient (-)

𝑥 : Distance to propeller (m)

𝑟 : Radial distance to the propeller axis (m)

𝐴 ∶ Coefficient (-)

𝐶1 , 𝐶2 ∶ Coefficient (-)

𝑓1 : Correction factor for the influence of the confinement of the jet by the slope surface (and
by jetty piles if present) and rudder configuration (-)

𝑎 ∶ Exponent (-)

13
It is important to highlight that assuming propeller jets behave same as free jets results in fail
to notice some differences in terms of flow distribution. For instance, in case of propeller jets
rotational flow velocity also has rotational velocity component whereas free jet assumption
considers only axial flow component. Moreover, jet induced by propellers diverges faster than
a free circular jet due to higher turbulence level and therefore length of flow established zone
is relatively shorter as shown in Figure 2.11 (Schiereck and Verhagen, 2012).

Figure 2.11 Velocity distribution in propeller jet and free jet (Schiereck and Verhagen, 2012)

2.4.2 German and Dutch Methods

Flow velocities in propeller jets and transverse thruster jets are often calculated according to
so-called German and Dutch methods. These two methods may give different results in the
determination of the flow velocities, but it should be pointed out that stability equations used
to estimate the minimum required stone sizes for the bed protection are also different from each
other. For this reason, PIANC (2015) recommends designers to adopt one of the approaches
throughout the whole design procedure. Both German and Dutch analytical methods are used
separately to design the necessary bed protections for open and solid berth structures for a real
case study location in this study.

In order to avoid repetitions, equations and associated recommendations according to German

and Dutch methods are provided in chapter 3 under relevant headings.

2.5 Bed Material Stability

In this chapter focus will be on the stability of the non-cohesive materials used typically for
riprap type of bed protections, along with the turbulence. Stability of the stones in various flow
situations is discussed and different approaches to calculate the minimum required stone size
for protection are presented.

14
2.5.1 Turbulence

Definition of turbulence according to Hinze (1975) is: “Turbulent fluid motion is an irregular
motion, but statistically distinct average values can be discerned and can be described by laws
of probability’’. This allows expressing the flow velocity (V) as the sum of two separate
̅) and fluctuation around the mean value (𝑉′).
components: Average value (V

𝑉 = 𝑉̅ + 𝑉′ (2.12)

Square root of the averages of the fluctuations around the mean provides a measure showing
the intensity of the velocity fluctuations. Relative fluctuation intensity (𝑟𝑡) of flow velocities is
one of the ways to express turbulence and is defined by Schiereck and Verhagen(2012) as:

√̅̅̅̅
𝑉′2 (2.13)
𝑟𝑡 =
𝑉̅

Relative fluctuation intensity is a crucial parameter to consider the impact of turbulence in flow
jets induced by propulsion systems and most of the time hence correlated with turbulence factor
coefficients included in equations derived to determine the stability of the stones subject to jets.

2.5.2 Stability Equations

Even though there has been a lot of research conducted to explain the stability of the bed
material under flow loads, most of them are based on two approaches expressed by Izbash
(1930) and Shields (1936).

2.5.2.1 Izbash (1930)

Izbash (1930) approach considers the forces on each grain and examines the balance between
these forces to determine the stability. If the forces trying to move the grain (drag force and lift
force) are larger than the forces to keep it in position, the grain starts to move. The load on the
grain is proportional to the square of the flow velocity and strength of the grain can be expressed
as the submerged weight of the grain. The relationship between the load and the strength on the
grain is given as:

2∙𝑔∙∆∙𝑑 (2.14)
𝛽𝑖𝑧 =
𝑉𝑐𝑟2
where

𝛽𝑖𝑧 : Izbash parameter (-)

15
𝑉𝑐𝑟 : Critical velocity (m/s)

𝑔 ∶ Acceleration of gravity (m/s2)

∆∶ Relative buoyant density= (𝜌𝑠 − 𝜌𝑤 )/𝜌𝑤 ) (-)

d : Grain diameter (m)

𝜌𝑠 : Density of stone (kg/m3)

𝜌𝑤 : Density of water (kg/m3)

According to empirical studies, Izbash parameter (𝛽𝑖𝑧 ) was found to be approximately 0.7.
Therefore the following equation is used to estimate the critical flow velocity:

𝑉𝑐𝑟 = 1.2 ∙ √2 ∙ ∆ ∙ 𝑔 ∙ 𝑑 (2.15)

Velocity used in the Izbash (1930) approach is acting on the stone; however, there is no explicit
explanation on the place of the velocity. He did his research using big stones in relatively
shallow water conditions and the equation hence is applicable for similar situations. It is
recommended to assume a logarithmic distribution of flow velocity over the water depth and
determine the near-bed velocity accordingly (Schiereck and Verhagen, 2012).

2.5.3 Shields (1936)

The second and more popular approach for the stability of the bed material is described by
Shields (1936). It takes into account more parameters such as shear stress and water depth
compared to Izbash equation. According to this approach, the motion of the grains starts when
the force created by water at the bed is larger than a certain critical value. Relation between the
bed shear stress and force due to water is written as:

𝜏𝑏 𝑢∗ ∙ 𝑑 (2.16)
Ψ𝑠 = = 𝑓( ) = 𝑓(𝑅𝑒∗ )
(𝜌𝑠 − 𝜌𝑤 ) ∙ 𝑔 ∙ 𝑑 𝑣

where

Ψ𝑠 : Shields parameter (-)

𝜏𝑏 : Shear stress (N/m2)

𝑔
𝑢∗ : Shear velocity=𝑉 ∙ √𝐶 (m/s)

16
𝐶 : Chezy coefficient (m1/2/s)

𝑣 : Kinematic viscosity of the fluid (m2/s)

𝑅𝑒∗ : Grain Reynolds number (-)

It should be noted that both Izbash and Shield equations are valid for uniform flow conditions
and not perfectly suitable to determine the stability of the bed material under jet induced loads.
Since it is likely to have higher flow velocities in case of non-uniform flow, correction factors
considering the parameters such as the influence of turbulence and slope angle are necessary to
calculate the stability of the stones.

2.5.4 Pilarczyk

In principal, Pilarczyk equation is same with the general stability equations (Izbash and
Shields); however, several coefficients have been added to take into account some extra factors
such as turbulence, angle of slope surface, vertical velocity profile and material type used for
bed protection. Different from Izbash and Shields approaches, Pilarczyk equation is also
applicable for different types of bed protection materials other than riprap. According to
(CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF, 2007), the Pilarczyk equation is defined as:

0.035 −1 𝑘𝑡2 ∙𝑉 2 (2.17)

∆∙𝐷 = ∅∙ ∙ 𝑘ℎ ∙ 𝑘𝑠𝑙
𝚿𝑐𝑟 2∙𝑔

where

𝑉 : Vertically-averaged flow velocity (m/s)

∅ : Stability parameter (-)

Ψ𝑐𝑟 : Critical Shields-parameter (-)

𝑘ℎ : Depth parameter (-)

𝑘𝑡 : Turbulence factor (-)

𝑘𝑠𝑙 : Slope parameter (-)

𝐷 : Characteristic dimension/thickness, Dn for rock (m)

∆ : Relative buoyant density (-)

𝑔 ∶ Acceleration of gravity (m/s2)

17
PIANC (2015) gives some guiding values each parameter referring to Pilarczyk (2001,2010)
and underlines the fact that the parameters included in Equation (2.17) have not been validated
yet for propulsion system induced loads.

Stability parameter ( ∅ ) changes depending on the application and placement of the protection
material:

Stability Parameter (∅)

Placement Continuous Top Layer Edges and Transitions
Riprap and placed blocks 0.75 to 1.0 1.5
Mattresses, gabions and
0.5 to 0.75 0.75 to 1.0
washed-in blocks

Similarly, critical Shields parameter (Ψ𝑐𝑟 ) considers the type of material:

Revetment Type Shields Parameter (𝚿𝒄𝒓 )

Riprap 0.035
Loose, placed blocks 0.05
Blockmats, gabions and concrete mattresses 0.07

Depth parameter, 𝑘ℎ considers the distribution of flow velocity over depth. It is used to convert
depth-averaged velocity into the flow velocity near the bottom. In case of main propellers and
thrusters, depth parameter is recommended to be neglected.

With the slope parameter, 𝑘𝑠𝑙 impact of inclination of the surface at which the revetment is
placed is taken into account as following:

sin ∝ 2 tan ∝ 2 (2.18)

𝑘𝑠𝑙 = √1 − ( ) = cos ∝ ∙ √1 − ( )
sin 𝜃 tan 𝜃

where

𝜃 : Angle of friction of the bottom protection material (degrees)

(90o for concrete mattresses, 30o- 40o for sand-filled systems and 40o for riprap)

∝ : Transverse slope of the bank

Turbulence factor, 𝑘𝑡 represents the degree of turbulence in the jet flow and is one of the most
important parameter since minimum required stone size diameter is proportional to the square
of this factor, which requires great care when deciding on the value of 𝑘𝑡 . Pilarczyk (2001),
recommends values of 𝑘𝑡 between 1.7 and 2 for the loads caused by water jets; however,

18
according to CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF (2007), it is better to estimate the turbulence factor in
connection with relative turbulence intensity, 𝑟𝑡 using the following equation:

1 + 3𝑟𝑡
𝑘𝑡 = (2.19)
1.3

In literature turbulence intensity near the bottom vary within the range of 0.25 and 0.40, which
yields turbulence factors between 1.60 and 1.70 (Blaauw and Van de Kaa (1978), Blokland and
Smedes (1996)). The corresponding values of 𝑘𝑡2 equal to 2.6 and 2.9, respectively. In Figure
2.12, comparison of results from German (Leichtweiß Institute-LWI) and Dutch (Deltares-
DHI) measurements regarding the relative turbulence intensities are given, which presents
similar values to other studies found in the literature. However, PIANC (2015) states that using
the Dutch method to calculate the near-bed velocities results in smaller values than the actual
flow velocities since the influence of the confinement of the jet due to bottom and rudder is
neglected, and recommends to use 𝑘𝑡2 =5.2 to 𝑘𝑡2 = 6 when designing the bed protection with
riprap material.

Figure 2.12 Relative turbulence intensity (PIANC, 2015)

19
3 Deterministic Design
In this chapter, the recommended PIANC (2015) guidelines are applied to deterministically
design the bed protections to avoid scour caused by ship propeller effects. Additionally,
problems and difficulties are aimed to be identified during the design procedure for a real case
study. For this purpose, an inland berthing facility located in Port of Rotterdam is selected. Port
Authority of Rotterdam recently decided to replace the existing mooring facility with a new
berthing structure that is expected to accommodate inland tankers at the case study location
shown in Figure 3.1. Drawings of the planned mooring facility are given in Appendix B.

Figure 3.1 Location of the inland mooring facility in Rotterdam Harbor (Google Earth)

Two most common berth structure types are considered for the design, namely vertical quay
wall to represent the solid berth structures and open berth structure consisted of load-bearing
slab supported by piles. Required assumptions linked to local site conditions such as hydraulic
and nautical boundary conditions and design ship characteristics are stated in relevant sections
of the design processes below. The overview of all necessary assumptions in order to design
the bed protections are outlined in chapter 3.6.

3.1 Boundary Conditions

In this section, site-specific boundary conditions and associated design parameters are presented
in detail. Related structural design drawings and values of ship characteristics used for the bed
protection design are obtained from a previous Master’s thesis (Roelse, 2014).However, it
20
should be noted that his research only took an open berth type of structure into account,
therefore, assumptions are compulsory for the structural layout of the vertical quay wall.

3.1.1 Hydraulic and Nautical Boundary Conditions

For the case study area, hydro-meteorological measurement information for a location very
close the given site is used. Low water level with 1% annual exceedance probability is assumed
to be design water level which is likely to occur 10 to 25 tides per year. According to the data
available, this level corresponds to Normal Amsterdam Water Level (N.A.P) -0.95 m (Roelse,
2014). The PIANC (2015) report does not address the effect of tidal currents on the stability of
the bed protection material and, therefore, the phase difference between tidal height and tidal
currents is ignored in this chapter, with zero tidal velocity coinciding with the minimum design
water level for the case study area. Consideration of the influence of natural currents such as
tidal currents is discussed in chapter 4.2.2.

3.1.2 Design Ship

The design of the bed protections for both types of berth structures is conducted considering an
inland vessel characterized within CEMT-Class Va, also known as Large Rhine Vessel.

Figure 3.2 Inland tanker, BIANCA II (DAMEN)

21
A typical CEMT-Class Va ship is shown in Figure 3.2 and the corresponding characteristics of
the vessel related to bed protection design are listed in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1 Technical Specifications of the design ship (Roelse, 2014)

Parameter Value
Deadweight Tonnage (DWT) 3120 tons
Water Displacement 3900 tons
Length 110 m
Beam 11.45 m
Draught 3.68 m
Height 7.86 m
Maximum Mooring Velocity 0.25 m/s
Mooring Angle 15o
Main Propeller Power 1750 (2x875) kW
Main Propellers Diameter 1.60 m
Bow Thruster Power 705 kW
Bow Thruster Diameter 1.80 m

Inland vessels are equipped with various forms of propulsion systems depending mostly on the
type of vessel and local navigational conditions. Since there is not enough detailed technical
information on the transverse thruster and main propellers for the design ship, set of
assumptions are made regarding this equipment. Both the main and transvers thrusters are
presumed to be conventional ducted propellers and the main propellers have a central rudder
configuration. In reality the ship has a pump jet where the outflow opening is located at the
bottom of the ship, but calculation of the velocity distribution according to PIANC (2015) report
guidelines for this particular type of propulsion unit requires technical dimensions such as width
and height of the opening of the pump jet which are not accessible for the given situation. As a
result, the diameter value of 1.8 m that is assigned to pump jet type of propulsion system in
Table 3.1 is not taken into account and a transverse channel system with a diameter of 1.2 m is
used in the calculations for the bed protection design. The reason behind the use of smaller
diameter size for conventional transverse channel system compared to pump jet propulsion
system is the fact that for the same power input value, pump jets have relatively larger propeller
diameters than conventional transverse channel systems in practice.

3.1.3 Bed Material

Bed material composition plays a significant role in the determination of scour depth due to
propeller jet loadings. Even though the approach in this report is in favor of protecting the bed
with riprap material rather than allowing scour development, it can be useful to have an idea
about the bed material for determination of the potential scour. According to previous master’s
22
thesis (Roelse,2014), the bottom consists of an upper layer of clay with the thickness
approximately 10 m and underlying sand in the berthing location. The critical velocity for the
clay material is given as 0.5 m/s.

3.2 Design Procedure

PIANC (2015) basically describes two different approaches for the design of berth structures
regarding the effects of loadings due to thrusters: Either protecting the bottom in front of the
structure placing bottom protections or allowing the scour to occur by considering this effect in
the structural design of the berth structures. In this master’s thesis, the first approach is adopted
and the bed protection design is provided in the following sub-sections accordingly.

The design procedure for the deterministic approach is outlined in the report and shown in
Figure 3.3. Firstly, efflux velocity is calculated based on installed power and geometrical
dimensions of berthing area and velocity distribution according to German and Dutch methods
are obtained. Afterwards, the local velocity on a slope or at the bottom in front of a vertical
quay wall is determined. Next, the stone size required to resist the loadings due to propellers is
computed for riprap type of protection. Finally, the extent of the bed protection is determined.

Extent of
Ship Characteristics Outflow Velocity Local Flow Velocity Protection
Protection

Figure 3.3 Deterministic design procedure as stated in PIANC (2015) report for bed protection using
rock

It should be highlighted that in deterministic design steps, only forces caused by ship’s
propulsion systems are taken into account and the effects of additional currents such as tidal
current is ignored. Another crucial point to consider is that PIANC (2015) stresses the
importance of adopting one approach, either German or Dutch, and following the corresponding
guidelines for each approach without switching between methods for calculation of different
parameters in order to avoid an improper result, that is why bed protection designs for each
method are outlined separately in this study.

3.2.1 Bed Protection Design for Open Berth Structure

In this section, bed protection for the open berth structure consisting of supporting piles, deck
and fender system is investigated. The simplified structural layout is given in Figure 3.4.
According to the proposed design, the slope subjected to propeller activity has an inclination of

23
1:3 and the fender width is 60 cm. As shown in the plan view of the berthing structure (Figure
3.5), the propeller jet is directed on the slope and the influence of the mooring piles in local
velocity calculations is assumed to be negligible.

Figure 3.4 Cross sectional view of the open berth structure (M.H.W, M.L.W and D.W.L. stand for mean
high water level, mean low water and design water level, respectively)

Figure 3.5 Simplified plan view of the open berth structure with the location of mooring piles and bow
thruster

3.2.1.1 Calculation of Efflux Velocity

For the estimation of the efflux velocities in the transverse thruster and main propeller jets, two
equations based upon the same logic are used. PIANC (2015) report recommends to calculate
the efflux velocities using 100 % and 50 % of the installed engine powers for bow thrusters and
main propellers, respectively for large inland vessels (new type of vessels with length of 110 m
or larger) during berthing and unberthing procedures. The velocities calculated in this section
are based on the presumption that the ship is in stationary position at berth structures.

Efflux velocity for each main propeller

Blaauw and Van de Kaa (1978) derived the following equation to predict the efflux velocities
induced by propellers:

0,33
𝑓𝑃 ∙ 𝑃𝐷 (3.1)
𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 𝐶3 ( 2)
𝜌𝑤 ∙ 𝐷𝑝

24
where

𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 : Efflux velocity in main propeller jet (m/s)

𝑓𝑃 : Percentage of installed power used (-) = 50 %

𝐶3 : Coefficient = 1.17 for ducted propellers and 1.48 for free propellers

𝑃𝐷 : Installed thruster power (kW) = 875 kW

𝐷𝑝 : Main propeller diameter (m) = 1.6 m

For the given design ship characteristics, Equation (3.1) results in 𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 =6.33 m/s.

Efflux velocity for the bow thruster

As far as the bow thrusters are concerned, simplified version of the equation recommended to
calculate propeller efflux velocities is used in practice as follows:

0,33
𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑉0,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 1.15 ( ) (3.2)
𝜌𝑤 ∙ 𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 2

where

𝑉0,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 : Efflux velocity in thruster jet (m/s)

𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 : Installed thruster power (kW) = 705 kW

𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 : Bow thruster diameter (m) = 1.2 m

𝜌𝑤 : Density of water = 1025 kg/m3

As a result, 𝑉0,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 =8.81 m/s.

3.2.1.2 Bed Protection According to German Method

In order to calculate the velocity on the slope caused by bow thruster and main propellers,
German method is applied to given study location and the results are presented in this section.
Assumptions associated with the lack of information on propulsion systems and surrounding
environment are also stated to be investigated later.

25
Velocity on the slope due to bow thruster

Bow thruster is assumed to be located 0.4 m from the keel of the ship and, therefore, the distance
between the keel of the ship and the axis of the propeller is 1 m. Given the draught, water depth
and position of the bow thruster, the horizontal distance along the jet axis between the outflow
opening of the bow thruster and slope is approximately equal to 12 m.

PIANC (2015) refers to research by Fuehrer, Römish and Engelke (1981) and Schmidt (1998)
for estimating the jet velocities on the slope. This effort was followed by Schokking (2002) and
Römish (2006) and the following equations were derived for a slope of 1/3:

𝑥
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝑉𝑜,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟 <1 (3.3)
𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑥 −0.33 𝑥
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 1.0 ∙ 𝑉𝑜,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 ( ) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 1 < < 5.375 (3.4)
𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑥 −0.825 𝑥
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 2.3 ∙ 𝑉𝑜,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 ( ) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 > 5.375 (3.5)
𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟

where

𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 : Velocity on the slope due to bow thruster (m/s)

x: Horizontal distance between the outflow opening of the bow thruster and slope (m) = 12 m

According to Equation (3.5), 𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 =3.03 m/s

It is crucial to realize that the above-mentioned equations are derived only for a slope of 1/3
and there is no explanation given in the PIANC (2015) report about the applicability of this
method for slopes with different inclinations.

Velocity at the bottom due to main propellers

The configuration of the main propulsion system consisting of two separate propellers is
unknown and hence the assumptions are necessary. The margin between the outer surface of
the main propellers and keel of the ship is taken as 0.5 m and the main propeller is assumed to
be positioned 5 m away from the stern of the ship. The distance between the two propellers and
corresponding distances between propeller axis and the bed are shown in Figure 3.6 for each
propeller, namely a and b.

26
Figure 3.6 Main propellers of the ship and the distance between propeller axis and bed (Points I, II and
III show the axes along which the local velocities caused by each propeller at different points are
determined)

In case of flow fields caused by two propellers, PIANC (2015) guidelines recommend to apply
linear superposition of the flow velocities caused by each propeller separately and provides
several simple equations in case of two propeller jets such as assumption of quadratic
superposition, however these approaches are only applicable with plane bed situations. Since
slope exists at the given case study location, flow velocities for each propeller jet is calculated
separately and summed up at different points along axes I,II and III (see Figure 3.6) to determine
the point subject to maximum velocity due to main propellers on the slope. For this purpose, 50
different points lying along each axis with 2 meters interval are chosen and the position with
the maximum velocity is determined. In Figure 3.7 the layout of the points along the axes and
distance between them are illustrated.

27
 Figure 3.7 Layout of the points along the axis I, II and III behind propellers a and b

The equations to estimate the flow velocity along the axis depending on the region of flow
development and jet propagation are based on research done by Fuehrer, Römish and Engelke
(1981) and read:

𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 in the zone of flow establishment (3.6)

𝑥
≤ 2.6
𝐷𝑝

−1
𝑥 (3.7)
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 2.6 ∙ 𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 ∙ (𝐷 ) in the zone of free jet propagation
𝑝
𝑥 𝑥𝑔𝑟
2.6 < 𝐷 ≤
𝑝 𝐷𝑝

−𝑎
𝑥 (3.8)
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 𝐴 ∙ 𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 ∙ (𝐷 ) in the zone of restricted jet propagation
𝑝
𝑥 𝑥𝑔𝑟
>
𝐷𝑝 𝐷𝑝

28
The flow distribution in the flow jet can be estimated as follows:

−22.2𝑟 2 (3.9)
𝑉𝑥,𝑟 = 𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 ∙ 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( )
𝑥2

where

𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 : Main velocity along the axis of the jet due to main propeller (m/s)

𝑉𝑥,𝑟 : Velocity at location x, r (m/s)

𝑥 : Distance from the plane of the propeller (m)

𝑥𝑔𝑟 : Distance beyond which the dispersion of the jet is obstructed (m)

r: Radial distance to the propeller axis (m)

with 𝐴 = 1.88 ∙ 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−0.061(ℎ𝑝 /𝐷𝑝 )) with a central rudder (3.10)

with 𝐴 = 1.88 ∙ 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−0.092(ℎ/𝐷𝑝 )) without a central rudder (3.11)

and

A=0.9 for twin screw

a=0.6 for influence of bottom and water surface only

a=0.3 for extra influence from lateral quay wall

a=0.25 for twin screw

A=1.47 for propeller a and A=1.56 for propeller b.

PIANC (2015) refers to BAW (2005) for determination of the axis velocity but it does not
provide a method to distinguish the zone of free jet propagation from the zone of restricted jet
propagation. To overcome this issue, the following equation taken from BAW (2010) can be
used to predict the distance, 𝑥𝑔𝑟 :

1
𝑥𝑔𝑟 𝐴 (𝑎−1) (3.12)
=( )
𝐷𝑝 2.6

Equation (3.12) results in 𝑥𝑔𝑟 = 6.66 m and 𝑥𝑔𝑟 = 5.74 m for propeller a and b, respectively.

