ROYAL INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS

Methods for Preliminary Determination

of Escort Tug Requirements

Author: Robert G. Allan, P. Eng.

M.RINA, M.SNAME
President, Robert Allan Ltd.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

INTRODUCTION

In the wake of a number of recent oil spill incidents on the coasts of North America, pressures
have been brought to bear on the marine industry by both political and environmental concerns
to improve the standard of safety in maritime oil transportation. Based on the perception that
the mechanical and structural reliability of tankers is in some instances suspect, the use of tugs
to escort these vessels in confined or critical waterways has been proposed.

In many cases, the demand for these escort tugs has been made in the absence of any
understanding of the capabilities of "typical" tugboats, or of the nature of tanker operations.
Nevertheless, due to legislation, public pressure, and increased liability exposure, it has
become necessary for oil transporters to demonstrate that every reasonable precaution has been
taken in their operations. On the northwest coast of Canada and the USA, we live in an area
bountiful in natural beauty and wildlife, where tourism, environmental and business interests
live side by side in an atmosphere of tenuous cooperation and increasing mistrust. This
shoreline, one of the most rugged and beautiful in the world, is spotted with oil terminals and
trans-shipment depots, primarily close to the major population centres, through which
approximately 26,000,000 tonnes/year of crude oil are moved by tankers up to 200,000 tonnes
DWT, primarily of U.S. registry. Approximately 15,000,000 tonnes per year of refined
products, are moved through these same ports, much of it going to small coastal communities
primarily by tug and barge, few of which exceed 5,000 tonnes DWT.

Against this backdrop, the author's company was recently retained to perform studies of the
capability of tugs to undertake tanker escort duties. The first of these studies [1], considered
tug escort duties only as part of a major evaluation of the nationwide transportation of
hazardous goods by tug and barge in Canada. More recently, we were retained by the Port
of San Francisco [2] to establish a scientific and rational basis for relating a measure of tug
escort performance to the size of attended tanker.

As a consequence of these and similar studies, the methods presented here have been
developed which enable a rational initial assessment of the capability of any tug to provide an
effective escort service.
 Page 2.

In addition, a brief description of those attributes which will distinguish the effective escort
tug is offered.

TUG ESCORT OPERATIONS

General

In order to define the performance requirements of an escort tug it is first essential to establish
just what is expected of a tug in the event of an incident. How tugs could or should be used
to control any disabled tanker within a specific area is a function of local geography, water
depth, weather and tidal conditions, and the size and type of tug used.

Further, there are fundamental choices to be made regarding the conduct of escort services,
i.e., should the tugs be:

@ Tethered or untethered?
@ Stationed either forward or aft?
@ Retarding and/or turning a disabled vessel in event of incident?
There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the above choices. Opinions regarding
same are generally influenced by local experience, and hence tend to reflect the capability of
the existing tug fleet in each area.

In the absence of much accurate data on the use and effectiveness of tugs in an "escort" role
(as opposed to that of "assisting" ships to berth), it is necessary to apply some common sense
to the issue, and also to give weight to the opinions of the pilots and tug masters experienced
with ship handling in each specific area.

Tethered or Untethered Escort

In those tests which have been performed using tugs to control a disabled tanker, [3], [4], the
most time-consuming and potentially dangerous procedure is that of making up to the ship.
Critical time can be lost at the initial stages of a response, where the tug must approach the
tanker, pass a messenger and then a main tow line, and then position itself to either retard or
steer the vessel. In a confined waterway, the ten or more minutes required