29
Radial distance between the propellers and the points along the axes can be derived based on
the geometry given in Figure 3.6 as follows:

𝑟𝑎 = ℎ𝑝,𝑎 = 6.48 𝑚 with respect to axis I (3.13)

𝑟𝑏 = √ℎ𝑝,𝑎 2 + 𝑦𝑝 2 = 7.89 𝑚 with respect to axis I (3.14)

2 2
1 1
𝑟𝑎 = 𝑟𝑏 = √(2 ∙ (ℎ𝑝,𝑏 + ℎ𝑝,𝑎 )) + (2 ∙ 𝑦𝑝 ) = 6.09 𝑚 with respect to axis II (3.15)

𝑟𝑎 = √ℎ𝑝,𝑏 2 + 𝑦𝑝 2 = 6.61 𝑚 with respect to axis III (3.16)

𝑟𝑏 = ℎ𝑝,𝑏 = 4.84 𝑚 with respect to axis III (3.17)

where

𝑟𝑎 : Radial distance to the propeller a axis (m)

𝑟𝑏 : Radial distance to the propeller b axis (m)

𝑦𝑝 : Distance between main propellers’ shafts (m)

Local flow velocities due to each propeller and the total velocity obtained by linear
superposition of the velocities caused by propeller a and b at 50 different points along axes I, II
and III are given in Appendix A.1. It is observed that the total velocity initially increases and
starts to decrease beyond the point where the maximum velocity is reached. The maximum
velocities along the axes and the corresponding values for the main parameters are summarized
in the table below.

Table 3.2 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity is
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along
axes I, II and III according to German method.

Axis I Axis II Axis III

Propeller a b a b a b
x (m) 62 52 48
r (m) 6.48 7.89 6.09 6.09 6.61 4.84
Vaxis,propeller (m/s) 1.04 1.10 1.15 1.22 1.21 1.28
Vx,r (m/s) 0.81 0.77 0.85 0.90 0.79 1.02
Vb,max (m/s) 1.58 1.75 1.81

30
As a result, considering the approach of superposition of the two propeller jets based on the
method explained above, the maximum velocity caused by the propellers on the slope behind
the propellers,𝑉𝑏,𝑚𝑎𝑥 is found as 1.81 m/s.

Rock size for the bed protection

Since the velocity on the slope caused by the bow thruster is higher than that of the main
propellers, bow thruster effect is dominating for the determination of the required rock size for
the protection. The German stability approach has a basic equation as follows:

𝑉𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 = 𝐵𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 ∙ √𝐷85 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ ∆ (3.18)

where

𝑉𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 : Critical flow velocity (m/s) = 3.03 m/s

𝐵𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 : Critical stability coefficient of the bed material (-)

𝐷85 : Diameter bed material; 85 % passing stone diameter (m)

g : Acceleration of gravity (m/s2) = 9.81 m/s2

∆ : Relative buoyant density (𝜌𝑠 − 𝜌𝑤 )/𝜌𝑤 = 1.59 for 𝜌𝑠 = 2650 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚3

with Bcrit=0.9 for the situation without the rudder and lateral limitation of the jet (Fuhrer et al.,
1977). This yields a minimum required stone size of D85=0.73 m.

3.2.1.3 Bed Protection According to Dutch Method

The same procedure as the German method is applied to determine the maximum velocities
caused by the main propellers and bow thrusters according to Dutch method.

Velocity on the slope due to bow thruster

The Dutch method is mainly based on research by Blaauw and Van de Kaa (1997), Verheij
(1983) and Blokland (1997) that provide specific values for coefficients included in Albertson
et al. (1948) formulae derived to describe the flow distribution in propellers. Substituting 𝐶2 =
0.18 and A=2.8 in Equation (2.11), flow velocity distribution induced by the bow thruster
according to Dutch method is defined as follows:

𝐷𝑝 𝑟2 (3.19)
𝑉𝑥,𝑟 = 2.8 ∙ ( ) ∙ 𝑉𝑜,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∙ 𝑒𝑥𝑝 (−15.4 ∙ 2 ) ∙ 𝑓
𝑥 𝑥

31
in which

𝑉𝑥,𝑟 : Flow velocity at location x, r (m/s)

𝑥 : Distance to the propeller (m)

𝑟 : Radial distance to the propeller axis (m)

𝑓 : Correction factor for the influence of the confinement of the jet by the slope surface (and by
jetty piles if present)

The x coordinate of the location of the maximum velocity for a free extending propeller jet on
the slope, Xv,max can be derived from the equation obtained on the basis of research conducted
by Van Dorn (2012):

𝑋𝑣,𝑚𝑎𝑥 2 (3.20)
= 𝐾 ∙ (√1 + − 1)
𝐿 𝐾

𝑏
with 𝐾 = 𝑎∙(cot 𝛼)2 and 𝛼 being the slope angle

a=1 and b=15.4 (according to Dutch formulae)

For the given values, K is found as 1.71 and hence leads Xv,max= 9.70 m and r= 0.76 m

According to Equation (3.19), this results in 𝑉𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2.77 m/s (see Figure 3.8).

The correction factor, f considering the effects of confinement of the jet is neglected because
of the fact that the constants are obtained from a limited number of model tests and have not
been validated yet.

Figure 3.8 Bow thruster jet above a slope (PIANC, 2015)

32
Velocity at the bottom due to main propeller

Flow velocity along the axis and flow distribution for ducted propellers can be estimated as
follows:

𝐷𝑝 (3.21)
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 2.8 ∙ 𝑉𝑜,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 ∙
𝑥
2
−15.4𝑟 (3.22)
𝑉𝑥,𝑟 = 𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 ∙ 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( )
𝑥2

Local flow velocities due to each propeller and the total velocity obtained by linear
superposition of the velocities caused by propeller a and b at 50 different points along axes I, II
and III are given in Appendix A.1. The maximum velocities along the axes and the
corresponding values for the main parameters are summarized in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity is
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along
axes I, II and III according to Dutch method.

Axis I Axis II Axis III

Propeller a b a b a b
x (m) 40 34 32
r (m) 6.48 7.89 6.09 6.09 6.61 4.84
Vaxis,propeller (m/s) 0.71 0.71 0.83 0.83 0.89 0.89
Vx,r (m/s) 0.47 0.39 0.51 0.51 0.46 0.62
Vb,max (m/s) 0.86 1.02 1.08

Consequently, the maximum velocity caused by the propellers on the slope,𝑉𝑏,𝑚𝑎𝑥 was found
as 1.08 m/s.

Rock size for the bed protection

As in the German method, Dutch approach also resulted that loadings due to the bow thruster
is the dominating factor in the determination of the rock size to protect the bottom. Dutch
methods use two general stability equations for the determination of the required stone size of
the riprap bed protection. The first formula derived by Izbash can be expressed as follows:

2
1 𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 (3.23)
∆ ∙ 𝐷50 = 2 ∙
𝐵𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡,𝑖𝑧 2 ∙ 𝑔

where

𝐷50 : Diameter bed material; 50 % passing stone diameter (m)

33
 1
𝐵𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡,𝑖𝑧 : Coefficient (For standard situations 2 =3)
𝐵𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡,𝑖𝑧

𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 : Flow velocity near the bed (m/s) = 2.77 m/s

Equation (3.23) yields 𝑫𝟓𝟎 = 0.74 m.

Pilarczyk formula is the equation equal to Izbash formula but takes more factors into account
such as turbulence, slope angle, vertical velocity profile and geometrical characteristics. The
Pilarczyk equation reads:

0.035 −1 𝑘𝑡2 ∙𝑉 2
∆∙𝐷 =∅∙ ∙ 𝑘ℎ ∙ 𝑘𝑠𝑙 (2.17)
𝚿𝑐𝑟 2∙𝑔

where

𝑉 : Vertically-averaged flow velocity (m/s) = 2.77 m/s

∅ : Stability parameter (-) for riprap continuous top layer ∅ = 1

Ψ𝑐𝑟 : Critical Shields-parameter (-) for riprap Ψ𝑐𝑟 =0.035

𝑘ℎ : Depth parameter (-) for very rough flow 𝑘ℎ =1

𝑘𝑡 : Turbulence factor (-) for load due to water jet 𝑘𝑡2 =5.6 (range is between 5.2 and 6)

sin∝ 2
𝑘𝑠𝑙 : Slope parameter (-) = √1 − (sin 𝜃) =0.99

with 𝜃: angle of friction of the bottom protection material=40o for riprap

Given the geometrical properties and values for parameters, using Equation (2.17), D=Dn50 is
calculated as 1.39 m. For the rock protection Dn50≅ 0.84D50 and hence D50=1.66 m

3.2.2 Bed Protection Design for Solid Berth Structure

In this section design of bed protection in front of the solid berth structure consisting of
constructed vertical wall in order to resist the horizontal load from the fill placed behind and
live loads due to activities on apron is conducted. The structural layout of the berthing structures
is presented in Figure 3.9.
The vertical quay wall is placed at the same location with the piles as in the case of open berth
structure that is considered in chapter 3.2.1. Potential effects of the wall properties such surface
roughness of the wall on the velocity distribution in front of the vertical wall are not taken into

34
account because of the fact that related equations for the estimation of the velocities do not
include parameters to consider the wall friction influence.

Figure 3.9 Cross sectional view of the closed berth structure (M.H.W, M.L.W and D.W.L. stand for
mean high water level, mean low water and design water level, respectively)

3.2.2.1 Calculation of Efflux Velocity

Since the same ship characteristics and fender width apply for vertical quay wall structure, the
efflux velocities estimated using in section 3.2.1.1 for open berth structure do not change and
are valid also for the planned solid berth structure. Therefore, the outflow velocities exerted by
the bow thruster and single main propeller are 8.81 m/s and 6.33 m/s, respectively.

3.2.2.2 Bed Protection According to German Method

Velocity at the bottom in front of the vertical quay wall due to bow thruster

The German method for the calculation of the velocity distribution near vertical quay wall are
based on the studies by Fuehrer, Römish and Engelke (1981) and Schmidt (1998) as described
in PIANC (2015) report.

Flow velocity along the axis of the jet induced by the bow thruster, 𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 is given by:

𝑥
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝑉𝑜,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟 < 1.9 (3.24)
𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑥 −1 𝑥
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 1.9 ∙ 𝑉0,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∙ ( ) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ≥ 1.9 (3.25)
𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟

The maximum velocity at the bed in front of the wall, 𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 can be estimated as
follows:

𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐿 −1
=∝𝐿 ∙ 1.9 ∙ (𝐷 ) (3.26)
𝑉0,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟

35
where 𝐿 is the distance between outflow opening and quay wall and equals to 0.6 m.

The value of ∝𝐿 can be read from Figure 3.10. With hp,b being the distance between the propeller
axis and bottom, and Db is the diameter of the propeller. Following the design ship
characteristics and assuming the ship has almost a typical rectangular shape, the distance L
equals to the width of the fender system fixed on the wall. This results in L/Db ratio smaller
than 3 and hence Figure 3.10 is not applicable for the given situation. As a result, the maximum
velocity at the bottom is assumed to be same with 𝑉0,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 for rock size determinations at this
initial deterministic design stage.

Figure 3.10 Factor ∝𝐿 as a function of the wall and bottom distance (PIANC, 2015)

Rock size for the bed protection

Substituting the corresponding values into Equation (3.18), the minimum required stone size to
resist the load due to bow thruster jet is found to be D85=6.14 m. The size of the rock is
obviously unrealistic and not practical for the bed protection. In reality, a designer should apply
another type of protection method such as grouted rocks. However, rock size for riprap type of
protection is used for comparison purposes in this study. This unrealistic situation is caused
from the inapplicability of the German method to determine the flow velocities in front of the
quay wall when the distance between the bow thruster outflow of the bow thruster and the
berthing structure is limited.

36
3.2.2.3 Bed Protection According to Dutch Method
Velocity at the bottom in front of the vertical quay wall due to bow thruster

The Dutch method is compiled from the studies done by Blaauw and Van de Kaa (1978),
Verheij (1983), Blokland and Smedes (1996) and Blokland (1997). The equation to calculate
the maximum velocity caused by bow thruster jet at the bottom reads:

𝐷
𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.0 ∙ 𝑉0 ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 for L/hthruster < 1.8 (3.27)
𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2.8 ∙ 𝑉0 ℎ for L/hthruster ≥ 1.8 (3.28)
𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 +𝐿

with ℎ𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 being the distance between bow thruster propeller axis and the bottom, and
equals to 3.18 m. In accordance with Equation (3.27), 𝑽𝒃𝒐𝒕𝒕𝒐𝒎,𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 3.32 m/s

Rock size for the bed protection

The recommended rock sizes can be estimated using both Izbash and Pilarczyk equations as in
chapter 3.2.1.3. Izbash formula results in 𝑫𝟓𝟎 = 1.06 m while the latter requires D50=2.38 m as
a minimum rock diameter for the bed protection.

3.3 Overview of the Required Stone Sizes

The results regarding the minimum stone size requirements and local flow velocities for bed
protection based on different approaches are summarized in the table given below.

Table 3.4 Stone size requirements and local flow velocities based on German and Dutch methods

Open Berth Structure Solid Berth Structure

Method German Dutch German Dutch
Local flow velocity 3.03 m/s 2.77 m/s 8.81 m/s 3.32 m/s
Rock size (German) D85=0.73 m - D85=6.14 m -
Rock size (Izbash) - D50=0.74 m - D50=1.06 m
Rock size (Pilarczyk) - D50=1.66 m - D50=2.38 m

As shown in Table 3.4, required stone size varies considerably depending on the type of berth
structure and method and equations applied, which potentially creates confusion for designers.
The reason for differences between German and Dutch methods is that German method is based
on research investigating all aspects considered in bed protection design from outflow velocities
to rock size whereas Dutch method focuses on the prediction of the required stone size (PIANC,
2015). Furthermore, the stability equations provided in the guidelines were not originally
derived and validated for propeller jets, and modified using coefficients obtained from

37
empirical studies in order to make them applicable also for determination of the stability of the
bed protection in case of propeller induced flow. Each method and equation recommends
different values for coefficients to take into account various parameters initially not included in
normal flow conditions such as turbulence, which yields variations in required stone size for
the bed protection. PIANC (2015) report does not explicitly distinguish any formula from others
and leaves method choice to designers.

3.4 Extent of Protection

The extent of the protection mainly depends on the influence area of the propulsion systems
and the width of the soil volume in front of the quay wall required to ensure the geotechnical
stability of the quay wall.

The PIANC (2015) report recommends equations to determine the extent of scour protection in
front of the vertical quay wall caused by transverse thruster and main propeller jets referring to
Dutch and German methods. As far as the extent of the protection for open berth structure is
concerned, the PIANC guidelines do not provide any specific recommendations. Because of
this, it is planned to place the protection up to the level around the mean water level.

Figure 3.11 Extent of the scour protection (PIANC, 2015)

Scour protection width according to Dutch method

The width of the bed protection, bprotection, to resist main propeller jets can be approximated
using the equation recommended by Deltares as follows:

bprotection= bquay + 0.5Bs + 0.5Spropeller + 0.5Dp + 5 m (3.29)

where

bquay : Distance between ship and quay wall (m)= fender thickness=0.6 m

38
Bs : ship’s width (m)=11.45 m

Spropeller : distance between main propeller shafts (m)= 4.5 m

Dp : propeller diameter (m) = 1.6 m

Illustration of the parameters is provided in Figure 3.12. For the given case study location, this
results in bprotection= 14.38 m.

Figure 3.12 Width of scour protection (PIANC, 2015)

Scour protection width according to German method

German code (BAW, 2005) also offers equations to estimate the required width of scour
protection due to the main propeller. For vessels equipped with twin screw, the equation reads:

bprotection= 2 ∙ (3 𝑡𝑜 4) ∙ 𝐷𝑝 + (3 𝑡𝑜 5) (m) (3.30)

Substituting the propeller diameter and using the average values of the constants given within
the parentheses in Equation (3.30), bprotection= 15.20 m is obtained.

Scour protection length along the quay wall

Determination of the minimum required length of the scour protection along the quay wall is
presented in the PIANC (2015) report by referring the BAW (2005) code. Length for each
parameter presented in Figure 3.11 is estimated as follows:

Lmain= (6 𝑡𝑜 8) ∙ 𝐷𝑝 + (3 𝑡𝑜 5) (m) (3.31)

Lmain,2= 3 ∙ 𝐷𝑝 + (3 𝑡𝑜 5) (m) (3.32)

39
 Lthruster= (3 𝑡𝑜 4) ∙ 𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 + (3 𝑡𝑜 5) (m) (3.33)

Use of average values for constants in Equations (3.31, 3.32 and 3.33) yields Lmain= 15.20 m,
Lmain,2= 8.80 m and Lthruster= 8.20 m.

Distance corresponding to Lz can be calculated using the equation below:

Lz=Loverall - Lstern – Lbow - Lmain,2 - Lthruster (3.34)

where

Loverall : Ship length (m)= 110 m

Lstern : Position of main propeller relative to the stern of the ship (m) =5 m

Lbow : Position of the thruster relative to bow of the ship (m)= 10 m

According to Equation (3.34), Lz= 78.00 m. Finally, total length to be protected, Ltotal, is
determined by summing the values of Lmain, Lmain,2, Lz and 2Lthruster. This results in Ltotal=118.40
m. This value only shows the length to be protected along the quay wall for a single inland
vessel; however, in case of multiple vessels moored along the quay wall, estimation of the bed
protection length might require different approach from the one explained in the guidelines. In
addition, if the length of the quay wall is longer than Ltotal, bed protection with different rock
size can be applied for the zones lying outside Ltotal but there is no statement regarding this issue
in the PIANC (2015) report, therefore it has not been considered under the scope of this thesis.

3.5 Overview of the Assumptions

Deterministic design for the bed protection explained above is based on a set of assumptions
which have been listed below under relevant groups:

Assumptions related to design ship

 The main propulsion system is equipped with ducted propellers.

 Main propellers have central rudder configuration.

 Bow thruster axis is positioned 1 m from the keel of the ship and 10 m from the bow of
the ship (See Figure 3.5).

40
  Clearance between the axes of the main propellers and the keel of the ship is 0.5 m and
the propellers are positioned 5 m from the stern of the ship. The distance between the
propellers’ axes is 4.5 m (See Figure 3.6).

Assumptions related to berth structures and surrounding environment

 The phase difference between horizontal and vertical tide is negligible, with zero tidal
velocity for the minimum design water level. In other words, the effect of tidal currents
is not considered.

 Potential effects of the wall properties such as surface roughness of the wall on the
velocity distribution in front of the vertical wall are not taken into account.

Assumptions related to design methodology and equations

 The propeller jet due to bow thruster is directed on the slope and the effects of
confinement of the jet by the slope surface or mooring piles in local velocity
determinations are not considered.

 The efflux velocities due to propulsion systems are obtained for the case where the ship
is in stationary position at berth structures.

 Turbulence factor for load due to the water jet, 𝑘𝑡2 =5.6 is taken in Equation (2.17).

 Maximum velocity at the bottom in front of the closed berth structure is assumed to be
same with the efflux velocity exerted by bow thruster because Figure 3.10 is not
applicable for the given case study conditions when using the German method.

 Average values of the constants given in the Equations (3.30-3.33) are used to estimate
the extent of the required bed protection.

Unless otherwise stated any other data used in the above computations has been obtained from
sources mentioned in relevant chapters.

41
4 Importance of the Identified Problems
In deterministic design of the bed protection in front of the berth structures, group of
assumptions were made because of the lack of information on various parameters and some
specifications of the design ship in addition to shortcomings and limitations of the methods and
equations in several cases such as confinement of the jet by slope surface and consideration of
ship speed through water. It is significant to evaluate those assumptions to understand the
importance of the identified problems and hence the overall applicability of the guidelines
recommended by the PIANC (2015) report for bed protection design. To that end, each
assumption was analyzed separately and acquired results corresponding to different situations
were compared with the initial deterministic design calculations for the case study location
under pertinent headings in this chapter. Moreover, possible solutions to deal with some of the
problems are described.

4.1 Assumptions Related to the Design Ship

Assumptions linked to the design ship include type of propeller used for the main propulsion
system, rudder configuration of the main propellers and location of the bow thruster and main
propellers with respect to keel, bow and stern of the ship.

4.1.1 Type of Propeller for the Main Propulsion System

In deterministic design, it was assumed that the main propulsion system consisted of ducted
propellers. However, it is also possible that the ship is equipped with non-ducted propellers
although they are rarely used for inland vessels. Calculations were repeated for the case of non-
ducted propellers and compared with the initial situation where ducted propellers exist. Use of
non-ducted propellers changes the efflux velocity and hence the maximum local velocities on
the slope due to propeller jet will be different from the initial case. Variation in efflux velocity
in the main propeller jet and local flow velocities on the slope would be obtained as follows:

0,33
𝑓 ∙𝑃
𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 𝐶3 (𝜌 𝑃∙𝐷 𝐷2 ) (3.1)
𝑤 𝑝

where

𝐶3 : Coefficient = 1.48 for free propellers

As a result, 𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 is equal to 8.01 m/s. This indicates 27 % increase in the efflux velocity
compared to the case with ducted propellers. It is important to highlight that the result for non-

42
ducted propeller was obtained assuming the same propeller diameter with ducted propellers
since the main purpose is to determine the influence of type of propeller only, but in order to
reach the same thrust power in propulsion systems diameter of free propellers are often larger
than that of the ducted propellers in practice.

Velocities on the slope induced by each propeller and the total flow velocity on the slope were
computed both for German and Dutch methods by adopting the linear superposition approach.

Maximum local flow velocity on the slope according to German method

The methodology followed in chapter 3.2.1.2 was applied considering the change in efflux
velocity and the results for points along each axis corresponding to maximum flow velocities
are listed in Table 4.1 (numbers within the parentheses illustrate the changes in the flow velocity
on the slope due to change of propeller type). The complete tables containing values for all
points are attached to the Appendix A.2.

Table 4.1 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity was
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along axes
I, II and III according to German method in case of non-ducted propellers

Axis I Axis II Axis III

Propeller a b a b a b
x (m) 62 52 48
r (m) 6.48 7.89 6.09 6.09 6.61 4.84
Vaxis,propeller 1.31 1.39 1.46 1.55 1.53 1.62
(m/s)
Vx,r (m/s) 1.03 0.97 1.08 1.14 1.00 1.30
Vb,max (m/s) 2.00 (+27 %) 2.22 (+27 %) 2.30 (+27 %)

Even though there is an increase in velocity caused by main propellers, the velocity due to the
bow thruster on the slope is still dominating, hence the bed protection design is not affected due
to this assumption.

Maximum local flow velocity on the slope according to Dutch method

Dutch method requires to use Equation (3.21) with a different coefficient for non-ducted
propellers as follows:

𝐷𝑝 (4.1)
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 = 𝟏. 𝟗𝟓 ∙ 𝑉𝑜,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 ∙
𝑥

43
The maximum local flow velocities along each axis were calculated following the same
procedure described in chapter 3.2.1.3 and the results are summarized in Table 4.2. The tables
including values for all points are given in Appendix A.2.

Table 4.2 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity was
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along axes
I, II and III according to Dutch method in case of non-ducted propellers

Axis I Axis II Axis III

Propeller a b a b a b
x (m) 40 34 32
r (m) 6.48 7.89 6.09 6.09 6.61 4.84
Vaxis,propeller 0.62 0.62 0.74 0.74 0.78 0.78
(m/s)
Vx,r (m/s) 0.42 0.34 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.55
Vb,max (m/s) 0.76 (-12 %) 0.90 (-12 %) 0.95 (-12 %)

The maximum flow velocity decreased further by 12 % due to the use of non-ducted propeller,
which does not yield a more critical scenario in the final design of the bed protection for the
berth structures.

4.1.2 Type of Rudder Configuration

The design ship was presumed to have a central rudder configuration in the deterministic design
phase. However, inland ships might be equipped with various rudder configurations depending
on the navigational environment and desired performance. The influence of the central rudder
can be analyzed with the German method ignoring the central rudder. Unlike German method,
the Dutch method does not make allowance for potential effects of a rudder on distribution in
the jet due to main propellers. The influence of central rudder is taken into account in Equation
3.8 for the zone of restricted jet propagation, while for the zones of flow establishment and free
jet propagation, the impact of the rudder is not considered.
−𝑎
𝑥
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 𝐴 ∙ 𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 ∙ (𝐷 ) (3.8)
𝑝

with 𝐴 = 1.88 ∙ 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−0.092(ℎ/𝐷𝑝 )) without a central rudder (3.11)

where

h: water depth = hp +2.21 (m)

44
According to Equation (3.11), A=1.14 for propeller a and A=1.25 for propeller b. Conducting
the calculations as in Chapter 3.2.1.2, maximum flow velocities on the slope due to main
propellers along with the change in percentage in comparison with the initial case are given in
the table below. Tables illustrating values for all points along each axis can be found in
Appendix A.2.

Table 4.3 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity was
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along axes
I, II and III according to German method in case without a central rudder

Axis I Axis II Axis III

Propeller a b a b a b
x (m) 62 52 48
r (m) 6.48 7.89 6.09 6.09 6.61 4.84
Vaxis,propeller 0.80 0.88 0.89 0.98 0.94 1.03
(m/s)
Vx,r (m/s) 0.63 0.62 0.66 0.72 0.62 0.82
Vb,max (m/s) 1.25 (-21%) 1.38 (-21%) 1.44 (-21%)

Assumption of no central rudder resulted in a decrease by 21 % in maximum flow velocities on

the slope. As a result, flow velocities induced by the bow thruster are still governing factor in
the determination of the rock size required for the bed protection.

4.1.3 Position of the Bow Thruster

Position of the bow thruster with respect to the bow of the ship is an important dimension once
the open berth structure with piles is the preferred type of structure. Initial deterministic design
assumed that the bow thruster flow is directed to zones lying between the piles and hence
potential impacts due to piles on flow velocity were not counted. Depending on the position of
the bow thruster and maneuvering of the ship, the possibility of the bow thruster flow being
perpendicular to the piles may have to be taken into consideration. In that case, the mooring
pile (see Figure 3.5) would behave as a quay wall and critical flow velocities regarding the
minimum required stone size for the riprap protection around the piles can be estimated using
the equations derived for closed berthing structures. Table 4.4 compares both situations and
presents the results derived from German and Dutch methods. It was observed that taking flow
perpendicular to the jetty piles in consideration caused a significant rise in the local flow
velocities on the slope in particular when the design was carried out according to German
approach.

45
Table 4.4 Maximum local flow velocities on the slope under the open berth structure depending on the
direction of the bow thruster jet

Flow between the piles Flow perpendicular to the piles

Method German Dutch German Dutch
Local flow velocity (m/s) 3.03 2.77 8.81 (190 %) 3.32 (20 %)

The vertical position of the bow thruster with respect to the keel of the ship was one of the
required assumptions due to lack of necessary information about the design ship. At the initial
design case, the distance between the keel of the ship and the outer perimeter of the bow thruster
was taken as 0.4 m and hence hthruster was 3.18 m. To inspect the significance of the vertical
position of the bow thruster, it was shifted 0.25 m in the upward direction such that hthruster
became equal to 3.43 m. The maximum flow velocities corresponding to the new position of
the thruster in front of both open and closed type of structures were calculated according to
German and Dutch methods. The results were then compared with those obtained assuming the
initial position of the bow thruster and findings are shown in Table 4.5 below.

Table 4.5 Maximum local flow velocities near the open and solid type of berth structures induced by
bow thruster for different htruster (distance between bed and the bow thruster axis) values

Open Berth Structure Solid Berth Structure

Method German Dutch German Dutch
Local flow velocity for 3.03 2.77 8.81 3.32
htruster=3.18 m (m/s)
Local flow velocity for 2.88 (-5 %) 2.61 (-6 %) 8.81 (0 %) 3.08 (-7 %)
htruster=3.28 m (m/s)

Despite 63 % increase in bow thruster clearance from the keel of the ship, it was observed that
the maximum local flow velocities did not decrease more than 7 %, which shows the bed
protection design is not very sensitive to this dimension.

4.1.4 Position of the Main Propellers

The assumed distances between the main propellers and keel and stern of the design ship are
typical values for an inland tanker within its class and might slightly differ in parallel with the
geometry of the ship. In order to understand the importance of the space between the main
propellers and the keel of the ship, both propellers were shifted 0.25 m downwards compared
to initial design case in which this distance was taken as 0.5 m. As a result of this modification,
corresponding distances between the propeller axes and the bed, hp,a and hp,b decreased to 6.23
m and 4.59 m for propeller a and b, respectively. Considering the new dimensions and the same
approach adopted in chapter 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.1.3, flow velocities created by each propeller and

46
the superposition of the local flow velocities behind the propellers along the axes I, II and III
were recomputed and summary of the results is provided in tables 4.6 and 4.7 for German and
Dutch methods, respectively. Variations in maximum flow velocities at the bed in comparison
with those obtained at initial design case are also given within the parenthesis. Furthermore,
Appendix A.2 consists of tables containing velocity values for all points along all three axes.

Table 4.6 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity was
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along axes
I, II and III according to German method in case hp,a=6.23 m and hp,b= 4.59 m

Axis I Axis II Axis III

Propeller a b a b a b
x (m) 60 50 48
r (m) 6.23 7.69 5.86 5.86 6.43 4.59
Vaxis,propeller (m/s) 1.06 1.14 1.19 1.27 1.22 1.30
Vx,r (m/s) 0.84 0.79 0.88 0.93 0.82 1.06
Vb,max (m/s) 1.63 (+3 %) 1.81 (+3 %) 1.88 (+4 %)

Table 4.7 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity was
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along axes
I, II and III according to Dutch method in case hp,a=6.23 m and hp,b= 4.59 m

Axis I Axis II Axis III

Propeller a b a b a b
x (m) 38 32 30
r (m) 6.23 7.69 5.86 5.86 6.43 4.59
Vaxis,propeller (m/s) 0.75 0.75 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95
Vx,r (m/s) 0.49 0.40 0.53 0.53 0.47 0.66
Vb,max (m/s) 0.89 (+3 %) 1.06 (+4 %) 1.13 (+5 %)

Since downward shift of the propellers caused difference equal or less than 5 % in the flow
velocities on the slope, it is unlikely to have major changes in bed protection design due to
various vertical positioning of the main propellers within practical limits as long as the same
type of propulsion system is concerned.

Assumption regarding the horizontal position of the propellers relative to stern of the ship does
not play a role in the deterministic design process because of the fact that none of the equations
recommended in the PIANC guidelines use this parameter as an input. However, the distance
between the propeller shafts is relevant when it comes to the determination of the bed protection
extent. If the distance between the propeller shafts increased by 20 %, it is necessary to widen
the bed protection width by around 3 % according to Equation (3.30) as long as all other
dimensions are the same. In addition to bed protection width, varying the distance between

47
propeller shafts introduces changes in flow velocities at the bottom created by each main
propellers, but the superposition of the velocities remains more or less the same since decrease
in velocity induced by propeller a is counterbalanced with increase in velocity induced by
propeller b.

4.2 Assumptions Related to Berth Structures and Surrounding

Environment
Physical properties of the berth structures and the environment surrounding them might be
involved in the design process of the bed protection to avoid scour resulted from the loadings
due to ships. This chapter deals with conditions neglected in initial deterministic design such
as roughness of the vertical quay wall and naturally occurring currents within the Port of
Rotterdam.

4.2.1 Roughness of Vertical Quay Wall

Equations described in German and Dutch methods do not include parameters to take the wall
friction into consideration in terms of flow distribution near the quay walls. For this reason in
deterministic design the wall was assumed to be perfectly smooth. Roughness of the wall can
derive the turbulence generation and dissipation and hence the flow field in most of the
situations; however, as far as the jet due to bow thruster on the quay wall is concerned, Nielsen
(2005) and Van Blaaderen (2006) concluded that effect of wall-friction associated with wall
roughness leads almost no difference with the situation where the quay wall is modelled
hydraulically smooth surface as a result of their numerical and physical modellings.
Nevertheless, this only applies for steel or concrete vertical quay walls because in case of sheet
pile type of quay wall with grooves the turbulence generation will be different and will affect
the flow distribution near the berthing structure.

Van Blaaderen (2006) analyzed wall-friction sensitivity of his numerical model describing the
flow field induced by bow thruster near the quay wall. To this end, he made a comparison
between the calculated flow fields in case of smooth walls and wall with rough elements of 1
mm keeping the rest of the parameters constant. He defined the wall roughness based on
equivalent sand-grain roughness formulae derived by Javatilleke (1969).The results from the
numerical computations are illustrated in the figures below.

48
 Figure 4.1 Calculated flow field in case of smooth wall (Van Blaaderen, 2006)

Figure 4.2 Calculated flow field wall with rough elements of 1 mm (Van Blaaderen, 2006)

For more information about the physical model used to validate the numerical modeling for the
bow thruster, see Van Blaaderen (2006).

4.2.2 Natural Currents

In addition to the load caused by propulsion systems of the ship, designed bed protection should
also be able to withstand attack by currents flowing parallel to the berthing structures. During
deterministic design, potential effects of any natural currents such as tidal currents were
accepted as negligible since the PIANC guidelines only focus on the loads due to propellers.
However, superposition of the natural currents with the loads induced by ship propulsion
systems could create more critical situations especially in case both are acting in the same
direction.

Maximum depth-averaged current velocity at the location where the case study was conducted
is approximately 1 m/s (Port of Rotterdam Authority). To examine the importance of natural
currents, the water level was taken same with the design water level used in the initial

49
deterministic design and the velocities induced by bow thruster and main propellers were
superposed with natural current velocities. Given the geometrical layout of the berthing
structures and position of the ship, natural current velocity is acting parallel to the velocity due
to main propellers, and directed perpendicular to the velocities induced by bow thruster under
the open berth structure and in front of the vertical quay wall. Equations to estimate the new
flow velocities considering the influence of current flow velocities read:

𝑉𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒,𝑛𝑒𝑤 = √𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 2 + 𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 2 (4.2)

𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛,𝑛𝑒𝑤 = 𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 + 𝑉𝑏,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (4.3)

𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙,𝑛𝑒𝑤 = √𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 2 + 𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 2 (4.4)

where

𝑉𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒,𝑛𝑒𝑤 : Flow velocity under the slope of open berth structure including impact of the current
(m/s)

𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛,𝑛𝑒𝑤 : Flow velocity on the slope induced by main propellers including impact of the
current (m/s)

𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙,𝑛𝑒𝑤 : Flow velocity on the slope in front of the vertical quay wall including impact of the
current (m/s)

𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 : Depth averaged current velocity (m/s)

𝑉𝑏,𝑚𝑎𝑥 : Maximum flow velocity due to main propeller jets (m/s)

𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 : Maximum flow velocity due to bow thruster jet in front of the vertical quay wall
(m/s)

Local flow velocities were recalculated based on the updated velocities using the formulae
given above and the results are presented in Table 4.8 (numbers within the parentheses indicate
the changes in the velocities in comparison with the initial design situation in which the natural
currents were ignored).

Although a relatively higher increase was observed at points subjected to main propeller jets,
velocities induced by the bow thruster jet still surpasses in regard to the determination of the
minimum required stone size for riprap protection. As a result, neglecting the natural currents

50
did not cause any significant changes in the design of bed protection for the given case study
location.

Table 4.8 Velocities near the open and solid type of berth structures due to bow thruster and main
propellers after considering the effect of natural currents occurring near the case study location

Open Berth Structure Solid Berth Structure

Method German Dutch German Dutch
Velocity due to bow thruster 3.19 (5 %) 2.95 (7 %) 8.87 (1 %) 3.47 (5 %)
(m/s)
Velocity due to main propellers 2.81 (55 %) 2.08 (93 %) 2.81 (55 %) 2.08 (93 %)
(m/s)

It is important to note that linear superposition of the flow velocities did not consider the
difference in degree of turbulence between natural current velocities and propeller induced flow
velocities and, therefore, average values of the velocities were used in the calculations.
Applying the same turbulence coefficient for both type of velocities is more conservative
approach in determination of the stone size for the bed protection because the turbulence is
expected to be relatively lower in natural currents when compared to flow velocities caused by
propellers. However, this does not cause significant changes in the design since velocities
induced by bow thruster are still dominating factor and influence of the natural currents was
found to be minor.

4.3 Assumptions Related to Design Methodology and Equations

This section discusses the influence of assumptions associated with the nature of some of the
equations recommended in the PIANC guidelines. The average values of the coefficients were
substituted in the relevant equations in the deterministic design stage, and determination of any
potential modifications in bed protection design when the lower and upper boundary values of
those coefficients are used was the main goal.

4.3.1 Turbulence Factor (𝒌𝟐𝒕 )

Pilarczyk equation is one of the two stability equations indicated as a Dutch method to estimate
the required rock size of riprap bed protection. Average value for turbulence factor (𝑘𝑡2 =5.6)
due to water jet was chosen in the initial deterministic design calculations and the minimum
required stone size was found as D50=1.66 m and D50=2.38 m for open and solid berthing
structures, respectively. Use of upper and lower boundary values of this parameter caused
deviation in the order of 7 % from the mean for both types of structures as presented in the table
below.

51
Table 4.9 Change in the minimum required rock size for riprap protection for open berth and solid berth
structures depending on turbulence factor

Open Berth Structure Solid Berth Structure

𝒌𝟐𝒕 5.2 6 5.2 6
Rock size (Pilarczyk) D50=1.54 m D50=1.77 m D50=2.21 m D50=2.55 m
Difference compared to -7 % +7 % -7 % +7 %
initial case ( 𝒌𝟐𝒕 =5.6)

4.3.2 Coefficients in Bed Protection Extent Equations

Width and length of the scour protection in front of the berth structures were estimated using
the Equations (3.30-3.33) as indicated in chapter 5 using the mean values of the coefficients.
However, to understand the importance of those constants, it is useful to consider the lowest
and highest values they can take in the calculation of the extent of bed protection.

In Equation (3.30), substituting the lower boundary values resulted in bprotection=12.6 m while
the upper boundary values yielded bprotection= 17.8 m, which corresponds to variation of 17 %
around the initially calculated protection width according to German method. Maximum and
minimum required bed protection lengths along the quay wall were estimated using rest of the
equations and the outcome is summarized in Table 4.10 in comparison with the case where the
average values of the coefficients were considered (see chapter 3.4 for definition of the
parameters).

Table 4.10 Change in the minimum required bed protection length along the quay wall depending on
the value of the coefficients

Coefficients
Parameters Average Lower Boundary Upper Boundary
Lmain (m) 15.2 12.6 17.8
Lmain,2 (m) 8.8 7.8 9.8
Lthruster (m) 8.2 6.6 8.6
Lz (m) 78.0 80.6 76.6
Ltotal (m) 118.4 114.2 (-4 %) 121.4 (+3 %)

4.3.3 Ship Speed through Water

The speed at which the ship sails is a factor that plays an important role when describing the
velocity of the propeller jet and the protection of the berthing structures from scour caused by
ships. In the deterministic design of the protection for berthing structures for the case study
location, the assumption of the ship at a stationary position was made. The PIANC (2015) report
gives a superficial descriptive explanation for the effect of ship speed on jet flow velocity
52
referring to the computations done by Römisch (2006). According to this research, the jet
velocity induced by the bow thruster decreases as the vessel speed increases (see Figure 4.3).
Moreover, bending of the jet occurs because of the induced return flow between the ship and
the bank as illustrated in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.3 Erosion of slope protection valid in the situation of bow thruster of an inland navigation
vessel (PIANC, 2015)

Figure 4.4 Bending of the bow thruster jet due to increase in the speed of an inland navigation vessel
(PIANC, 2015)

Outflow velocities induced by the main propulsion system were calculated only for a stationary
ship according to the PIANC guidelines in initial deterministic design. Unlike the PIANC
(2015) report, German BAW (2010) code explains the procedure to take the speed of the ship
into consideration during the design process. When there is no available information on the
rotation rate and design pitch of the propeller and the outflow velocity is thus obtained using
Equation (3.1), the following approximation equations are recommended to be used to calculate

53
the initial flow velocities induced by the main propellers when the ship speed is not equal to
zero:

1 (4.5)
𝑉0𝐽 ≈ 𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 − ∙ 𝑉𝐴 for free propellers
3
1 (4.6)
𝑉0𝐽 ≈ 𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 + ∙ 𝑉𝐴 for ducted propellers
3

𝑉𝐴 = 𝑉𝑠 ∙ (1 − 𝑤) (4.7)

where

𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 : Induced initial flow velocity of the propeller jet when the ship is stationary (m/s)

𝑉0𝐽 : Induced initial flow velocity of the propeller jet when the ship is sailing through water
(m/s)

𝑉𝐴 : Velocity of approach flow to the propeller (m/s)

𝑉𝑠 : Ship speed through water (m/s)

𝑤 : Wake factor (-) ≈ 0.3

Similar to German BAW (2010) code, Dutch method described by Verheij and Laboyrie (1988)
allows designers to take the ship speed into account to calculate the flow velocities at the bottom
as follows:

1 (4.8)
𝑉𝑥,𝑟,𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝑉𝑥,𝑟,0 − 2 ∙ 𝑉𝑠

where

𝑉𝑥,𝑟,0 : Velocity at location x, r when the ship is stationary (m/s)

𝑉𝑥,𝑟,𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 : Velocity at location x, r when the ship is sailing through water (m/s)

𝑉𝑠 : Ship speed through water (m/s)

Assuming ship speed through water near the berthing structures is 0.5 m/s for comparison
purposes, maximum local flow velocities on the slope due to main propellers were computed
for both methods. The results showed that initial flow velocity and hence the maximum flow
velocities on the slope decreased for free propellers and increased for ducted propellers in the
order of 2 % in comparison with the situation where the ship was presumed to be stationary

54
according to German BAW (2010) code. On the other hand, Dutch method results in a decrease
of flow velocities on the slope at least by 14 %, which creates far less critical bed protection
design conditions.

4.3.4 Confinement of the Jet by Slope Surface and Jetty Piles

Bed protection guidelines for open berth structures according to Dutch method consider the
confinements of the jet due to the roughness of the slope surface and the existence of the jetty
piles by adding a coefficient to Equation (3.19). The coefficient ,f, was obtained from a limited
number of model tests carried out by Van Doorn (2012) and varies depending on the inclination
and surface roughness of the slope as follows:

f= 1.1 for a 1:2.5 slope with a smooth surface

f= 1.1-1.2 for a 1:1.5 slope with a smooth surface

f= 1.25 for a 1:1.5 slope with a rough surface (rock protection)

f= 1.4 for a smooth 1:1.5 slope with jetty piles

f=1.64-1.7 for a rough 1:1.5 slope with jetty piles

Distance between the piles used in the model test was 6 m whereas the planned open berth
structure has piles located 35 m away from each other. Therefore, it is acceptable to neglect the
influence of the piles. Choosing a proper correction factor for the given case study location is
not an easy task because the model tested only slopes of 1:2.5 and 1:1.5 , and the correction
factor for the slope of 1:3 is not available, which requires estimation of the parameter from the
acquired results for different scenarios. Van Doorn (2012) observed that correction factor used
for a slope with an inclination of 1:2.5 are 1.04 times larger than that of the slope with an
inclination of 1:1.5 if the pile effect is ignored. Considering this ratio and f being equal to 1.25
for a 1:1.5 slope with a rock protection, f value was taken as 1.30 for the case study location.

Flow velocities on the slope due to bow thruster and the minimum required stone size to
withstand the loads were recalculated in accordance with the Dutch method taking the assumed
correction factor into account. The table below shows the change in flow velocities and the
stone sizes in comparison with the initial deterministic design.

55
Table 4.11 Change in the flow velocities and the minimum required rock size for riprap protection for
open berth structure when the correction factor is taken into account

Flow Velocity Rock Size Rock Size

(Pilarczyk) (Izbash)
Initial Case 2.77 m/s D50= 1.66 m D50=0.74 m
Case with correction factor 3.60 m/s D50= 2.80 m D50= 1.25 m
Change compared to initial case 30 % 69 % 69 %

Although use of correction factor to count the confinement of the water jet on the slope by the
slope surface caused increased flow velocities and rock sizes, it should be noted that the
correction factor is only based on limited number of tests and conditions, and has not been
validated yet. Moreover, Roelse (2014) claims that the correction factors recommended above
should not be used due to calculation mistake made during the data processing carried out by
Van Doorn (2012).

4.3.5 Type of Method to Calculate the Maximum Flow Velocity In

front of the Closed Berth Structure

Maximum flow velocities in front of the vertical quay wall were calculated according to both
German and Dutch methods in chapter 3.2.2. Unlike in open berth structure, substantial
difference was inspected between the maximum flow velocities obtained from those two
methods in front of the closed berth structure, which can be correlated with the assumption of
taking the maximum flow velocity in front of the quay wall being equal to jet outflow velocity
directed to the wall in the German approach. This assumption is principally acceptable
according to Schimdt (1998) in which he explains that the maximum flow velocity at the bottom
of the wall can not exceed the outflow velocity induced by the bow thruster. It should be noted
that this statement is missing in the PIANC (2015) report.

Van Blaaderen (2006) estimated the flow velocities at the bottom of the quay wall using his
numerical model validated based on measurements from a physical model, and compared with
the German and Dutch analytical equations that are also recommended by the PIANC
guidelines. He considered two cases with different distances between the bow thruster outflow
and the wall. The ratio of the distance between the bow thruster outflow and the wall to bow
thruster diameter L/Dthruster were chosen as 5 and 1 for case 1 and case 2, respectively. Table
4.12 presents the findings from his research in terms of relative velocity which was obtained by
dividing the maximum bottom velocity by the outflow axial velocity.

56
Table 4.12 Relative velocities according to different methods for cases 1 and 2 (Van Blaaderen, 2006)

Method Relative Velocity in Case-1 Relative Velocity in Case-2

German Method 34.3 % 100 %
Dutch Method 39.4 % 47.6 %
Numerical Calculations 35 % 57 %

From the results, it can be concluded that the Dutch method gives more realistic estimation
when the ship is very close to the wall (case 1) and the maximum flow velocities calculated
using German and Dutch approaches get similar to each other when the distance to the wall is
relatively larger (case 2) if conclusions by Van Blaaderen (2006) are assumed to be correct
without any errors. Considering the possible uncertainties associated with the numerical model,
it is obvious that choice of method to estimate the maximum flow velocities in order to design
a bed protection requires meticulous attention especially for the situations with very small
distances between the ship and the berth structure.

4.4 Overview of the Results

This chapter outlines the summary of the results obtained from the evaluation of the
assumptions made during the deterministic design of the bed protection to avoid erosion around
berthing structures. Remarks about each parameter are given below under related titles. It is
worth noting that comparisons are made in terms of variations in either flow velocities or
minimum required stone sizes, and the required rock size to withstand the flow jet is
proportional to the square of maximum flow velocities on the slope.

 Type of propeller for the main propulsion system: According to German method,
flow velocities on the slope increased by 27 % when non-ducted main propellers were
used rather than ducted propellers while Dutch method produced 12 % smaller velocities
for the same situation. However, the variation in the flow velocities was not large
enough to create any difference for determination of the minimum required stone size
for the bed protection.

 Type of rudder configuration: Maximum flow velocities on the slope induced by

propellers without a central rudder were found to be 21 % smaller than those of exerted
by propellers equipped with a central rudder according to German method. There is no
parameter to count the influence of the rudder configuration in Dutch method, that is
why, no change was observed in the maximum velocities.

57
 Position of the bow thruster: Horizontal positioning of the thruster in such a way that
the jet flow is directed against the piles caused 190 % and 20 % increase in flow
velocities near the piles according to results from German and Dutch methods,
respectively. On the other hand, upward movement of the bow thruster with respect to
the keel of the ship by 63 % decreased the flow velocities on the slope less than or equal
to 7 %.

 Position of the main propellers: Similar to bow thruster, the downward shift of the
main propellers caused insignificant difference on maximum flow velocities on the
slope compared to initial design conditions. Additionally, widening the distance
between the propellers shafts by 20 % increased the required protection width by 3 %.

 Roughness of the quay wall: It was concluded that the effect of wall-friction associated
with roughness of the quay wall leads almost no difference in terms of flow distribution
based on the recent studies carried out on this subject.

 Natural currents: Even though consideration of natural currents resulted in relatively

higher increase (55-93 %) in local flow velocities induced by main propellers than those
of generated by the bow thruster (1-7 %), bow thruster velocities were still obtained to
be the dominating factor to design the bed protection. As a result, the influence of
natural currents on local flow velocities for the given location varies between 1 % and
7 %.

 Turbulence factor (𝒌𝟐𝒕 ): Use of lower and upper boundary values of the turbulence
factor included in Pilarczyk equation led variation in the order of 7 % from the mean
minimum required stone size.

 Coefficients in bed protection extent equations: Depending on the value of the

coefficients, maximum of 17 % and 3-4 % deviations from the mean dimensions were
detected for bed protection width and bed protection length along the quay wall,
respectively.

 Ship speed through water: As the ship gathers speed, flow velocities on the slope
induced by the bow thruster decreases and bending of the jet occurs, which yields less
critical design case compared to the situation where the ship is stationary. When it
comes to the main propellers, maximum flow velocities on the slope decreases for free
propellers and increases for ducted propellers in the order of 2 % if the ship speed

58
 through water is taken into account according to German method whereas Dutch method
results in relatively higher decreases in the flow velocity.

 Confinement of the jet by slope surface and jetty piles: Use of correction factor to
see the influence of the slope surface and jetty piles for the given study location
increased the flow velocities by 30 % and minimum required stone size by 69 %.

 Type of method to calculate the maximum flow velocity in front of the closed berth
structure: German approach overestimates the flow velocity by as much as 43 % when
the ship is very close to the quay wall while Dutch method provides more realistic
estimation. On the contrary, the maximum flow velocities calculated using German and
Dutch approaches get closer to each other and numerical modeling results when the
distance to the wall is relatively larger.

59
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
In order to evaluate the applicability of the guidelines recommended in the PIANC (2015)
report, deterministic bed protection design for both solid and open berth structures were
conducted and the problems faced with were identified and tested in terms of importance on the
design procedure. This chapter contains the conclusions drawn based on the main objective and
questions used to reach the main objective of this master thesis. Section 5.1.1 summarizes the
steps followed in the deterministic design of the bed protection while section 5.1.2 lists the
problems and shortcomings of the guidelines. Risks and uncertainties associated with the
identified problems and shortcomings of the guidelines are outlined in section 5.1.3 and
possible solutions to deal with these problems are provided in section 5.1.4. Final conclusion
on the overall applicability of the guidelines is discussed in section 5.1.5. Additionally,
recommendations for further research and to improve the use of the guidelines are given in
section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, respectively.

5.1 Conclusions
The conclusions can be subdivided into general conclusions regarding the deterministic design
procedure of the bed protection, problems and shortcomings of the guidelines, uncertainties and
risks associated with those problems together with possible solutions to deal with them and
finally the overall applicability of the guidelines recommended in PIANC (2015) report. Each
section below starts either by stating the main objective or the questions investigated under the
scope of this study.

5.1.1 Deterministic Design

How to conduct a deterministic design of a bed protection both for a solid berth structure and
an open berth structure for a real case using the PIANC guidelines?

The deterministic design of a bed protection for berth structures begins with the decision on
design ship and its characteristics such as length, beam and power of the propulsion system.
Based on the type, dimensions, surrounding environment, navigational conditions and
maneuvering level of the design ship, the percentage of the installed power to be used is chosen.
If there is no sufficient information available about the propulsion system of the design ship,
relationships between propulsion characteristics and vessel dimensions might be useful for
initial approximations of propeller diameter and the installed power. Following the

60
determination of applied power, efflux velocities induced by bow thrusters and main propellers
are estimated depending on the type of propeller. Afterwards, complete flow distribution and
maximum flow velocities at the bed or on the slope near the berth structures are computed
according to German and Dutch methods as a function of geometrical dimensions of the
berthing area and applied power. Next, different stability equations are used to estimate to
minimum required stone size of riprap protection. Lastly, width and length of the bed protection
are determined considering the influence area of the jets and vessel dimensions. It is important
to point out that designers should adopt one of the two approaches (German and Dutch)
throughout the whole design of the bed protection without switching from one to another in
order to avoid an unsafe result according to PIANC (2015) report.

5.1.2 Problems and Shortcomings of the Guidelines

What are the problems and shortcomings encountered when designing a bed protection for the
open and solid berth structures using the guidelines?

Riprap type of bed protections for the open and solid berth structures were designed for a real
case location in accordance with the guidelines covered in the PIANC (2015) report, and the
problems and shortcomings were detected at many points as listed below:

 There is no guidance on the type of propeller (ducted or non-ducted) and rudder

configuration of the main propulsion system depending on the classification of the ship.

 Typical dimensions regarding the positioning of the bow thruster and main propellers
with respect to the keel, stern and bow of the ship are missing.

 Potential impacts of any natural currents such as tidal currents on the stability of the bed
protection material are not taken into account.

 Equations recommended to estimate the flow velocities on the slope under the open
berth structure according to German method were derived only for a slope of 1/3 and
there is no explanation on the applicability of this method for slopes with different
inclinations.

 When estimating the flow velocities along the axis behind a main propeller according
to German method, equations for different flow zones are provided; however, there is
no description to distinguish the zone of free jet propagation from the zone of restricted
jet propagation.

61
  Equation recommended to estimate the velocity distribution in front of the vertical quay
wall according to German method and the associated figure is not applicable for the
cases where the ratio of the distance between the bow thruster and the wall to bow
thruster diameter L/Dthruster is smaller than 3. Additionally, the fact that maximum flow
velocity at the bottom of the wall can not exceed the outflow velocity induced by the
bow thruster is not mentioned.

 None of the equations includes parameters to consider the potential impacts of the wall
friction on flow distribution near the quay walls.

 Equations are based on the assumption of the stationary ship situation and there is no
explanation on how to take the ship speed through water into consideration during bed
protection design.

 Correction factors related to confinement of the jet by slope surface and jetty piles in
Dutch method were obtained from limited number of tests and does not have values for
slopes different from 1:2.5 and 1:1.5.

 The extent of bed protection chapter of the PIANC (2015) report focuses only on the
closed type berth structure without discussion on the extension of protection on the slope
under the open berth structure.

 Turbulence factor (𝑘𝑡2 ) and coefficients in bed protection extent equations can take
different values within a certain range and, therefore may result in different design
outcomes depending on the designer’s preference.

 Required stone sizes can differ from each other significantly depending on the choice
of method and stability equation since each equation uses different value for coefficients
derived from set of experiments based on assumptions to include the influence of
various parameters that are crucial for propeller induced flows. The guidelines do not
distinguish equations from each other in terms of accuracy for a particular situation and
leave the decision on choice of method to designers.

5.1.3 Uncertainties and Risks Associated with the Guidelines

What are the uncertainties and risks associated with the implementation of the guidelines?

Most of the problems faced with during the design process require designers to make proper
and reasonable assumptions due to lack of information about some of the design ship

62
specifications, the physical properties of the berth structures and shortcomings or limitations of
the methods and equations. Importance of each of those assumptions was evaluated to
determine the uncertainties and risks associated with the recommended guidelines based on
various possible alternatives and the relevant literature review. Calculations showed that some
of the assumptions result in significant changes in flow velocities near the berth structures
whereas some others yield relatively small variations and their impacts hence are negligible in
deterministic design. For instance, assumptions regarding positioning of the main propellers,
natural currents occurring around the berth structures, roughness of the vertical quay wall,
turbulence factor (𝑘𝑡2 ), coefficients in bed protection extent equations, ship speed through water
and vertical positioning of the bow thruster were observed to have influence less than 7 % on
estimation of the maximum flow velocities, which makes them less likely to increase
uncertainties and risks linked to deterministic design .On the other hand, type of propeller
(ducted or non-ducted) and rudder configuration of the main propulsion system, horizontal
positioning of the bow thruster, the preferred method (German or Dutch) to approximate the
maximum flow velocity in front of the closed berth structure, confinement of the jet by slope
surface and jetty piles in case of open berth structure induced variations of maximum flow
velocities in the range of 12 % and 190 %, which necessitates more attention on these crucial
factors during the implementation of the guidelines.

5.1.4 Possible Solutions to Overcome the Identified Problems

What are the possible solutions to overcome the identified problems and shortcomings within
the implementation procedure of the guidelines?

Problems and shortcomings of the PIANC (2015) guidelines can be diminished up to some
extent by adopting the following approaches and recommendations:

 In case natural currents exist at the location where the bed protection is planned to be
placed, velocities induced by bow thruster and main propellers are superposed with
natural current velocities based on the direction of the flow as described in chapter 4.2.2.

 If the ship speed through water is not equal to zero, German BAW (2010) code and
equations from Verheij and Laboyrie (1988) are recommended to use to calculate to
initial flow velocities behind the main propellers as explained in chapter 4.3.3.

 Correction factor, f, introduced to consider the confinement of the jet due to roughness
of the slope surface and existence of the jetty piles should be ignored in the design since

63
 there are no corresponding values for slopes different from 1:2.5 and 1:1.5 and Roelse
(2014) claims that calculation mistake was involved in the data processing carried out
by Van Doorn (2012).

 When estimating the flow velocities along the axis behind a main propeller according
to German method, the zone of free jet propagation can be distinguished from the zone
of restricted jet propagation referring to German BAW Code (2010) as presented in
chapter 3.2.1.2.

 Velocity distribution in front of the vertical quay wall should be calculated only using
Dutch formulae for the cases where the ratio of the distance between the bow thruster
and the wall to bow thruster diameter L/Dthruster is smaller than 3, keeping in mind that
maximum flow velocity at the bottom of the wall can not exceed the outflow velocity
induced by the bow thruster.

 Because of the fact that German method for the jet velocities in case of a slope is based
on equations derived only for a slope of 1:3, it is advised to adopt Dutch method to
calculate the maximum current created by bow thruster on a slope with an inclination
different from 1:3.

5.1.5 Overall Applicability of the Guidelines

The objective of this study is to determine the applicability of the guidelines covered in PIANC
(2015) MarCom WG 180 report during the bed protection design of berthing structures for
inland vessels.

In this project study, an assessment of the applicability of the guidelines recommended in the
PIANC (2015) has been done and an attempt has been made to address its various deficiencies.
It is quite evident from the obtained results that the guidelines are applicable but require
assumptions in order to design the bed protection properly in most of the situations and the final
design depends on various factors such as type of structure, adopted methods etc. For some
specific aspects, it is very difficult to make good assumptions, which poses problems for the
designers.

The guidelines are straight forward applicable if German method above a slope of 1:3 or Dutch
method in front of the closed berth structure is adopted to determine the maximum flow
velocities induced by the bow thrusters with sufficient information on the design ship, its
propulsion systems, hydraulic and nautical boundary conditions. On the contrary, the guidelines
64
result in unrealistic design when German method is used to estimate the velocity distribution in
front of the vertical quay wall for the cases where the ratio of the distance between the bow
thruster and the wall to bow thruster diameter is smaller than 3. For all the other conditions,
PIANC recommended guidelines can be applied to bed protection design thanks to assumptions
and possible solutions defined in this study report.

5.2 Recommendations
The guidelines given in the PIANC (2015) report can be used more effectively by following the
recommendations regarding further research and supplementary resources mentioned in this
section.

5.2.1 Recommendations for Further Research

Design for the bed protection to avoid scouring in front of the berth structures was completed
for the limited number of conditions in this thesis and further research hence is essential. To
assess the applicability of the design guidelines for different boundary conditions, the design
procedure is required to be repeated at several more real case study locations and different
design ships.

In this study, only rock type of bed protection was investigated and scour development near the
berth structures was aimed to be prevented. Designs using different type of bed protection
materials such as concrete slabs, concrete mattresses and geosynthetics should be carried out.
Furthermore, the applicability of the guidelines needs to be tested for the case where the scour
development by transverse thrusters and main propellers is allowed to occur.

Assessment of the guidelines was based on the deterministic design approach of the bed
protection for the case study location but PIANC (2015) report also explains the procedure of
probabilistic computation of the bed protection that takes into account all uncertainties with
respect to data available. In order to obtain a more comprehensive evaluation of the guidelines,
the probabilistic design is necessary to be carried out.

In the deterministic design, it was assumed that the design ship was equipped with ducted
propellers. Use of different types of propulsion systems like pump jet thrusters is still necessary
to be discussed.

65
5.2.2 Recommendations to Improve the Use of the Guidelines

Uncertainties and risks in the bed protection design process are related to assumptions mostly
associated with lack of information about the design ship characteristics since it is generally
hard to find sufficient and detailed data due to high competition in the ship industry. PIANC
can provide a catalogue containing relevant information especially on characteristics of the ship
with significant influence in the design, which might decrease the number of required
assumptions up to some extent and improve the use of the guidelines. Considering the results
obtained from the sensitivity analysis of each assumption, typical characteristics of the ship to
be focused in the catalogue can be listed as follows:

 Type of propeller and rudder configuration of the main propulsion system

 Position of the bow thruster with respect to keel and bow of the ship

 The relationship between the relevant dimensions such as the number of openings and
height of openings in pump jets and installed engine power for propulsion systems
different from conventional propellers.

Additionally, background information about the ship characteristics linked to relatively less
important assumptions like position of the main propellers from bow and stern of the ship and
distance between the main propellers’ shafts could also be helpful for the designers.

Finally, possible solutions outlined (see Chapter 5.1.4) in this thesis to deal with the identified
problems encountered in the design of the bed protection in can be taken into consideration if
MarCom decides to update the current version of the PIANC (2015) report.

66
References

Albertson, M.; Dai, Y., Jensen, R.; and Rouse, H., (1948). Diffusion of submerged jets. ASCE
Transactions Paper No. 2409,pp. 639-664.
BAW (2005). Principles for the Design of Bank and Bottom Protection for Inland Waterways.
Mitteilungen 88, Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute, Karlsruhe.
BAW (2010). Code of Practice, Principles for the Design of Bank and Bottom Protection for
Inland Waterways (GBB), Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute,
Karlsruhe.
Blaauw, H.G., and Van de Kaa,E.J. (1978). Erosion of bottom and sloping banks caused by the
screw race of maneuvering ships, 7th International Harbour Congress, Antwerp,
Belgium.
Blokland, T. (1997). Bed protection attacked by propeller jets, Present design methodology
(Bodembeschermingen belast door schroefstralen, Huidige ontwerpmethodiek).
Rotterdam Municipality Engineering Department.
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. Proceedings of the 11th
International Harbour Congress, Antwerp, Belgium.
Carlton, J. S. (2012). Marine propellers and propulsion 3rd edition.Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF (2007). The Rock Manual, the use of rock in civil engineering.London:
CIRIA.
Fuehrer, M.; Römish, K.; and Engelke, G. (1981). Criteria for dimensioning the bottom and
slope protections and for applying the new methods of protecting navigation canals.
PIANC,XXVth Congress, Section I, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Hinze, J.O. (1975). Turbulence.New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jayatilleke, C. L. V. (1969). The influence of the Prandtl number and surface roughness on the
resistance of the sublayer to momentum and heat transfer. Prog. In Heat and Mass
Transfer, Vol. 1, Pergamon Press.
Nielsen, B. (2005). Bow thruster-induced damage, a physical model study on bow thruster-
induced flow. Msc. Thesis, Delft University of Technology.
PIANC (1997). Guidelines for the design of armoured slopes under open piled quay walls.
Report of Working Group 22, supplement to Bulletin No. 96, PIANC, Brussels.
PIANC (2015). Guidelines for protecting berthing structures from scour caused by ships.
Report of Working Group 48, PIANC, Brussels.

67
Pilarczyk, K. (2001). Unification of stability formulas for revetments. Proceedings of the IAHR
XXIX International Congress, Beijing, China.
Pilarczyk, K. (2010). Design of alternative revetments, in Handbook of Coastal and Ocean
Engineering, ed. Y.C. Kim (world scientific), pp. 479-520.
Port of Rotterdam Authority (n.d.). Operational flow model Rotterdam (Operationeel
Stromingsmodel Rotterdam). Retrieved April 12, 2015, from http://mx-systems.nl/osr/.
Roelse, F. P. (2014). Stability of slope material affected by bow thrusters at open quay
structures.Msc. Thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Römish, K. (2006). Erosionspotential von Bugstrahlrudern auf Kanalböschungen.
Binnenschiffahrt, Nr 11.
Roubos, A. A. (2006). Dealing with uncertainities in the design of bed protection near a quay
wall (Omgaan met onzekerheden bij het ontwerpen van bodembescherming nabij
kademuren).Msc. Thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Schiereck, G. J.; Verhagen, H.J. (2012). Introduction to bed, bank and shore protection.Delft:
VSSD.
Schmidt, E. (1998). Ausbreitungsverhalten und Erosionswirkung eines Bugpropellerstrahles
vor einer Kaiwand, Dissertation am Leichtweiss-Institut für Wasserbau der
Technische Universität Braunschweig.
Schokking, L. (2002). Bow thruster induced damage. Msc. Thesis, Delft University of
Technology.
Shields, A. (1936). Anwendung der Aehnlichkeitsmechanik und der Turbulenzforschung auf
die Geschiebebewegung. Berlin: Preußische Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau
Sievers, M. (2011). Auswertung und statistische Analyse von Pilot Cards zur Ermittlung von
Fahrtstufen bei An-und Ablegemanövern, Bachelorarbeit der Hafen City Universität
Hamburg, Department Bauingeniuerwesen, Fachbereich Grundbau und Wasserbau.
Thoresen, C. A. (2003). Port designer’s handbook:Recommendations and guidelines.London:
Thomas Telford.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (2012). Review of
Maritime Transport,2012.UNCTAD/RMT/2012.Geneva, Switzerland.
Van Blaaderen, E. (2006). Modelling bow thruster induced flow near a quay wall. Msc. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology.
Van Doorn, R. (2012). Bow thruster currents at Open Quay Constructions on Piles. Msc.
Thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Verheij, H. J. (1983). The stability of bottom and banks subjected to the velocities in the
propeller jet behind ships. 8th International Harbour Congress, Antwerp, Belgium.

68
Verheij, H. J. (2010). New formulae for prediction of the required power of main propeller
and thruster of inland ships (Nieuwe formules voor predictie schroefvermogens
hoofdschroeven en boegschroeven van schepen in de binnenvaart), Personal note.
Verheij, H. J. and Laboyrie, J.H. (1988). Erosion of cross-sections of navigation canals,
Technical guidelines for bank protections of rock and pitched stones. Report M1115
part XIX, Delft.

69
List of Symbols

Latin Symbols
𝐴 Coefficient [-]
𝑎 Exponent [-]
𝐵𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡,𝑖𝑧 Critical Izbash coefficient [-]
𝐵𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 Critical stability coefficient of the bed material [-]
𝐵𝑠 Beam of the ship [m]
𝑏𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 Bed protection width [m]
𝑏𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑦 Distance between ship and quay wall [m]
𝐶1 Coefficient [-]
𝐶2 Coefficient [-]
𝐶3 Coefficient [-]
𝐶 Chezy coefficient [m1/2/s]
𝐷50 Diameter bed material; 50 % passing stone diameter [m]
𝐷85 Diameter bed material; 85 % passing stone diameter [m]
𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 Main propulsion system diameter [m]
𝐷𝑝 Propeller diameter [m]
𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 Bow thruster diameter [m]
𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 Bow thruster diameter [m]
𝐷 Characteristic dimension/thickness [m]
d Grain diameter [m]
𝑓𝑃 Percentage of installed power used [-]
𝑓𝑛 Percentage of maximum number of revolutions [-]
𝑓 Correction factor for the influence of the confinement of the jet by the [-]
slope surface (and by jetty piles if present)
𝑓1 Correction factor for the influence of the confinement of the jet by the [-]
slope surface (and by jetty piles if present) and rudder configuration
𝑔 Acceleration of gravity [m/s2]
ℎ𝑝 Height of the main propeller axis above bed [m]
ℎ𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 Height of the bow thruster axis above the bed [m]
ℎ Water depth [m]
𝐾𝑇 Thrust coefficient [-]
𝐾 Coefficient [-]
𝑘ℎ Depth parameter [-]
𝑘𝑠𝑙 Slope parameter [-]
𝑘𝑡 Turbulence factor [-]
𝐿𝑏𝑜𝑤 Position of the thruster relative to bow of the ship [m]
𝐿𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 Overall ship length [m]
𝐿𝑠 Ship’s length [m]

70
𝐿𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛 Position of main propeller relative to the stern of the ship [m]
𝐿𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 Total bed protection length [m]
𝐿 Distance between outflow opening and quay wall [m]
𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum number of revolutions [1/s]
𝑃𝐷 Installed thruster power [kW]
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 Installed main propulsion system power [kW]
𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 Installed thruster power [kW]
𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 Installed thruster power [kW]
𝑅𝑒∗ Grain Reynolds number [-]
𝑟𝑎 Radial distance to the propeller a axis [m]
𝑟𝑏 Radial distance to the propeller b axis [m]
𝑟𝑡 Relative turbulence intensity [-]
𝑟 Radial distance to the propeller axis [m]
𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 distance between main propeller shafts [m]
𝑇𝑠 Ship’s draught [m]
𝑢∗ Shear velocity [m/s]
𝑉0,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 Efflux velocity in main propeller jet [m/s]
𝑉0,𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 Efflux velocity in thruster jet [m/s]
𝑉0 Efflux velocity [m/s]
𝑉0𝐽 Induced initial flow velocity of the propeller jet when the ship is sailing [m/s]
through water
𝑉𝐴 Velocity of approach flow to the propeller [m/s]
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 Main velocity along the axis of the jet due to main propeller [m/s]
𝑉𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 Flow velocity along the axis of the propeller jet [m/s]
𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum flow velocity near the bottom [m/s]
𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 Flow velocity near the bottom [m/s]
𝑉𝑐𝑟 Critical velocity [m/s]
𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 Depth averaged current velocity [m/s]
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛,𝑛𝑒𝑤 Flow velocity on the slope induced by main propellers including impact [m/s]
of the current
𝑉𝑠 Ship speed through water [m/s]
𝑉𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒,𝑛𝑒𝑤 Flow velocity under the slope of open berth structure including impact of [m/s]
the current
𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙,𝑛𝑒𝑤 Flow velocity on the slope in front of the vertical quay wall including [m/s]
impact of the current
𝑉𝑥,𝑟,0 Velocity at location x, r when the ship is stationary [m/s]
𝑉𝑥,𝑟,𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 Velocity at location x, r when the ship is sailing through water [m/s]
𝑉𝑥,𝑟 Flow velocity at location x, r [m/s]
𝑋𝑣,𝑚𝑎𝑥 X coordinate of the location of the maximum velocity for a free [m]
extending propeller jet on the slope
𝑉 Flow velocity [m/s]
𝑉′ Turbulent velocity fluctuations [m/s]

71
̅
V Average flow velocity [m/s]
𝑤 Wake factor [-]
𝑥𝑔𝑟 Distance beyond which the dispersion of the jet is obstructed [m]
𝑥 Distance to propeller [m]
𝑦𝑝 Distance between main propellers’ shafts [m]

Greek Symbols
∝𝐿 Coefficient [-]
∝ Transverse slope of the bank [-]
Ψ𝑐𝑟 Critical Shields-parameter [-]
Ψ𝑠 Shields parameter [-]
𝛽𝑖𝑧 Izbash parameter [-]
𝜌𝑠 Density of stone [kg/m3]
𝜌𝑤 Density of water [kg/m3]
𝜏𝑏 Shear stress [N/m2]
∅ Stability parameter [-]
∆ Relative buoyant density [-]
𝑣 Kinematic viscosity of the fluid [m2/s]
𝜃 Angle of friction of the bottom protection material [°]

Abbreviations

CEMT the Conference of European Ministers of Transport

CPP Controllable Pitch Propeller

CRP Contra Rotating Propeller

FPP Fixed Pitch Propeller

MarCom Maritime Navigation Committee

NAP Normal Amsterdam Water Level (reference water level in the Netherlands)

PIANC the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure

72
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Phases of the project.............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2.1 Solid berth structure (Thoresen, 2003) .................................................................................. 5
Figure 2.2 Open berth structure (Thoresen, 2003) ................................................................................. 5
Figure 2.3 Contra rotating propeller: General view (left, Rolls Royce), detailed view (right, Volvo
Penta) ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.4 Fixed pitch propeller (left, Wärtsilä), Controllable pitch propeller (right, Schottel).............. 7
Figure 2.5 Controllable pitch propellers surrounded by a nozzle (Promac) ........................................... 7
Figure 2.6 Tunnel thruster (left, Global Marine Engineering BV), Position of a bow thruster in the hull
of a seagoing ship (right, Veth) ............................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.7 Ducted (left, Kawasaki Rexpeller) and Non-ducted azimuthal thrusters (right, Schottel) ..... 9
Figure 2.8 Fast ferry equipped with water jet (Damen).......................................................................... 9
Figure 2.9 Pump jet thruster (left, Veth) and Compound pump jet thruster (right, Schottel) ............. 10
Figure 2.10 Zones of the jet flow (Blaauw and Van de Kaa, 1977) ...................................................... 12
Figure 2.11 Velocity distribution in propeller jet and free jet (Schiereck and Verhagen, 2012) ......... 14
Figure 2.12 Relative turbulence intensity (PIANC, 2015) ...................................................................... 19
Figure 3.1 Location of the inland mooring facility in Rotterdam Harbor (Google Earth) ..................... 20
Figure 3.2 Inland tanker, BIANCA II (DAMEN) ....................................................................................... 21
Figure 3.3 Deterministic design procedure as stated in PIANC (2015) report for bed protection using
rock ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 3.4 Cross sectional view of the open berth structure (M.H.W, M.L.W and D.W.L. stand for
mean high water level, mean low water and design water level, respectively) ................................... 24
Figure 3.5 Simplified plan view of the open berth structure with the location of mooring piles and
bow thruster .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.6 Main propellers of the ship and the distance between propeller axis and bed (Points I, II
and III show the axes along which the local velocities caused by each propeller at different points are
determined)........................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.7 Layout of the points along the axis I, II and III behind propellers a and b ........................... 28
Figure 3.8 Bow thruster jet above a slope (PIANC, 2015) ..................................................................... 32
Figure 3.9 Cross sectional view of the closed berth structure (M.H.W, M.L.W and D.W.L. stand for
mean high water level, mean low water and design water level, respectively) ................................... 35
Figure 3.10 Factor ∝𝐿 as a function of the wall and bottom distance (PIANC, 2015) .......................... 36
Figure 3.11 Extent of the scour protection (PIANC, 2015) .................................................................... 38
Figure 3.12 Width of scour protection (PIANC, 2015) .......................................................................... 39
Figure 4.1 Calculated flow field in case of smooth wall (Van Blaaderen, 2006) ................................... 49
Figure 4.2 Calculated flow field wall with rough elements of 1 mm (Van Blaaderen, 2006) ............... 49
Figure 4.3 Erosion of slope protection valid in the situation of bow thruster of an inland navigation
vessel (PIANC, 2015) .............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 4.4 Bending of the bow thruster jet due to increase in the speed of an inland navigation vessel
(PIANC, 2015) ........................................................................................................................................ 53

73
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Technical Specifications of the design ship (Roelse, 2014) ................................................... 22
Table 3.2 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity is
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along
axes I, II and III according to German method. ..................................................................................... 30
Table 3.3 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity is
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along
axes I, II and III according to Dutch method. ......................................................................................... 33
Table 3.4 Stone size requirements and local flow velocities based on German and Dutch methods .. 37
Table 4.1 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity was
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along
axes I, II and III according to German method in case of non-ducted propellers ................................. 43
Table 4.2 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity was
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along
axes I, II and III according to Dutch method in case of non-ducted propellers..................................... 44
Table 4.3 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity was
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along
axes I, II and III according to German method in case without a central rudder .................................. 45
Table 4.4 Maximum local flow velocities on the slope under the open berth structure depending on
the direction of the bow thruster jet .................................................................................................... 46
Table 4.5 Maximum local flow velocities near the open and solid type of berth structures induced by
bow thruster for different htruster (distance between bed and the bow thruster axis) values............... 46
Table 4.6 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity was
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along
axes I, II and III according to German method in case hp,a=6.23 m and hp,b= 4.59 m ............................ 47
Table 4.7 Flow velocities due to each propeller at points where the maximum total flow velocity was
obtained and the maximum total flow velocities due to combined effect of the two propellers along
axes I, II and III according to Dutch method in case hp,a=6.23 m and hp,b= 4.59 m ............................... 47
Table 4.8 Velocities near the open and solid type of berth structures due to bow thruster and main
propellers after considering the effect of natural currents occurring near the case study location .... 51
Table 4.9 Change in the minimum required rock size for riprap protection for open berth and solid
berth structures depending on turbulence factor ................................................................................ 52
Table 4.10 Change in the minimum required bed protection length along the quay wall depending on
the value of the coefficients .................................................................................................................. 52
Table 4.11 Change in the flow velocities and the minimum required rock size for riprap protection for
open berth structure when the correction factor is taken into account .............................................. 56
Table 4.12 Relative velocities according to different methods for cases 1 and 2 (Van Blaaderen, 2006)
............................................................................................................................................................... 57

74
Appendices

75
Appendix A Flow Velocities behind Main Propellers
A. 1 Results from Initial Deterministic Design
Table A.1 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis I according to German method
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 6.33 3.8949E-101 6.33 5.6627E-150 3.8949E-101
2 4 6.33 3.15266E-25 6.33 1.94675E-37 3.15266E-25
3 6 4.3888 2.49281E-11 4.46796279 9.50753E-17 2.49282E-11
4 8 3.54273805 1.67362E-06 3.75964038 1.57443E-09 1.6752E-06
5 10 3.09879634 0.000277177 3.28851856 3.2739E-06 0.000280451
6 12 2.77769327 0.004288153 2.94775612 0.000200208 0.004488361
7 14 2.53230617 0.021776473 2.68734532 0.00232869 0.024105164
8 16 2.33733544 0.061277447 2.48043761 0.011220764 0.072498211
9 18 2.17785786 0.122606132 2.31119609 0.032462929 0.155069061
10 20 2.04444314 0.198822711 2.16961313 0.068532809 0.267355521
11 22 1.9308095 0.281375105 2.04902232 0.117890134 0.399265239
12 24 1.83259412 0.363255991 1.94479376 0.176551308 0.539807299
13 26 1.74666262 0.439873637 1.85360115 0.239969515 0.679843151
14 28 1.67069901 0.508763621 1.77298671 0.304195327 0.812958948
15 30 1.60295113 0.56897612 1.70109099 0.366307551 0.935283671
16 32 1.5420663 0.620508809 1.63647853 0.424408272 1.044917082
17 34 1.48698191 0.663888188 1.57802162 0.477435176 1.141323364
18 36 1.43685034 0.699893885 1.52482076 0.524936201 1.224830086
19 38 1.39098638 0.729390764 1.47614881 0.566870253 1.296261018
20 40 1.34882945 0.753233762 1.43141084 0.603452877 1.356686639
21 42 1.30991604 0.772218631 1.39011498 0.635045689 1.407264319
22 44 1.2738592 0.787060268 1.35185058 0.662081397 1.449141665
23 46 1.2403331 0.798386848 1.31627187 0.685015305 1.483402153
24 48 1.20906122 0.806742462 1.28308538 0.704295481 1.511037943
25 50 1.17980717 0.81259395 1.25204026 0.720345575 1.532939525
26 52 1.15236757 0.816339395 1.22292069 0.733555939 1.549895334
27 54 1.12656636 0.818316896 1.19553981 0.744280028 1.562596924
28 56 1.10225028 0.818812901 1.16973499 0.752834038 1.571646939
29 58 1.07928524 0.818069752 1.14536393 0.759498434 1.577568187
30 60 1.05755335 0.816292345 1.12230151 0.76452049 1.580812834
31 62 1.03695049 0.813653884 1.10043725 0.76811728 1.581771164
32 64 1.01738434 0.810300816 1.07967318 0.770478804 1.58077962
33 66 0.99877272 0.806357012 1.05992207 0.77177102 1.578128032
34 68 0.98104219 0.801927305 1.041106 0.772138694 1.574065999
35 70 0.96412692 0.797100467 1.0231551 0.771708002 1.568808469
36 72 0.94796769 0.791951713 1.00600653 0.77058887 1.562540583
37 74 0.93251108 0.786544803 0.9896036 0.768877055 1.555421858
38 76 0.91770876 0.780933809 0.97389501 0.766655975 1.547589783
39 78 0.90351688 0.775164596 0.95883424 0.763998316 1.539162912
40 80 0.88989556 0.769276077 0.94437897 0.760967432 1.530243509
41 82 0.87680844 0.763301253 0.93049059 0.757618565 1.520919819
42 84 0.86422229 0.757268107 0.91713386 0.7539999 1.511268007
43 86 0.85210667 0.751200344 0.90427646 0.750153485 1.501353829
44 88 0.84043365 0.745118028 0.89188877 0.746116025 1.491234053
45 90 0.82917754 0.739038111 0.87994351 0.741919573 1.480957684
46 92 0.81831467 0.732974891 0.86841557 0.737592124 1.470567015
47 94 0.8078232 0.726940392 0.85728176 0.733158134 1.460098526
48 96 0.79768292 0.720944695 0.84652065 0.72863897 1.449583665
49 98 0.78787512 0.714996215 0.83611238 0.724053296 1.439049511
50 100 0.77838245 0.709101938 0.82603852 0.719417416 1.428519355

A-1
Table A.2 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis II according to German method
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 6.33 2.55083E-89 6.33 2.55083E-89 5.1E-89
2 4 6.33 2.83611E-22 6.33 2.83611E-22 5.67E-22
3 6 4.3888 5.12388E-10 4.467962792 5.2163E-10 1.03E-09
4 8 3.542738053 9.16577E-06 3.759640383 9.72694E-06 1.89E-05
5 10 3.09879634 0.000823008 3.288518565 0.000873396 0.001696
6 12 2.777693271 0.009130563 2.947756124 0.009689577 0.01882
7 14 2.532306169 0.037943215 2.687345322 0.040266269 0.078209
8 16 2.337335443 0.093740768 2.480437613 0.099479999 0.193221
9 18 2.177857858 0.171550103 2.311196094 0.182053171 0.353603
10 20 2.044443142 0.260992372 2.169613131 0.276971496 0.537964
11 22 1.930809495 0.352322248 2.049022321 0.373892997 0.726215
12 24 1.832594122 0.438803019 1.944793763 0.46566851 0.904472
13 26 1.746662618 0.516709173 1.853601146 0.548344429 1.065054
14 28 1.670699011 0.584524466 1.772986706 0.620311678 1.204836
15 30 1.602951128 0.642111436 1.701090993 0.681424381 1.323536
16 32 1.542066304 0.690088696 1.636478527 0.732339024 1.422428
17 34 1.486981907 0.729426245 1.578021615 0.774084995 1.503511
18 36 1.436850336 0.761205464 1.524820765 0.80780988 1.569015
19 38 1.390986376 0.786487938 1.476148807 0.834640261 1.621128
20 40 1.34882945 0.80625094 1.431410845 0.855613242 1.661864
21 42 1.30991604 0.821361494 1.390114981 0.871648933 1.69301
22 44 1.273859201 0.832571593 1.351850581 0.883545364 1.716117
23 46 1.240333105 0.840524162 1.316271867 0.891984825 1.732509
24 48 1.209061221 0.845763856 1.283085377 0.897545316 1.743309
25 50 1.179807172 0.848749392 1.252040264 0.90071364 1.749463
26 52 1.152367571 0.849865725 1.222920687 0.901898321 1.751764
27 54 1.126566359 0.849435238 1.19553981 0.901441477 1.750877
28 56 1.102250281 0.847727629 1.169734992 0.89962932 1.747357
29 58 1.079285241 0.844968448 1.145363929 0.89670121 1.74167
30 60 1.057553347 0.84134635 1.122301511 0.892857351 1.734204
31 62 1.036950489 0.837019193 1.100437253 0.888265267 1.725284
32 64 1.017384343 0.832119149 1.079673181 0.88306522 1.715184
33 66 0.998772723 0.826756952 1.059922073 0.877374725 1.704132
34 68 0.981042195 0.821025436 1.041106002 0.871292299 1.692318
35 70 0.964126922 0.815002474 1.023155101 0.864900584 1.679903
36 72 0.947967693 0.808753415 1.006006531 0.85826893 1.667022
37 74 0.932511084 0.802333114 0.989603599 0.851455549 1.653789
38 76 0.917708764 0.795787616 0.973895014 0.844509307 1.640297
39 78 0.903516884 0.789155563 0.958834245 0.83747121 1.626627
40 80 0.889895565 0.782469361 0.944378966 0.830375648 1.612845
41 82 0.876808443 0.775756161 0.930490592 0.823251436 1.599008
42 84 0.864222289 0.769038678 0.917133857 0.816122678 1.585161
43 86 0.852106668 0.762335876 0.904276464 0.809009501 1.571345
44 88 0.840433647 0.755663545 0.891888768 0.80192866 1.557592
45 90 0.829177538 0.749034785 0.87994351 0.794894058 1.543929
46 92 0.818314672 0.742460417 0.86841557 0.787917177 1.530378
47 94 0.807823201 0.735949323 0.857281764 0.781007445 1.516957
48 96 0.797682923 0.729508744 0.846520653 0.774172545 1.503681
49 98 0.787875125 0.723144523 0.836112377 0.767418678 1.490563
50 100 0.778382448 0.716861316 0.826038516 0.760750785 1.477612

A-2
Table A.3 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis III according to German method
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 6.33 3.082E-105 6.33 2.17708E-56 2.17708E-56
2 4 6.33 2.97345E-26 6.33 4.84754E-14 4.84754E-14
3 6 4.3888 8.72869E-12 4.467962792 2.37894E-06 2.37895E-06
4 8 3.542738053 9.27478E-07 3.759640383 0.001112182 0.001113109
5 10 3.09879634 0.000189972 3.288518565 0.018132561 0.018322533
6 12 2.777693271 0.003298641 2.947756124 0.07962697 0.082925612
7 14 2.532306169 0.017958914 2.687345322 0.18923722 0.207196135
8 16 2.337335443 0.052870343 2.480437613 0.325301203 0.378171546
9 18 2.177857858 0.109112458 2.311196094 0.464254574 0.573367032
10 20 2.044443142 0.180904484 2.169613131 0.591217133 0.772121617
11 22 1.930809495 0.260248121 2.049022321 0.699690463 0.959938585
12 24 1.832594122 0.340195836 1.944793763 0.78843467 1.128630506
13 26 1.746662618 0.415965892 1.853601146 0.858840602 1.274806494
14 28 1.670699011 0.484829662 1.772986706 0.913326902 1.398156564
15 30 1.602951128 0.545587501 1.701090993 0.954505703 1.500093204
16 32 1.542066304 0.598033922 1.636478527 0.984803654 1.582837575
17 34 1.486981907 0.642543191 1.578021615 1.006323038 1.648866229
18 36 1.436850336 0.679786814 1.524820765 1.020818769 1.700605583
19 38 1.390986376 0.710555989 1.476148807 1.029725512 1.740281501
20 40 1.34882945 0.735657409 1.431410845 1.034202256 1.769859665
21 42 1.30991604 0.755856662 1.390114981 1.035179137 1.791035799
22 44 1.273859201 0.771851003 1.351850581 1.033400122 1.805251125
23 46 1.240333105 0.784259435 1.316271867 1.029459461 1.813718896
24 48 1.209061221 0.793622493 1.283085377 1.023831755 1.817454248
25 50 1.179807172 0.800407075 1.252040264 1.016896258 1.817303333
26 52 1.152367571 0.805013571 1.222920687 1.008956312 1.813969883
27 54 1.126566359 0.807783709 1.19553981 1.000254794 1.808038504
28 56 1.102250281 0.809008268 1.169734992 0.990986355 1.799994622
29 58 1.079285241 0.808934216 1.145363929 0.981307102 1.790241318
30 60 1.057553347 0.807771111 1.122301511 0.971342281 1.779113392
31 62 1.036950489 0.805696689 1.100437253 0.961192363 1.766889052
32 64 1.017384343 0.802861704 1.079673181 0.950937882 1.753799586
33 66 0.998772723 0.799394057 1.059922073 0.940643299 1.740037356
34 68 0.981042195 0.795402309 1.041106002 0.93036008 1.725762388
35 70 0.964126922 0.790978657 1.023155101 0.920129166 1.711107823
36 72 0.947967693 0.786201444 1.006006531 0.909982965 1.696184409
37 74 0.932511084 0.781137275 0.989603599 0.899946943 1.681084218
38 76 0.917708764 0.775842803 0.973895014 0.890040924 1.665883727
39 78 0.903516884 0.770366234 0.958834245 0.880280133 1.650646367
40 80 0.889895565 0.764748591 0.944378966 0.870676054 1.635424645
41 82 0.876808443 0.759024789 0.930490592 0.861237114 1.620261903
42 84 0.864222289 0.753224537 0.917133857 0.851969256 1.605193793
43 86 0.852106668 0.7473731 0.904276464 0.8428764 1.5902495
44 88 0.840433647 0.741491953 0.891888768 0.833960822 1.575452775
45 90 0.829177538 0.735599323 0.87994351 0.825223464 1.560822788
46 92 0.818314672 0.729710662 0.86841557 0.816664193 1.546374855
47 94 0.807823201 0.723839041 0.857281764 0.808282008 1.532121049
48 96 0.797682923 0.717995486 0.846520653 0.800075217 1.518070703
49 98 0.787875125 0.712189271 0.836112377 0.792041579 1.50423085
50 100 0.778382448 0.706428165 0.826038516 0.78417842 1.490606585

A-3
Table A.4 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis I according to Dutch method
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 14.1792 8.75559E-70 14.1792 1.1589E-103 8.75559E-70
2 4 7.0896 1.98738E-17 7.0896 6.74091E-26 1.98738E-17
3 6 4.7264 7.47291E-08 4.7264 1.286E-11 7.4742E-08
4 8 3.5448 0.000145046 3.5448 1.10692E-06 0.000146153
5 10 2.83584 0.004408665 2.83584 0.000194615 0.00460328
6 12 2.3632 0.02649966 2.3632 0.003035134 0.029534795
7 14 2.0256 0.074766918 2.0256 0.015216568 0.089983486
8 16 1.7724 0.141755655 1.7724 0.041897952 0.183653608
9 18 1.575466667 0.214105055 1.575466667 0.081729147 0.295834201
10 20 1.41792 0.281551643 1.41792 0.129055228 0.410606871
11 22 1.289018182 0.338856911 1.289018182 0.177840569 0.51669748
12 24 1.1816 0.384508052 1.1816 0.223686534 0.608194586
13 26 1.090707692 0.419052407 1.090707692 0.264122466 0.683174873
14 28 1.0128 0.443928105 1.0128 0.298170343 0.742098448
15 30 0.94528 0.46080676 0.94528 0.325798333 0.786605093
16 32 0.8862 0.471277178 0.8862 0.347487758 0.818764936
17 34 0.834070588 0.476720495 0.834070588 0.363946928 0.840667423
18 36 0.787733333 0.478281573 0.787733333 0.37594227 0.854223843
19 38 0.746273684 0.476883557 0.746273684 0.384208343 0.8610919
20 40 0.70896 0.473258385 0.70896 0.389406056 0.862664441
21 42 0.6752 0.467980246 0.6752 0.39210836 0.860088606
22 44 0.644509091 0.46149646 0.644509091 0.392800468 0.854296928
23 46 0.616486957 0.454153822 0.616486957 0.391887057 0.846040878
24 48 0.5908 0.446220199 0.5908 0.389702172 0.835922371
25 50 0.567168 0.437901803 0.567168 0.386519616 0.82442142
26 52 0.545353846 0.429356825 0.545353846 0.382562699 0.811919524
27 54 0.525155556 0.42070611 0.525155556 0.378012884 0.798718995
28 56 0.5064 0.412041476 0.5064 0.373017223 0.785058699
29 58 0.488937931 0.403432179 0.488937931 0.367694596 0.771126775
30 60 0.47264 0.394929947 0.47264 0.362140895 0.757070842
31 62 0.457393548 0.386572878 0.457393548 0.356433293 0.743006171
32 64 0.4431 0.378388489 0.4431 0.350633729 0.729022218
33 66 0.429672727 0.370396077 0.429672727 0.344791759 0.715187836
34 68 0.417035294 0.362608571 0.417035294 0.338946867 0.701555438
35 70 0.40512 0.355033976 0.40512 0.333130353 0.688164328
36 72 0.393866667 0.347676498 0.393866667 0.327366859 0.675043357
37 74 0.383221622 0.340537432 0.383221622 0.32167562 0.662213053
38 76 0.373136842 0.333615859 0.373136842 0.316071471 0.64968733
39 78 0.363569231 0.326909181 0.363569231 0.310565673 0.637474854
40 80 0.35448 0.320413557 0.35448 0.305166586 0.625580143
41 82 0.345834146 0.314124234 0.345834146 0.299880217 0.614004452
42 84 0.3376 0.308035812 0.3376 0.294710667 0.602746479
43 86 0.329748837 0.302142445 0.329748837 0.289660495 0.59180294
44 88 0.322254545 0.296438006 0.322254545 0.284731023 0.58116903
45 90 0.315093333 0.290916211 0.315093333 0.279922575 0.570838786
46 92 0.308243478 0.285570714 0.308243478 0.275234679 0.560805393
47 94 0.301685106 0.280395181 0.301685106 0.270666235 0.551061416
48 96 0.2954 0.275383348 0.2954 0.266215646 0.541598994
49 98 0.289371429 0.270529064 0.289371429 0.261880929 0.532409993
50 100 0.283584 0.265826319 0.283584 0.257659808 0.523486127

A-4
Table A.5 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis II according to Dutch method
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 14.1792 1.37752E-61 14.1792 1.37752E-61 2.75503E-61
2 4 7.0896 2.22578E-15 7.0896 2.22578E-15 4.45157E-15
3 6 4.7264 6.0848E-07 4.7264 6.0848E-07 1.21696E-06
4 8 3.5448 0.000471853 3.5448 0.000471853 0.000943707
5 10 2.83584 0.009379496 2.83584 0.009379496 0.018758993
6 12 2.3632 0.044764063 2.3632 0.044764063 0.089528127
7 14 2.0256 0.109898392 2.0256 0.109898392 0.219796784
8 16 1.7724 0.190377477 1.7724 0.190377477 0.380754955
9 18 1.575466667 0.270285108 1.575466667 0.270285108 0.540570217
10 20 1.41792 0.340037001 1.41792 0.340037001 0.680074002
11 22 1.289018182 0.396057815 1.289018182 0.396057815 0.792115631
12 24 1.1816 0.43835679 1.1816 0.43835679 0.876713581
13 26 1.090707692 0.468565361 1.090707692 0.468565361 0.937130722
14 28 1.0128 0.488802148 1.0128 0.488802148 0.977604295
15 30 0.94528 0.501128512 0.94528 0.501128512 1.002257025
16 32 0.8862 0.507335441 0.8862 0.507335441 1.014670883
17 34 0.834070588 0.508893017 0.834070588 0.508893017 1.017786034
18 36 0.787733333 0.506970219 0.787733333 0.506970219 1.013940438
19 38 0.746273684 0.502479324 0.746273684 0.502479324 1.004958648
20 40 0.70896 0.496124124 0.70896 0.496124124 0.992248248
21 42 0.6752 0.488443568 0.6752 0.488443568 0.976887135
22 44 0.644509091 0.47984827 0.644509091 0.47984827 0.959696541
23 46 0.616486957 0.470649813 0.616486957 0.470649813 0.941299625
24 48 0.5908 0.461083733 0.5908 0.461083733 0.922167466
25 50 0.567168 0.451327329 0.567168 0.451327329 0.902654657
26 52 0.545353846 0.441513341 0.545353846 0.441513341 0.883026683
27 54 0.525155556 0.431740441 0.525155556 0.431740441 0.863480882
28 56 0.5064 0.42208124 0.5064 0.42208124 0.844162481
29 58 0.488937931 0.412588427 0.488937931 0.412588427 0.825176854
30 60 0.47264 0.403299455 0.47264 0.403299455 0.806598909
31 62 0.457393548 0.39424014 0.457393548 0.39424014 0.788480281
32 64 0.4431 0.385427426 0.4431 0.385427426 0.770854851
33 66 0.429672727 0.376871498 0.429672727 0.376871498 0.753742995
34 68 0.417035294 0.368577426 0.417035294 0.368577426 0.737154852
35 70 0.40512 0.360546422 0.40512 0.360546422 0.721092844
36 72 0.393866667 0.352776814 0.393866667 0.352776814 0.705553628
37 74 0.383221622 0.345264798 0.383221622 0.345264798 0.690529596
38 76 0.373136842 0.338005019 0.373136842 0.338005019 0.676010038
39 78 0.363569231 0.33099102 0.363569231 0.33099102 0.661982039
40 80 0.35448 0.324215587 0.35448 0.324215587 0.648431174
41 82 0.345834146 0.317671018 0.345834146 0.317671018 0.635342036
42 84 0.3376 0.311349325 0.3376 0.311349325 0.62269865
43 86 0.329748837 0.305242389 0.329748837 0.305242389 0.610484778
44 88 0.322254545 0.299342081 0.322254545 0.299342081 0.598684162
45 90 0.315093333 0.293640348 0.315093333 0.293640348 0.587280697
46 92 0.308243478 0.288129281 0.308243478 0.288129281 0.576258563
47 94 0.301685106 0.282801161 0.301685106 0.282801161 0.565602322
48 96 0.2954 0.277648492 0.2954 0.277648492 0.555296985
49 98 0.289371429 0.272664027 0.289371429 0.272664027 0.545328055
50 100 0.283584 0.267840781 0.283584 0.267840781 0.535681561

A-5
Table A.6 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis III according to Dutch method
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 14.1792 1.25022E-72 14.1792 9.62183E-39 9.62183E-39
2 4 7.0896 3.86327E-18 7.0896 1.14426E-09 1.14426E-09
3 6 4.7264 3.60865E-08 4.7264 0.000210129 0.000210165
4 8 3.5448 9.63108E-05 3.5448 0.012634763 0.012731074
5 10 2.83584 0.003392306 2.83584 0.076903475 0.080295782
6 12 2.3632 0.022090431 2.3632 0.192969884 0.215060315
7 14 2.0256 0.065409697 2.0256 0.321513127 0.386922824
8 16 1.7724 0.127962461 1.7724 0.433067493 0.561029954
9 18 1.575466667 0.19746938 1.575466667 0.517426658 0.714896037
10 20 1.41792 0.263696927 1.41792 0.575397259 0.839094186
11 22 1.289018182 0.320997369 1.289018182 0.611720885 0.932718254
12 24 1.1816 0.367406142 1.1816 0.631637268 0.999043411
13 26 1.090707692 0.403118051 1.090707692 0.639650482 1.042768533
14 28 1.0128 0.429334516 1.0128 0.639270918 1.068605435
15 30 0.94528 0.447582466 0.94528 0.633109337 1.080691803
16 32 0.8862 0.459369288 0.8862 0.623060482 1.08242977
17 34 0.834070588 0.466034958 0.834070588 0.610480832 1.07651579
18 36 0.787733333 0.468707453 0.787733333 0.596333378 1.065040831
19 38 0.746273684 0.468306981 0.746273684 0.581297455 1.049604435
20 40 0.70896 0.465570085 0.70896 0.565849254 1.03141934
21 42 0.6752 0.461079267 0.6752 0.550319895 1.011399163
22 44 0.644509091 0.455291618 0.644509091 0.53493697 0.990228588
23 46 0.616486957 0.448563916 0.616486957 0.519854203 0.968418119
24 48 0.5908 0.441173552 0.5908 0.505172618 0.946346171
25 50 0.567168 0.433335485 0.567168 0.490955681 0.924291166
26 52 0.545353846 0.425215755 0.545353846 0.477240145 0.902455901
27 54 0.525155556 0.416942151 0.525155556 0.464043858 0.880986009
28 56 0.5064 0.408612572 0.5064 0.451371372 0.859983944
29 58 0.488937931 0.400301578 0.488937931 0.439218005 0.839519583
30 60 0.47264 0.392065495 0.47264 0.427572767 0.819638262
31 62 0.457393548 0.38394641 0.457393548 0.41642048 0.80036689
32 64 0.4431 0.37597529 0.4431 0.405743308 0.781718597
33 66 0.429672727 0.368174422 0.429672727 0.395521854 0.763696276
34 68 0.417035294 0.360559326 0.417035294 0.385735951 0.746295277
35 70 0.40512 0.353140251 0.40512 0.376365221 0.729505473
36 72 0.393866667 0.345923357 0.393866667 0.367389467 0.713312824
37 74 0.383221622 0.338911635 0.383221622 0.358788944 0.697700579
38 76 0.373136842 0.332105645 0.373136842 0.350544539 0.682650184
39 78 0.363569231 0.325504083 0.363569231 0.342637887 0.66814197
40 80 0.35448 0.319104237 0.35448 0.335051442 0.654155679
41 82 0.345834146 0.312902346 0.345834146 0.327768505 0.640670852
42 84 0.3376 0.30689388 0.3376 0.320773242 0.627667122
43 86 0.329748837 0.301073761 0.329748837 0.314050665 0.615124426
44 88 0.322254545 0.295436537 0.322254545 0.307586623 0.603023159
45 90 0.315093333 0.289976522 0.315093333 0.301367765 0.591344287
46 92 0.308243478 0.284687899 0.308243478 0.295381515 0.580069414
47 94 0.301685106 0.279564805 0.301685106 0.289616027 0.569180832
48 96 0.2954 0.274601393 0.2954 0.284060155 0.558661549
49 98 0.289371429 0.269791885 0.289371429 0.278703409 0.548495294
50 100 0.283584 0.265130602 0.283584 0.273535921 0.538666523

A-6
A. 2 Results from Investigation of the Identified Problems
Table A.7 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis I according to German method in case of non-ducted
propellers
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 8.01 4.9287E-101 8.01 7.1657E-150 4.9287E-101
2 4 8.01 3.98939E-25 8.01 2.46342E-37 3.98939E-25
3 6 5.5536 3.15441E-11 5.65377282 1.20309E-16 3.15442E-11
4 8 4.48299081 2.11781E-06 4.75745963 1.99229E-09 2.1198E-06
5 10 3.9212257 0.00035074 4.16130074 4.1428E-06 0.000354883
6 12 3.51490096 0.005426241 3.73009898 0.000253344 0.005679585
7 14 3.20438743 0.027556011 3.40057441 0.002946731 0.030502743
8 16 2.95767092 0.077540655 3.13875281 0.014198787 0.091739442
9 18 2.75586753 0.155146148 2.92459411 0.041078683 0.196224831
10 20 2.58704417 0.251590824 2.74543462 0.086721612 0.338312436
11 22 2.44325183 0.356052858 2.59283867 0.149178511 0.505231369
12 24 2.31896981 0.459665164 2.46094756 0.223408527 0.683073691
13 26 2.21023184 0.556617351 2.34555216 0.303658106 0.860275457
14 28 2.11410728 0.643790933 2.24354242 0.384929631 1.028720564
15 30 2.02837892 0.719984 2.15256538 0.463526617 1.183510617
16 32 1.95133509 0.785193612 2.07080458 0.537047434 1.322241046
17 34 1.88163113 0.840086001 1.99683304 0.604147829 1.44423383
18 36 1.8181945 0.885647712 1.92951253 0.664255762 1.549903474
19 38 1.76015812 0.922973147 1.8679229 0.71731923 1.640292378
20 40 1.70681262 0.953144145 1.81131135 0.763610986 1.716755131
21 42 1.65757148 0.977167651 1.75905545 0.80358862 1.780756271
22 44 1.61194506 0.995948302 1.71063557 0.837799682 1.833747984
23 46 1.56952104 1.010280988 1.66561416 0.866820315 1.877101302
24 48 1.52994951 1.020854205 1.62361988 0.891217504 1.91207171
25 50 1.49293135 1.028258695 1.58433531 0.911527339 1.939786034
26 52 1.4582092 1.032998192 1.54748732 0.928243772 1.961241963
27 54 1.42556027 1.035500528 1.51283947 0.941814063 1.977314591
28 56 1.39479064 1.036128173 1.48018599 0.952638332 1.988766505
29 58 1.36573061 1.035187791 1.44934677 0.961071478 1.996259269
30 60 1.33823101 1.032938654 1.42016352 0.967426402 2.000365056
31 62 1.3121601 1.029599938 1.39249643 0.971977791 2.001577729
32 64 1.28740104 1.025356956 1.36622151 0.97496607 2.000323026
33 66 1.26384984 1.020366456 1.34122841 0.976601244 1.996967699
34 68 1.24141358 1.014761092 1.3174185 0.977066499 1.991827591
35 70 1.22000895 1.008653198 1.29470337 0.9765215 1.985174698
36 72 1.19956101 1.00213795 1.27300352 0.975105347 1.977243297
37 74 1.18000218 0.995296031 1.25224721 0.972939211 1.968235242
38 76 1.16127128 0.988195862 1.23236952 0.97012865 1.958324512
39 78 1.14331283 0.980895484 1.21331158 0.966765641 1.947661126
40 80 1.12607638 0.973444135 1.19501983 0.962930353 1.936374488
41 82 1.1095159 0.965883576 1.17744544 0.958692687 1.924576263
42 84 1.09358934 0.958249216 1.16054379 0.954113618 1.912362834
43 86 1.0782582 0.950571052 1.14427401 0.949246353 1.899817405
44 88 1.06348713 0.942874472 1.12859858 0.94413734 1.887011812
45 90 1.04924361 0.935180928 1.11348302 0.938827137 1.874008065
46 92 1.03549771 0.927508511 1.09889553 0.933351171 1.860859682
47 94 1.02222178 0.919872439 1.08480678 0.927740387 1.847612827
48 96 1.00939024 0.912285467 1.07118964 0.922021824 1.834307291
49 98 0.99697942 0.904758244 1.05801898 0.9162191 1.820977343
50 100 0.98496736 0.897299609 1.04527149 0.910352844 1.807652453

A-7
Table A.8 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis II according to German method in case of non-ducted
propellers
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 8.01 3.22783E-89 8.01 3.22783E-89 6.46E-89
2 4 8.01 3.58882E-22 8.01 3.58882E-22 7.18E-22
3 6 5.5536 6.48377E-10 5.653772822 6.60072E-10 1.31E-09
4 8 4.482990806 1.15984E-05 4.757459631 1.23085E-05 2.39E-05
5 10 3.9212257 0.001041437 4.161300743 0.001105198 0.002147
6 12 3.514900964 0.01155384 3.730098982 0.012261218 0.023815
7 14 3.204387427 0.048013452 3.400574412 0.050953051 0.098967
8 16 2.957670917 0.118619835 3.138752809 0.125882274 0.244502
9 18 2.755867526 0.217079989 2.92459411 0.2303706 0.447451
10 20 2.587044166 0.330260489 2.745434625 0.350480519 0.680741
11 22 2.443251826 0.445829574 2.592838672 0.473125262 0.918955
12 24 2.318969814 0.555262588 2.460947557 0.589258256 1.144521
13 26 2.210231844 0.653845257 2.34555216 0.693876599 1.347722
14 28 2.114107279 0.739658921 2.243542419 0.784944161 1.524603
15 30 2.028378916 0.812529637 2.15256538 0.862276349 1.674806
16 32 1.951335086 0.873240198 2.070804581 0.926703883 1.799944
17 34 1.881631133 0.923018045 1.996833039 0.979529354 1.902547
18 36 1.818194501 0.963231559 1.929512532 1.02220492 1.985436
19 38 1.760158116 0.995224074 1.867922898 1.05615616 2.05138
20 40 1.706812621 1.020232232 1.811311353 1.082695429 2.102928
21 42 1.657571482 1.039353171 1.75905545 1.102987038 2.14234
22 44 1.611945056 1.053538462 1.71063557 1.118040816 2.171579
23 46 1.569521038 1.063601665 1.665614163 1.128720134 2.192322
24 48 1.529949507 1.070231988 1.623619885 1.135756395 2.205988
25 50 1.49293135 1.074009894 1.58433531 1.139765602 2.213775
26 52 1.458209201 1.075422505 1.547487315 1.1412647 2.216687
27 54 1.425560274 1.074877765 1.512839475 1.140686608 2.215564
28 56 1.39479064 1.072716952 1.480185985 1.1383935 2.21111
29 58 1.365730613 1.069225477 1.449346773 1.134688261 2.203914
30 60 1.338231013 1.064642064 1.420163524 1.129824231 2.194466
31 62 1.312160097 1.059166468 1.39249643 1.124013394 2.18318
32 64 1.287401041 1.052965938 1.366221513 1.11743324 2.170399
33 66 1.263849844 1.046180598 1.341228406 1.110232471 2.156413
34 68 1.241413583 1.038927921 1.317418496 1.102535753 2.141464
35 70 1.220008949 1.031306448 1.294703375 1.094447659 2.125754
36 72 1.199561014 1.023398871 1.273003525 1.086055944 2.109455
37 74 1.180002177 1.015274604 1.252247208 1.077434273 2.092709
38 76 1.161271279 1.006991913 1.232369521 1.068644479 2.075636
39 78 1.143312835 0.998599693 1.21331158 1.05973845 2.058338
40 80 1.126076378 0.990138954 1.19501983 1.050759706 2.040899
41 82 1.109515897 0.981644051 1.177445441 1.041744708 2.023389
42 84 1.093589341 0.973143729 1.160543791 1.032723958 2.005868
43 86 1.0782582 0.964661985 1.144274008 1.023722923 1.988385
44 88 1.063487126 0.956218798 1.128598583 1.014762806 1.970982
45 90 1.049243614 0.947830747 1.113483019 1.005861201 1.953692
46 92 1.035497713 0.939511522 1.098895532 0.997032636 1.936544
47 94 1.022221776 0.931272366 1.084806783 0.988289041 1.919561
48 96 1.009390239 0.923122439 1.071189641 0.97964014 1.902763
49 98 0.996979423 0.915069136 1.05801898 0.971093777 1.886163
50 100 0.984967363 0.907118348 1.045271487 0.962656206 1.869775

A-8
Table A.9 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis III according to German method in case of non-ducted
propellers
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 8.01 3.9E-105 8.01 2.75489E-56 2.75489E-56
2 4 8.01 3.76262E-26 8.01 6.13409E-14 6.13409E-14
3 6 5.5536 1.10453E-11 5.653772822 3.01032E-06 3.01033E-06
4 8 4.482990806 1.17363E-06 4.757459631 0.001407358 0.001408532
5 10 3.9212257 0.000240391 4.161300743 0.022944994 0.023185385
6 12 3.514900964 0.00417411 3.730098982 0.100760195 0.104934305
7 14 3.204387427 0.022725261 3.400574412 0.239461316 0.262186578
8 16 2.957670917 0.066902283 3.138752809 0.411637067 0.47853935
9 18 2.755867526 0.138071215 2.92459411 0.587469058 0.725540272
10 20 2.587044166 0.228917048 2.745434625 0.748127842 0.97704489
11 22 2.443251826 0.329318713 2.592838672 0.885390302 1.214709015
12 24 2.318969814 0.430484779 2.460947557 0.997687473 1.428172252
13 26 2.210231844 0.526364422 2.34555216 1.08677934 1.613143762
14 28 2.114107279 0.613504833 2.243542419 1.155726459 1.769231292
15 30 2.028378916 0.690387975 2.15256538 1.207834231 1.898222207
16 32 1.951335086 0.756753825 2.070804581 1.246173344 2.002927169
17 34 1.881631133 0.813075981 1.996833039 1.273404034 2.086480015
18 36 1.818194501 0.860204167 1.929512532 1.291746973 2.15195114
19 38 1.760158116 0.899139569 1.867922898 1.303017591 2.20215716
20 40 1.706812621 0.930902977 1.811311353 1.308682476 2.239585453
21 42 1.657571482 0.95646317 1.75905545 1.309918624 2.266381794
22 44 1.611945056 0.976702454 1.71063557 1.307667453 2.284369907
23 46 1.569521038 0.992404119 1.665614163 1.30268093 2.295085049
24 48 1.529949507 1.004252159 1.623619885 1.295559615 2.299811774
25 50 1.49293135 1.012837389 1.58433531 1.286783416 2.299620805
26 52 1.458209201 1.018666462 1.547487315 1.276736186 2.295402648
27 54 1.425560274 1.022171803 1.512839475 1.265725261 2.287897064
28 56 1.39479064 1.023721362 1.480185985 1.253996951 2.277718313
29 58 1.365730613 1.023627657 1.449346773 1.241748797 2.265376454
30 60 1.338231013 1.02215586 1.420163524 1.229139285 2.251295145
31 62 1.312160097 1.019530881 1.39249643 1.216295549 2.23582643
32 64 1.287401041 1.015943483 1.366221513 1.2033195 2.219262983
33 66 1.263849844 1.011555512 1.341228406 1.190292706 2.201848218
34 68 1.241413583 1.006504343 1.317418496 1.17728029 2.183784633
35 70 1.220008949 1.000906642 1.294703375 1.164334064 2.165240705
36 72 1.199561014 0.994861543 1.273003525 1.151495032 2.146356574
37 74 1.180002177 0.988453329 1.252247208 1.138795421 2.12724875
38 76 1.161271279 0.981753689 1.232369521 1.126260316 2.108014005
39 78 1.143312835 0.974823623 1.21331158 1.113908984 2.088732607
40 80 1.126076378 0.967715042 1.19501983 1.101755954 2.069470996
41 82 1.109515897 0.960472127 1.177445441 1.089811892 2.050284019
42 84 1.093589341 0.953132471 1.160543791 1.078084319 2.03121679
43 86 1.0782582 0.945728046 1.144274008 1.066578194 2.01230624
44 88 1.063487126 0.938286026 1.128598583 1.055296396 1.993582421
45 90 1.049243614 0.930829475 1.113483019 1.044240118 1.975069594
46 92 1.035497713 0.923377947 1.098895532 1.033409192 1.956787139
47 94 1.022221776 0.91594798 1.084806783 1.022802352 1.938750332
48 96 1.009390239 0.908553529 1.071189641 1.012417455 1.920970984
49 98 0.996979423 0.901206329 1.05801898 1.002251666 1.903457995
50 100 0.984967363 0.893916209 1.045271487 0.992301602 1.886217811

A-9
Table A.10 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis I according to Dutch method in case of non-ducted
propellers
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 12.4956 7.71598E-70 12.4956 1.0213E-103 7.71598E-70
2 4 6.2478 1.7514E-17 6.2478 5.94051E-26 1.7514E-17
3 6 4.1652 6.5856E-08 4.1652 1.1333E-11 6.58673E-08
4 8 3.1239 0.000127824 3.1239 9.75487E-07 0.000128799
5 10 2.49912 0.003885192 2.49912 0.000171507 0.004056699
6 12 2.0826 0.023353162 2.0826 0.002674751 0.026027913
7 14 1.785085714 0.065889296 1.785085714 0.013409793 0.079299089
8 16 1.56195 0.124923971 1.56195 0.036923102 0.161847073
9 18 1.3884 0.188682797 1.3884 0.072024848 0.260707645
10 20 1.24956 0.24812096 1.24956 0.113731558 0.361852518
11 22 1.135963636 0.298621954 1.135963636 0.156724259 0.455346214
12 24 1.0413 0.338852602 1.0413 0.197126597 0.5359792
13 26 0.9612 0.369295253 0.9612 0.232761276 0.602056529
14 28 0.892542857 0.391217278 0.892542857 0.2627664 0.653983678
15 30 0.83304 0.406091807 0.83304 0.287113917 0.693205724
16 32 0.780975 0.415318996 0.780975 0.306227998 0.721546994
17 34 0.735035294 0.420115988 0.735035294 0.32073285 0.740848839
18 36 0.6942 0.421491707 0.6942 0.331303898 0.752795606
19 38 0.657663158 0.420259689 0.657663158 0.338588479 0.758848168
20 40 0.62478 0.417064959 0.62478 0.34316903 0.76023399
21 42 0.595028571 0.412413533 0.595028571 0.34555047 0.757964002
22 44 0.567981818 0.406699613 0.567981818 0.346160399 0.752860013
23 46 0.543286957 0.400228821 0.543286957 0.345355444 0.745584264
24 48 0.52065 0.393237215 0.52065 0.343429986 0.736667201
25 50 0.499824 0.385906523 0.499824 0.340625318 0.726531842
26 52 0.4806 0.378376153 0.4806 0.337138235 0.715514387
27 54 0.4628 0.370752601 0.4628 0.333128653 0.703881254
28 56 0.446271429 0.363116781 0.446271429 0.328726163 0.691842945
29 58 0.430882759 0.35552973 0.430882759 0.32403553 0.67956526
30 60 0.41652 0.348037029 0.41652 0.319141261 0.66717829
31 62 0.403083871 0.340672256 0.403083871 0.314111364 0.654783621
32 64 0.3904875 0.333459659 0.3904875 0.309000425 0.642460084
33 66 0.378654545 0.326416245 0.378654545 0.303852115 0.630268359
34 68 0.367517647 0.319553406 0.367517647 0.298701229 0.618254636
35 70 0.357017143 0.312878198 0.357017143 0.293575352 0.60645355
36 72 0.3471 0.306394327 0.3471 0.2884962 0.594890528
37 74 0.337718919 0.300102935 0.337718919 0.283480724 0.583583659
38 76 0.328831579 0.294003211 0.328831579 0.278541996 0.572545207
39 78 0.3204 0.288092866 0.3204 0.273689942 0.561782807
40 80 0.31239 0.282368515 0.31239 0.268931928 0.551300443
41 82 0.304770732 0.276825969 0.304770732 0.264273248 0.541099218
42 84 0.297514286 0.27146047 0.297514286 0.259717516 0.531177986
43 86 0.290595349 0.266266865 0.290595349 0.255266989 0.521533854
44 88 0.283990909 0.261239756 0.283990909 0.250922829 0.512162585
45 90 0.27768 0.256373604 0.27768 0.246685323 0.503058927
46 92 0.271643478 0.251662817 0.271643478 0.242554055 0.494216872
47 94 0.26586383 0.247101812 0.26586383 0.238528056 0.485629868
48 96 0.260325 0.242685071 0.260325 0.234605917 0.477290989
49 98 0.255012245 0.238407172 0.255012245 0.230785893 0.469193065
50 100 0.249912 0.234262818 0.249912 0.227065977 0.461328795

A-10
Table A.11 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis II according to Dutch method in case of non-ducted
propellers
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 12.4956 1.21395E-61 12.4956 1.21395E-61 2.42791E-61
2 4 6.2478 1.9615E-15 6.2478 1.9615E-15 3.923E-15
3 6 4.1652 5.36231E-07 4.1652 5.36231E-07 1.07246E-06
4 8 3.1239 0.000415827 3.1239 0.000415827 0.000831654
5 10 2.49912 0.0082658 2.49912 0.0082658 0.0165316
6 12 2.0826 0.039448899 2.0826 0.039448899 0.078897798
7 14 1.785085714 0.096849353 1.785085714 0.096849353 0.193698707
8 16 1.56195 0.167772569 1.56195 0.167772569 0.335545137
9 18 1.3884 0.238192183 1.3884 0.238192183 0.476384366
10 20 1.24956 0.299661924 1.24956 0.299661924 0.599323847
11 22 1.135963636 0.349030978 1.135963636 0.349030978 0.698061955
12 24 1.0413 0.386307486 1.0413 0.386307486 0.772614973
13 26 0.9612 0.412929173 0.9612 0.412929173 0.825858346
14 28 0.892542857 0.430763098 0.892542857 0.430763098 0.861526195
15 30 0.83304 0.441625863 0.83304 0.441625863 0.883251726
16 32 0.780975 0.447095798 0.780975 0.447095798 0.894191596
17 34 0.735035294 0.448468432 0.735035294 0.448468432 0.896936863
18 36 0.6942 0.446773941 0.6942 0.446773941 0.893547882
19 38 0.657663158 0.442816283 0.657663158 0.442816283 0.885632567
20 40 0.62478 0.437215682 0.62478 0.437215682 0.874431364
21 42 0.595028571 0.430447095 0.595028571 0.430447095 0.860894189
22 44 0.567981818 0.42287238 0.567981818 0.42287238 0.845744759
23 46 0.543286957 0.414766122 0.543286957 0.414766122 0.829532244
24 48 0.52065 0.406335893 0.52065 0.406335893 0.812671786
25 50 0.499824 0.397737938 0.499824 0.397737938 0.795475875
26 52 0.4806 0.389089237 0.4806 0.389089237 0.778178474
27 54 0.4628 0.380476744 0.4628 0.380476744 0.760953489
28 56 0.446271429 0.371964451 0.446271429 0.371964451 0.743928903
29 58 0.430882759 0.363598789 0.430882759 0.363598789 0.727197578
30 60 0.41652 0.355412764 0.41652 0.355412764 0.710825528
31 62 0.403083871 0.347429128 0.403083871 0.347429128 0.694858257
32 64 0.3904875 0.339662812 0.3904875 0.339662812 0.679325623
33 66 0.378654545 0.332122791 0.378654545 0.332122791 0.664245583
34 68 0.367517647 0.324813535 0.367517647 0.324813535 0.649627071
35 70 0.357017143 0.317736111 0.357017143 0.317736111 0.635472223
36 72 0.3471 0.310889046 0.3471 0.310889046 0.621778092
37 74 0.337718919 0.304268986 0.337718919 0.304268986 0.608537973
38 76 0.328831579 0.297871214 0.328831579 0.297871214 0.595742427
39 78 0.3204 0.291690038 0.3204 0.291690038 0.583380076
40 80 0.31239 0.285719102 0.31239 0.285719102 0.571438204
41 82 0.304770732 0.279951617 0.304770732 0.279951617 0.559903235
42 84 0.297514286 0.274380545 0.297514286 0.274380545 0.54876109
43 86 0.290595349 0.26899873 0.290595349 0.26899873 0.53799746
44 88 0.283990909 0.263799009 0.283990909 0.263799009 0.527598018
45 90 0.27768 0.258774285 0.27768 0.258774285 0.517548569
46 92 0.271643478 0.253917587 0.271643478 0.253917587 0.507835174
47 94 0.26586383 0.249222113 0.26586383 0.249222113 0.498444226
48 96 0.260325 0.244681258 0.260325 0.244681258 0.489362517
49 98 0.255012245 0.240288636 0.255012245 0.240288636 0.480577271
50 100 0.249912 0.236038088 0.249912 0.236038088 0.472076176

A-11
Table A.12 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis III according to Dutch method in case of non-ducted
propellers
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 12.4956 1.10177E-72 12.4956 8.47936E-39 8.47936E-39
2 4 6.2478 3.40456E-18 6.2478 1.00839E-09 1.00839E-09
3 6 4.1652 3.18017E-08 4.1652 0.000185179 0.000185211
4 8 3.1239 8.48751E-05 3.1239 0.011134546 0.011219421
5 10 2.49912 0.002989513 2.49912 0.067772164 0.070761677
6 12 2.0826 0.019467473 2.0826 0.17005716 0.189524633
7 14 1.785085714 0.057643126 1.785085714 0.283337525 0.340980651
8 16 1.56195 0.112768543 1.56195 0.381646226 0.494414769
9 18 1.3884 0.174022398 1.3884 0.455988811 0.630011208
10 20 1.24956 0.232386264 1.24956 0.507076139 0.739462403
11 22 1.135963636 0.282883006 1.135963636 0.539086795 0.821969802
12 24 1.0413 0.323781327 1.0413 0.556638361 0.880419688
13 26 0.9612 0.3552529 0.9612 0.563700107 0.918953007
14 28 0.892542857 0.378356493 0.892542857 0.563365612 0.941722105
15 30 0.83304 0.39443773 0.83304 0.55793564 0.95237337
16 32 0.780975 0.404825017 0.780975 0.549079959 0.953904976
17 34 0.735035294 0.410699223 0.735035294 0.537993983 0.948693206
18 36 0.6942 0.413054393 0.6942 0.52552636 0.938580752
19 38 0.657663158 0.412701472 0.657663158 0.512275761 0.924977233
20 40 0.62478 0.410289548 0.62478 0.498661839 0.908951387
21 42 0.595028571 0.406331958 0.595028571 0.484976394 0.891308352
22 44 0.567981818 0.401231518 0.567981818 0.471419996 0.872651514
23 46 0.543286957 0.395302645 0.543286957 0.458128116 0.853430761
24 48 0.52065 0.388789793 0.52065 0.445189783 0.833979576
25 50 0.499824 0.381882397 0.499824 0.432660926 0.814543323
26 52 0.4806 0.374726782 0.4806 0.420573936 0.795300719
27 54 0.4628 0.367435563 0.4628 0.408944541 0.776380104
28 56 0.446271429 0.360095017 0.446271429 0.397776752 0.757871768
29 58 0.430882759 0.352770847 0.430882759 0.387066442 0.73983729
30 60 0.41652 0.345512695 0.41652 0.376803928 0.722316623
31 62 0.403083871 0.338357648 0.403083871 0.366975834 0.705333482
32 64 0.3904875 0.331332997 0.3904875 0.357566441 0.688899438
33 66 0.378654545 0.324458383 0.378654545 0.348558655 0.673017038
34 68 0.367517647 0.317747483 0.367517647 0.339934704 0.657682187
35 70 0.357017143 0.31120933 0.357017143 0.331676629 0.642885959
36 72 0.3471 0.304849349 0.3471 0.323766632 0.628615981
37 74 0.337718919 0.298670181 0.337718919 0.316187312 0.614857493
38 76 0.328831579 0.292672316 0.328831579 0.308921825 0.60159414
39 78 0.3204 0.286854605 0.3204 0.301953987 0.588808593
40 80 0.31239 0.28121466 0.31239 0.295268336 0.576482996
41 82 0.304770732 0.275749165 0.304770732 0.288850156 0.564599321
42 84 0.297514286 0.270454128 0.297514286 0.282685491 0.553139619
43 86 0.290595349 0.265325074 0.290595349 0.276761135 0.542086209
44 88 0.283990909 0.260357198 0.283990909 0.271064616 0.531421814
45 90 0.27768 0.255545491 0.27768 0.265584169 0.52112966
46 92 0.271643478 0.250884825 0.271643478 0.26030871 0.511193535
47 94 0.26586383 0.246370033 0.26586383 0.255227801 0.501597834
48 96 0.260325 0.241995964 0.260325 0.250331618 0.492327582
49 98 0.255012245 0.237757523 0.255012245 0.245610918 0.483368441
50 100 0.249912 0.233649709 0.249912 0.241057003 0.474706711

A-12
Table A.13 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis I according to German method in case without central
rudder
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 6.33 3.8949E-101 6.33 5.6627E-150 3.8949E-101
2 4 6.33 3.15266E-25 6.33 1.94675E-37 3.15266E-25
3 6 4.3888 2.49281E-11 3.58009839 7.61821E-17 2.49282E-11
4 8 2.74742951 1.29791E-06 3.01253236 1.26156E-09 1.29917E-06
5 10 2.40314818 0.000214953 2.6350309 2.62332E-06 0.000217577
6 12 2.15412948 0.003325506 2.36198407 0.000160423 0.003485929
7 14 1.96382927 0.016887877 2.15332157 0.001865938 0.018753815
8 16 1.81262749 0.047521285 1.98753014 0.008990997 0.056512282
9 18 1.68895099 0.095082306 1.85191995 0.026011962 0.121094269
10 20 1.58548652 0.154189041 1.73847206 0.05491411 0.209103151
11 22 1.49736247 0.218209265 1.64184481 0.094463249 0.312672513
12 24 1.42119544 0.281708728 1.55832834 0.141467394 0.423176122
13 26 1.35455468 0.341126494 1.48525733 0.192283265 0.533409759
14 28 1.29564413 0.39455138 1.42066242 0.243746255 0.638297635
15 30 1.24310496 0.441246787 1.36305368 0.293515666 0.734762453
16 32 1.19588815 0.481210913 1.31128087 0.340070731 0.821281644
17 34 1.15316964 0.514852064 1.2644404 0.382560237 0.897412301
18 36 1.1142921 0.542774849 1.22181151 0.420621956 0.963396806
19 38 1.07872413 0.565649981 1.18281154 0.454222959 1.01987294
20 40 1.046031 0.584140469 1.14696382 0.483535959 1.067676428
21 42 1.01585326 0.598863428 1.11387418 0.508850712 1.10771414
22 44 0.98789081 0.610373269 1.08321361 0.53051394 1.140887209
23 46 0.96189098 0.619157147 1.05470502 0.548890469 1.168047616
24 48 0.93763931 0.625637011 1.02811328 0.564339328 1.189976339
25 50 0.9149525 0.6301749 1.00323739 0.57719998 1.20737488
26 52 0.89367281 0.633079531 0.9799044 0.587785208 1.220864739
27 54 0.87366371 0.634613103 0.95796459 0.596378227 1.230991331
28 56 0.85480634 0.63499776 0.93728765 0.603232402 1.238230162
29 58 0.83699672 0.63442144 0.91775956 0.608572463 1.242993904
30 60 0.82014341 0.633043043 0.89928006 0.612596546 1.245639589
31 62 0.80416569 0.630996889 0.88176062 0.61547859 1.246475479
32 64 0.78899194 0.628396551 0.86512274 0.617370837 1.245767388
33 66 0.77455844 0.625338091 0.84929653 0.618406266 1.243744357
34 68 0.76080823 0.621902808 0.83421955 0.618700877 1.240603685
35 70 0.74769027 0.618159546 0.81983582 0.618355771 1.236515317
36 72 0.73515862 0.614166635 0.80609498 0.61745903 1.231625665
37 74 0.72317186 0.609973521 0.7929516 0.616087383 1.226060904
38 76 0.71169251 0.605622137 0.78036459 0.614307672 1.219929809
39 78 0.70068656 0.601148054 0.76829667 0.612178138 1.213326192
40 80 0.69012309 0.596581447 0.75671392 0.609749545 1.206330993
41 82 0.67997389 0.591947911 0.74558541 0.607066158 1.199014069
42 84 0.6702132 0.587269144 0.7348829 0.604166587 1.191435731
43 86 0.66081742 0.582563532 0.7245805 0.601084523 1.183648056
44 88 0.65176487 0.577846634 0.71465446 0.597849379 1.175696013
45 90 0.64303564 0.573131597 0.70508294 0.594486837 1.167618434
46 92 0.63461138 0.568429507 0.69584581 0.59101933 1.159448837
47 94 0.62647514 0.563749692 0.68692449 0.587466453 1.151216145
48 96 0.61861125 0.559099968 0.67830181 0.583845328 1.142945296
49 98 0.6110052 0.554486861 0.66996184 0.58017091 1.134657771
50 100 0.60364353 0.549915789 0.66188984 0.576456263 1.126372052

A-13
Table A.14 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis II according to German method in case without central
rudder
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 6.33 2.55083E-89 6.33 2.55083E-89 5.1E-89
2 4 6.33 2.83611E-22 6.33 2.83611E-22 5.67E-22
3 6 4.3888 5.12388E-10 3.580098391 4.17973E-10 9.3E-10
4 8 2.747429511 7.10815E-06 3.012532358 7.79402E-06 1.49E-05
5 10 2.403148182 0.000638251 2.635030901 0.000699837 0.001338
6 12 2.154129475 0.007080845 2.361984074 0.007764084 0.014845
7 14 1.963829274 0.02942535 2.153321572 0.032264638 0.06169
8 16 1.812627487 0.072696922 1.987530139 0.079711538 0.152408
9 18 1.688950992 0.133038856 1.851919947 0.145875938 0.278915
10 20 1.585486519 0.202402247 1.73847206 0.221932289 0.424335
11 22 1.497362466 0.273229498 1.641844809 0.299593748 0.572823
12 24 1.421195442 0.340296219 1.558328335 0.373131819 0.713428
13 26 1.354554683 0.400713236 1.485257328 0.439378549 0.840092
14 28 1.295644131 0.453304688 1.420662424 0.497044614 0.950349
15 30 1.243104957 0.497963971 1.363053681 0.546013126 1.043977
16 32 1.195888154 0.535170825 1.311280871 0.586810115 1.121981
17 34 1.153169642 0.565677496 1.264440397 0.620260413 1.185938
18 36 1.114292097 0.590322605 1.22181151 0.647283558 1.237606
19 38 1.078724128 0.609929422 1.182811544 0.668782261 1.278712
20 40 1.046031002 0.625255831 1.146963818 0.685587534 1.310843
21 42 1.015853255 0.63697422 1.113874184 0.698436645 1.335411
22 44 0.987890809 0.645667766 1.083213607 0.707969042 1.353637
23 46 0.961890979 0.651835065 1.054705021 0.71473143 1.366566
24 48 0.937639314 0.6558985 1.028113283 0.719186952 1.375085
25 50 0.9149525 0.658213814 1.003237391 0.721725673 1.379939
26 52 0.89367281 0.659079542 0.979904397 0.722674936 1.381754
27 54 0.873663707 0.658745695 0.957964591 0.722308876 1.381055
28 56 0.85480634 0.657421426 0.937287654 0.720856827 1.378278
29 58 0.836996718 0.655281654 0.917759559 0.718510585 1.373792
30 60 0.820143412 0.652472679 0.899280057 0.71543057 1.367903
31 62 0.804165685 0.649116926 0.88176062 0.711751015 1.360868
32 64 0.78899194 0.645316891 0.865122741 0.707584311 1.352901
33 66 0.774558438 0.641158453 0.849296533 0.703024619 1.344183
34 68 0.760808232 0.636713603 0.834219553 0.698150881 1.334864
35 70 0.747690266 0.632042735 0.819835818 0.693029314 1.325072
36 72 0.735158619 0.627196526 0.806094977 0.687715489 1.314912
37 74 0.723171861 0.622217517 0.792951602 0.682256049 1.304474
38 76 0.711692511 0.617141417 0.780364595 0.67669015 1.293832
39 78 0.700686563 0.611998192 0.76829667 0.671050649 1.283049
40 80 0.690123091 0.606812973 0.756713915 0.665365103 1.272178
41 82 0.679973894 0.601606818 0.74558541 0.659656599 1.261263
42 84 0.670213203 0.596397342 0.734882898 0.653944454 1.250342
43 86 0.660817416 0.591199251 0.7245805 0.648244792 1.239444
44 88 0.651764869 0.58602479 0.714654462 0.642571041 1.228596
45 90 0.643035642 0.580884119 0.70508294 0.636934341 1.217818
46 92 0.634611378 0.575785629 0.69584581 0.631343892 1.20713
47 94 0.626475136 0.57073621 0.686924491 0.625807247 1.196543
48 96 0.618611246 0.565741475 0.678301805 0.620330565 1.186072
49 98 0.611005199 0.560805957 0.669961841 0.614918812 1.175725
50 100 0.603643531 0.555933266 0.661889837 0.609575949 1.165509

A-14
Table A.15 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis III according to German method in case without central
rudder
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 6.33 3.082E-105 6.33 2.17708E-56 2.17708E-56
2 4 6.33 2.97345E-26 6.33 4.84754E-14 4.84754E-14
3 6 4.3888 8.72869E-12 3.580098391 1.9062E-06 1.90621E-06
4 8 2.747429511 7.19268E-07 3.012532358 0.000891171 0.000891891
5 10 2.403148182 0.000147325 2.635030901 0.014529295 0.014676621
6 12 2.154129475 0.00255813 2.361984074 0.063803662 0.066361792
7 14 1.963829274 0.013927321 2.153321572 0.151632388 0.165559709
8 16 1.812627487 0.041001491 1.987530139 0.260658015 0.301659506
9 18 1.688950992 0.084617825 1.851919947 0.371998857 0.456616682
10 20 1.585486519 0.140293273 1.73847206 0.473731677 0.614024951
11 22 1.497362466 0.201825074 1.641844809 0.56064941 0.762474483
12 24 1.421195442 0.263825342 1.558328335 0.631758549 0.895583892
13 26 1.354554683 0.322585793 1.485257328 0.688173559 1.010759353
14 28 1.295644131 0.37599035 1.420662424 0.731832454 1.107822804
15 30 1.243104957 0.423108674 1.363053681 0.764828288 1.187936962
16 32 1.195888154 0.463781409 1.311280871 0.789105492 1.2528869
17 34 1.153169642 0.498298801 1.264440397 0.806348588 1.304647389
18 36 1.114292097 0.527181611 1.22181151 0.817963757 1.345145368
19 38 1.078724128 0.55104342 1.182811544 0.82510057 1.37614399
20 40 1.046031002 0.570509827 1.146963818 0.828687705 1.399197533
21 42 1.015853255 0.586174554 1.113874184 0.829470463 1.415645017
22 44 0.987890809 0.598578329 1.083213607 0.828044969 1.426623298
23 46 0.961890979 0.608201194 1.054705021 0.824887389 1.433088583
24 48 0.937639314 0.615462341 1.028113283 0.820378009 1.435840351
25 50 0.9149525 0.620723854 1.003237391 0.814820719 1.435544574
26 52 0.89367281 0.624296239 0.979904397 0.808458583 1.432754822
27 54 0.873663707 0.626444509 0.957964591 0.801486213 1.427930723
28 56 0.85480634 0.627394167 0.937287654 0.794059579 1.421453746
29 58 0.836996718 0.627336739 0.917759559 0.786303767 1.413640506
30 60 0.820143412 0.626434739 0.899280057 0.778319136 1.404753874
31 62 0.804165685 0.624826004 0.88176062 0.770186188 1.395012192
32 64 0.78899194 0.622627444 0.865122741 0.761969457 1.384596901
33 66 0.774558438 0.619938248 0.849296533 0.753720592 1.37365884
34 68 0.760808232 0.616842607 0.834219553 0.745480833 1.36232344
35 70 0.747690266 0.61341202 0.819835818 0.737282986 1.350695006
36 72 0.735158619 0.609707242 0.806094977 0.729153017 1.338860259
37 74 0.723171861 0.605779927 0.792951602 0.721111333 1.32689126
38 76 0.711692511 0.601674011 0.780364595 0.713173817 1.314847828
39 78 0.700686563 0.597426875 0.76829667 0.705352671 1.302779546
40 80 0.690123091 0.593070336 0.756713915 0.697657094 1.29072743
41 82 0.679973894 0.588631469 0.74558541 0.690093841 1.27872531
42 84 0.670213203 0.584133314 0.734882898 0.682667673 1.266800987
43 86 0.660817416 0.579595466 0.7245805 0.675381731 1.254977196
44 88 0.651764869 0.575034576 0.714654462 0.668237838 1.243272414
45 90 0.643035642 0.570464781 0.70508294 0.66123675 1.231701532
46 92 0.634611378 0.565898065 0.69584581 0.65437836 1.220276424
47 94 0.626475136 0.561344562 0.686924491 0.647661865 1.209006428
48 96 0.618611246 0.556812826 0.678301805 0.641085911 1.197898737
49 98 0.611005199 0.552310047 0.669961841 0.634648701 1.186958748
50 100 0.603643531 0.547842251 0.661889837 0.628348093 1.176190343

A-15
Table A.16 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis I according to German method in case hp,a=6.23 m and
hp,b= 4.59 m
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 6.33 1.77557E-93 6.33 1.835E-142 1.77557E-93
2 4 6.33 2.59052E-23 6.33 1.46879E-35 2.59052E-23
3 6 4.3888 1.76877E-10 4.52524437 6.57827E-16 1.76878E-10
4 8 3.56683831 5.07317E-06 3.8078409 4.69968E-09 5.07787E-06
5 10 3.11987659 0.000565008 3.33067906 6.6225E-06 0.000571631
6 12 2.79658914 0.007046284 2.98554787 0.000327825 0.007374108
7 14 2.54953274 0.031422066 2.72179847 0.003356772 0.034778838
8 16 2.35323568 0.081267028 2.5122381 0.014890458 0.096157486
9 18 2.19267322 0.153465275 2.34082681 0.040704617 0.194169892
10 20 2.05835092 0.238780439 2.19742868 0.082515786 0.321296226
11 22 1.94394425 0.327737569 2.07529184 0.137746648 0.465484217
12 24 1.84506075 0.413374362 1.96972702 0.20163243 0.615006792
13 26 1.75854468 0.491576235 1.87736526 0.269234056 0.760810291
14 28 1.68206431 0.560449043 1.7957173 0.336514997 0.89696404
15 30 1.61385556 0.619551906 1.72289985 0.400644157 1.020196063
16 32 1.55255655 0.669282803 1.65745902 0.45989069 1.129173493
17 34 1.49709743 0.710461405 1.59825266 0.513375506 1.22383691
18 36 1.44662483 0.744072008 1.54436975 0.560815338 1.304887347
19 38 1.40044887 0.771116963 1.49507379 0.602311489 1.373428453
20 40 1.35800516 0.792540113 1.44976227 0.638193469 1.430733582
21 42 1.31882703 0.8091921 1.40793697 0.668910948 1.478103048
22 44 1.28252491 0.821819448 1.369182 0.694962941 1.516782389
23 46 1.24877075 0.83106637 1.33314715 0.716853646 1.547920016
24 48 1.21728613 0.837482787 1.29953519 0.735066499 1.572549286
25 50 1.18783307 0.841534849 1.26809206 0.750050223 1.591585072
26 52 1.16020681 0.84361594 1.23859916 0.762212531 1.605828471
27 54 1.13423008 0.844057142 1.21086724 0.771918523 1.615975665
28 56 1.10974858 0.843136679 1.18473159 0.77949186 1.622628539
29 58 1.08662732 0.841088196 1.16004808 0.785217432 1.626305628
30 60 1.06474759 0.838107879 1.13668999 0.789344762 1.627452641
31 62 1.04400457 0.834360501 1.11454542 0.792091635 1.626452136
32 64 1.02430533 0.829984516 1.09351514 0.79364769 1.623632206
33 66 1.0055671 0.825096331 1.07351082 0.794177801 1.619274132
34 68 0.98771595 0.819793884 1.05445352 0.793825171 1.613619055
35 70 0.97068561 0.814159616 1.03627247 0.792714123 1.606873739
36 72 0.95441645 0.808262966 1.01890405 0.790952563 1.599215529
37 74 0.9388547 0.802162439 1.00229082 0.78863416 1.590796599
38 76 0.92395168 0.79590734 0.98638085 0.785840235 1.581747575
39 78 0.90966326 0.789539216 0.97112699 0.782641417 1.572180633
40 80 0.89594928 0.78309307 0.95648639 0.779099069 1.562192139
41 82 0.88277313 0.776598372 0.94241996 0.775266528 1.551864901
42 84 0.87010135 0.770079907 0.92889198 0.771190175 1.541270081
43 86 0.85790331 0.76355849 0.91586975 0.766910352 1.530468842
44 88 0.84615088 0.757051568 0.90332324 0.762462168 1.519513736
45 90 0.8348182 0.750573726 0.89122484 0.757876178 1.508449904
46 92 0.82388144 0.744137116 0.8795491 0.753178983 1.497316099
47 94 0.8133186 0.737751817 0.86827256 0.748393741 1.486145558
48 96 0.80310934 0.731426144 0.85737348 0.74354061 1.474966753
49 98 0.79323482 0.725166907 0.84683177 0.738637134 1.463804041
50 100 0.78367757 0.718979633 0.83662875 0.733698577 1.45267821

A-16
Table A.17 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis II according to German method in case hp,a=6.23 m and
hp,b= 4.59 m
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 6.33 1.07519E-82 6.33 1.07519E-82 2.15038E-82
2 4 6.33 1.28506E-20 6.33 1.28506E-20 2.57012E-20
3 6 4.3888 2.79054E-09 4.525244366 2.8773E-09 5.66784E-09
4 8 3.566838312 2.39422E-05 3.807840901 2.55599E-05 4.95021E-05
5 10 3.119876587 0.001525249 3.330679059 0.001628306 0.003153555
6 12 2.796589144 0.014043141 2.985547869 0.014992002 0.029035144
7 14 2.549532741 0.052152915 2.721798467 0.055676761 0.107829676
8 16 2.353235684 0.119780315 2.512238096 0.12787358 0.247653895
9 18 2.192673218 0.208508166 2.340826813 0.222596556 0.431104722
10 20 2.058350919 0.306069627 2.197428684 0.326750008 0.632819635
11 22 1.943944254 0.402378618 2.075291838 0.429566363 0.831944981
12 24 1.845060749 0.491156132 1.969727016 0.524342357 1.01549849
13 26 1.758544677 0.56936475 1.877365263 0.607835341 1.177200092
14 28 1.682064311 0.636131783 1.795717304 0.67911366 1.315245443
15 30 1.613855558 0.691828356 1.722899852 0.738573515 1.430401872
16 32 1.552556551 0.737441263 1.65745902 0.787268376 1.524709639
17 34 1.49709743 0.774192507 1.598252662 0.826502811 1.600695318
18 36 1.446624828 0.803328553 1.544369749 0.85760751 1.660936063
19 38 1.400448869 0.826014565 1.495073792 0.881826359 1.707840924
20 40 1.35800516 0.843289367 1.449762266 0.900268379 1.743557746
21 42 1.318827033 0.856053587 1.407936968 0.913895045 1.769948632
22 44 1.28252491 0.865074641 1.369181999 0.92352563 1.788600271
23 46 1.248770745 0.870999372 1.333147147 0.929850681 1.800850054
24 48 1.217286127 0.874369294 1.29953519 0.9334483 1.807817595
25 50 1.187833071 0.875635868 1.268092062 0.934800454 1.810436323
26 52 1.160206806 0.875174593 1.238599158 0.934308012 1.809482605
27 54 1.134230076 0.873297419 1.210867243 0.932304001 1.80560142
28 56 1.109748582 0.870263409 1.184731594 0.92906499 1.799328399
29 58 1.086627317 0.866287737 1.160048082 0.924820692 1.791108429
30 60 1.064747588 0.861549211 1.136689992 0.919761995 1.781311206
31 62 1.044004574 0.856196512 1.114545423 0.914047627 1.770244139
32 64 1.024305325 0.85035336 1.093515145 0.907809669 1.758163029
33 66 1.005567095 0.844122777 1.073510818 0.9011581 1.745280877
34 68 0.987715951 0.837590595 1.054453515 0.894184554 1.731775149
35 70 0.970685609 0.830828357 1.036272474 0.886965408 1.717793764
36 72 0.954416452 0.823895706 1.01890405 0.879564335 1.703460041
37 74 0.938854697 0.816842363 1.002290825 0.872034414 1.688876777
38 76 0.92395168 0.809709755 0.986380848 0.864419874 1.674129629
39 78 0.909663258 0.802532375 0.971126991 0.856757535 1.65928991
40 80 0.895949276 0.795338899 0.956486389 0.849078014 1.644416913
41 82 0.882773126 0.788153128 0.942419959 0.841406718 1.629559846
42 84 0.870101352 0.780994762 0.928891984 0.833764678 1.61475944
43 86 0.857903312 0.773880049 0.915869752 0.826169242 1.600049292
44 88 0.846150882 0.766822336 0.903323239 0.818634656 1.585456993
45 90 0.834818201 0.759832518 0.891224837 0.811172553 1.57100507
46 92 0.823881438 0.752919422 0.879549103 0.803792356 1.556711778
47 94 0.813318597 0.746090133 0.868272556 0.796501629 1.542591762
48 96 0.803109337 0.739350263 0.857373482 0.789306361 1.528656624
49 98 0.79323482 0.732704177 0.846831767 0.782211216 1.514915393
50 100 0.783677567 0.726155193 0.836628754 0.775219733 1.501374927

A-17
Table A.18 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis III according to German method in case hp,a=6.23 m
and hp,b= 4.59 m
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 6.33 1.4008E-99 6.33 1.0477E-50 1.0477E-50
2 4 6.33 7.7205E-25 6.33 1.27677E-12 1.27677E-12
3 6 4.3888 3.71163E-11 4.525244366 1.03108E-05 1.03108E-05
4 8 3.566838312 2.10787E-06 3.807840901 0.002551855 0.002553963
5 10 3.119876587 0.000322059 3.330679059 0.030994609 0.031316668
6 12 2.796589144 0.004769066 2.985547869 0.115994155 0.12076322
7 14 2.549532741 0.023587635 2.721798467 0.250325819 0.273913454
8 16 2.353235684 0.065246245 2.512238096 0.404208167 0.469454412
9 18 2.192673218 0.129022322 2.340826813 0.552638723 0.681661046
10 20 2.058350919 0.20747658 2.197428684 0.68250075 0.88997733
11 22 1.943944254 0.29180215 2.075291838 0.789587243 1.081389393
12 24 1.845060749 0.374940043 1.969727016 0.874498478 1.249438521
13 26 1.758544677 0.452354225 1.877365263 0.939871559 1.392225784
14 28 1.682064311 0.521673225 1.795717304 0.988895471 1.510568696
15 30 1.613855558 0.582040763 1.722899852 1.024627397 1.60666816
16 32 1.552556551 0.633534037 1.65745902 1.049733051 1.683267088
17 34 1.49709743 0.676741732 1.598252662 1.06642928 1.743171012
18 36 1.446624828 0.712489798 1.544369749 1.076513036 1.789002834
19 38 1.400448869 0.741676523 1.495073792 1.081420454 1.823096978
20 40 1.35800516 0.765180398 1.449762266 1.082290578 1.847470976
21 42 1.318827033 0.783813443 1.407936968 1.080023429 1.863836872
22 44 1.28252491 0.798301562 1.369181999 1.075329145 1.873630708
23 46 1.248770745 0.80928019 1.333147147 1.068768008 1.878048198
24 48 1.217286127 0.817298047 1.29953519 1.060782382 1.87808043
25 50 1.187833071 0.822824773 1.268092062 1.051721904 1.874546677
26 52 1.160206806 0.826259983 1.238599158 1.041863235 1.868123218
27 54 1.134230076 0.827942455 1.210867243 1.031425507 1.859367962
28 56 1.109748582 0.828158734 1.184731594 1.020582402 1.848741136
29 58 1.086627317 0.827150888 1.160048082 1.0094716 1.836622488
30 60 1.064747588 0.825123297 1.136689992 0.998202191 1.823325489
31 62 1.044004574 0.822248509 1.114545423 0.986860506 1.809109015
32 64 1.024305325 0.818672235 1.093515145 0.975514704 1.79418694
33 66 1.005567095 0.814517581 1.073510818 0.96421841 1.77873599
34 68 0.987715951 0.809888609 1.054453515 0.953013593 1.762902202
35 70 0.970685609 0.804873341 1.036272474 0.941932864 1.746806206
36 72 0.954416452 0.799546269 1.01890405 0.931001307 1.730547576
37 74 0.938854697 0.793970467 1.002290825 0.920237941 1.714208407
38 76 0.92395168 0.788199361 0.986380848 0.909656902 1.697856263
39 78 0.909663258 0.782278215 0.971126991 0.899268391 1.681546606
40 80 0.895949276 0.776245377 0.956486389 0.889079437 1.665324814
41 82 0.882773126 0.770133329 0.942419959 0.879094519 1.649227848
42 84 0.870101352 0.76396957 0.928891984 0.869316066 1.633285636
43 86 0.857903312 0.757777359 0.915869752 0.859744867 1.617522226
44 88 0.846150882 0.751576348 0.903323239 0.850380401 1.601956749
45 90 0.834818201 0.745383109 0.891224837 0.841221109 1.586604218
46 92 0.823881438 0.739211589 0.879549103 0.832264614 1.571476203
47 94 0.813318597 0.73307349 0.868272556 0.823507899 1.556581389
48 96 0.803109337 0.726978593 0.857373482 0.81494746 1.541926052
49 98 0.79323482 0.720935038 0.846831767 0.806579416 1.527514454
50 100 0.783677567 0.714949557 0.836628754 0.798399618 1.513349175

A-18
Table A.19 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis I according to Dutch method in case hp,a=6.23 m and
hp,b= 4.59 m
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 14.1792 1.79959E-64 14.1792 1.87973E-98 1.79959E-64
2 4 7.0896 4.23157E-16 7.0896 1.3528E-24 4.23157E-16
3 6 4.7264 2.90945E-07 4.7264 4.87681E-11 2.90994E-07
4 8 3.5448 0.000311574 3.5448 2.34285E-06 0.000313917
5 10 2.83584 0.007191551 2.83584 0.00031447 0.007506021
6 12 2.3632 0.037223783 2.3632 0.004235471 0.041459254
7 14 2.0256 0.095970057 2.0256 0.019437679 0.115407735
8 16 1.7724 0.17161461 1.7724 0.050535892 0.222150502
9 18 1.575466667 0.249010764 1.575466667 0.094776062 0.343786826
10 20 1.41792 0.318190302 1.41792 0.145504416 0.463694718
11 22 1.289018182 0.374907826 1.289018182 0.196376341 0.571284167
12 24 1.1816 0.41860122 1.1816 0.243120059 0.661721279
13 26 1.090707692 0.450511148 1.090707692 0.283552894 0.734064042
14 28 1.0128 0.472518926 1.0128 0.316990589 0.789509516
15 30 0.94528 0.486554702 0.94528 0.343640758 0.83019546
16 32 0.8862 0.494344691 0.8862 0.364159207 0.858503899
17 34 0.834070588 0.497333274 0.834070588 0.379372579 0.876705853
18 36 0.787733333 0.496685462 0.787733333 0.390123025 0.886808488
19 38 0.746273684 0.493320869 0.746273684 0.39719071 0.890511579
20 40 0.70896 0.487955857 0.70896 0.401261825 0.889217682
21 42 0.6752 0.48114379 0.6752 0.402921359 0.884065149
22 44 0.644509091 0.473309709 0.644509091 0.402658228 0.875967937
23 46 0.616486957 0.464778723 0.616486957 0.400875763 0.865654486
24 48 0.5908 0.455798602 0.5908 0.397903779 0.853702381
25 50 0.567168 0.446557465 0.567168 0.394010351 0.840567815
26 52 0.545353846 0.437197502 0.545353846 0.389412428 0.82660993
27 54 0.525155556 0.427825564 0.525155556 0.384285022 0.812110585
28 56 0.5064 0.41852131 0.5064 0.378768947 0.797290257
29 58 0.488937931 0.409343484 0.488937931 0.372977232 0.782320715
30 60 0.47264 0.400334736 0.47264 0.367000388 0.767335124
31 62 0.457393548 0.391525344 0.457393548 0.3609107 0.752436044
32 64 0.4431 0.382936076 0.4431 0.354765711 0.737701787
33 66 0.429672727 0.374580411 0.429672727 0.348611039 0.72319145
34 68 0.417035294 0.366466254 0.417035294 0.342482665 0.708948919
35 70 0.40512 0.35859726 0.40512 0.336408772 0.695006032
36 72 0.393866667 0.35097387 0.393866667 0.330411244 0.681385113
37 74 0.383221622 0.34359411 0.383221622 0.324506863 0.668100973
38 76 0.373136842 0.336454214 0.373136842 0.318708298 0.655162511
39 78 0.363569231 0.329549107 0.363569231 0.313024886 0.642573994
40 80 0.35448 0.322872783 0.35448 0.307463286 0.63033607
41 82 0.345834146 0.316418593 0.345834146 0.302027993 0.618446585
42 84 0.3376 0.310179471 0.3376 0.296721764 0.606901235
43 86 0.329748837 0.304148111 0.329748837 0.291545968 0.595694079
44 88 0.322254545 0.298317096 0.322254545 0.286500863 0.584817959
45 90 0.315093333 0.292679005 0.315093333 0.281585827 0.574264833
46 92 0.308243478 0.287226485 0.308243478 0.276799546 0.564026031
47 94 0.301685106 0.281952308 0.301685106 0.272140163 0.554092472
48 96 0.2954 0.276849419 0.2954 0.267605408 0.544454827
49 98 0.289371429 0.271910959 0.289371429 0.263192692 0.53510365
50 100 0.283584 0.267130288 0.283584 0.258899196 0.526029484

A-19
Table A.20 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis II according to Dutch method in case hp,a=6.23 m and
hp,b= 4.59 m
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 14.1792 5.42852E-57 14.1792 5.42852E-57 1.0857E-56
2 4 7.0896 3.13602E-14 7.0896 3.13602E-14 6.27204E-14
3 6 4.7264 1.97182E-06 4.7264 1.97182E-06 3.94364E-06
4 8 3.5448 0.000914179 3.5448 0.000914179 0.001828357
5 10 2.83584 0.014321975 2.83584 0.014321975 0.02864395
6 12 2.3632 0.060059904 2.3632 0.060059904 0.120119808
7 14 2.0256 0.136388824 2.0256 0.136388824 0.272777647
8 16 1.7724 0.224606117 1.7724 0.224606117 0.449212234
9 18 1.575466667 0.308004976 1.575466667 0.308004976 0.616009952
10 20 1.41792 0.377991492 1.41792 0.377991492 0.755982984
11 22 1.289018182 0.432253608 1.289018182 0.432253608 0.864507216
12 24 1.1816 0.471782168 1.1816 0.471782168 0.943564336
13 26 1.090707692 0.498841974 1.090707692 0.498841974 0.997683949
14 28 1.0128 0.515917152 1.0128 0.515917152 1.031834304
15 30 0.94528 0.525259522 0.94528 0.525259522 1.050519045
16 32 0.8862 0.528745526 0.8862 0.528745526 1.057491051
17 34 0.834070588 0.527871444 0.834070588 0.527871444 1.055742889
18 36 0.787733333 0.523801034 0.787733333 0.523801034 1.047602069
19 38 0.746273684 0.51742612 0.746273684 0.51742612 1.034852239
20 40 0.70896 0.509423889 0.70896 0.509423889 1.018847778
21 42 0.6752 0.500305436 0.6752 0.500305436 1.000610873
22 44 0.644509091 0.490454748 0.644509091 0.490454748 0.980909497
23 46 0.616486957 0.480159135 0.616486957 0.480159135 0.960318271
24 48 0.5908 0.469632611 0.5908 0.469632611 0.939265222
25 50 0.567168 0.459033696 0.567168 0.459033696 0.918067393
26 52 0.545353846 0.448478919 0.545353846 0.448478919 0.896957838
27 54 0.525155556 0.438053029 0.525155556 0.438053029 0.876106059
28 56 0.5064 0.427816732 0.5064 0.427816732 0.855633463
29 58 0.488937931 0.41781254 0.488937931 0.41781254 0.835625081
30 60 0.47264 0.408069222 0.47264 0.408069222 0.816138444
31 62 0.457393548 0.39860517 0.457393548 0.39860517 0.797210339
32 64 0.4431 0.389430973 0.4431 0.389430973 0.778861946
33 66 0.429672727 0.380551377 0.429672727 0.380551377 0.761102754
34 68 0.417035294 0.371966777 0.417035294 0.371966777 0.743933554
35 70 0.40512 0.363674364 0.40512 0.363674364 0.727348728
36 72 0.393866667 0.355668997 0.393866667 0.355668997 0.711337993
37 74 0.383221622 0.347943873 0.383221622 0.347943873 0.695887746
38 76 0.373136842 0.340491039 0.373136842 0.340491039 0.680982078
39 78 0.363569231 0.333301781 0.363569231 0.333301781 0.666603561
40 80 0.35448 0.326366918 0.35448 0.326366918 0.652733836
41 82 0.345834146 0.319677032 0.345834146 0.319677032 0.639354065
42 84 0.3376 0.313222632 0.3376 0.313222632 0.626445265
43 86 0.329748837 0.306994282 0.329748837 0.306994282 0.613988565
44 88 0.322254545 0.300982695 0.322254545 0.300982695 0.601965389
45 90 0.315093333 0.295178795 0.315093333 0.295178795 0.59035759
46 92 0.308243478 0.289573772 0.308243478 0.289573772 0.579147543
47 94 0.301685106 0.284159107 0.301685106 0.284159107 0.568318214
48 96 0.2954 0.278926599 0.2954 0.278926599 0.557853197
49 98 0.289371429 0.273868369 0.289371429 0.273868369 0.547736737
50 100 0.283584 0.26897687 0.283584 0.26897687 0.53795374

A-20
Table A.21 Flow velocities due to each propeller at 50 different points and total flow velocities due to
combined effect of the two propellers along axis III according to Dutch method in case hp,a=6.23 m and
hp,b= 4.59 m
Point x (m) Vaxis,a(m/s) Vx,r,a(m/s) Vaxis,b(m/s) Vx,r,b (m/s) Vtotal (m/s)
1 2 14.1792 1.05095E-68 14.1792 8.41545E-35 8.41545E-35
2 4 7.0896 3.69917E-17 7.0896 1.10657E-08 1.10657E-08
3 6 4.7264 9.84945E-08 4.7264 0.000576059 0.000576157
4 8 3.5448 0.000169419 3.5448 0.022280803 0.022450222
5 10 2.83584 0.00486944 2.83584 0.110565275 0.115434714
6 12 2.3632 0.028393622 2.3632 0.248304462 0.276698084
7 14 2.0256 0.078656744 2.0256 0.386940339 0.465597083
8 16 1.7724 0.147368418 1.7724 0.499052823 0.646421242
9 18 1.575466667 0.22077586 1.575466667 0.578779632 0.799555491
10 20 1.41792 0.288636363 1.41792 0.630065913 0.918702277
11 22 1.289018182 0.345888533 1.289018182 0.65937174 1.005260272
12 24 1.1816 0.391201546 1.1816 0.672731082 1.063932628
13 26 1.090707692 0.425260178 1.090707692 0.674943016 1.100203194
14 28 1.0128 0.449592711 1.0128 0.66957044 1.119163152
15 30 0.94528 0.465924686 0.94528 0.659170733 1.125095419
16 32 0.8862 0.475874481 0.8862 0.645547108 1.121421588
17 34 0.834070588 0.480837597 0.834070588 0.629957928 1.110795525
18 36 0.787733333 0.481964238 0.787733333 0.613274954 1.095239192
19 38 0.746273684 0.480177817 0.746273684 0.596097896 1.076275713
20 40 0.70896 0.476207863 0.70896 0.578835684 1.055043547
21 42 0.6752 0.470624908 0.6752 0.561763581 1.032388489
22 44 0.644509091 0.463872181 0.644509091 0.545063209 1.00893539
23 46 0.616486957 0.456292398 0.616486957 0.528850616 0.985143014
24 48 0.5908 0.448149593 0.5908 0.513195973 0.961345566
25 50 0.567168 0.43964649 0.567168 0.498137459 0.937783949
26 52 0.545353846 0.430938172 0.545353846 0.483691063 0.914629236
27 54 0.525155556 0.422142753 0.525155556 0.469857527 0.89200028
28 56 0.5064 0.413349664 0.5064 0.456627268 0.869976932
29 58 0.488937931 0.404626094 0.488937931 0.443983875 0.848609969
30 60 0.47264 0.396021976 0.47264 0.431906595 0.827928571
31 62 0.457393548 0.387573861 0.457393548 0.420372086 0.807945947
32 64 0.4431 0.379307926 0.4431 0.409355659 0.788663585
33 66 0.429672727 0.371242312 0.429672727 0.398832144 0.770074456
34 68 0.417035294 0.363388947 0.417035294 0.388776491 0.752165439
35 70 0.40512 0.355754969 0.40512 0.379164175 0.734919144
36 72 0.393866667 0.348343832 0.393866667 0.369971465 0.718315297
37 74 0.383221622 0.341156179 0.383221622 0.361175593 0.702331771
38 76 0.373136842 0.334190518 0.373136842 0.352754853 0.686945371
39 78 0.363569231 0.327443757 0.363569231 0.344688648 0.672132405
40 80 0.35448 0.320911621 0.35448 0.336957501 0.657869122
41 82 0.345834146 0.314588976 0.345834146 0.329543042 0.644132018
42 84 0.3376 0.308470088 0.3376 0.322427982 0.630898069
43 86 0.329748837 0.302548817 0.329748837 0.315596067 0.618144884
44 88 0.322254545 0.296818777 0.322254545 0.309032039 0.605850816
45 90 0.315093333 0.291273456 0.315093333 0.302721576 0.593995032
46 92 0.308243478 0.285906304 0.308243478 0.296651246 0.582557551
47 94 0.301685106 0.280710809 0.301685106 0.290808454 0.571519264
48 96 0.2954 0.275680546 0.2954 0.285181388 0.560861935
49 98 0.289371429 0.270809222 0.289371429 0.279758971 0.550568193
50 100 0.283584 0.2660907 0.283584 0.274530812 0.540621512

A-21
Appendix B Inland Mooring Facility Drawings

B-1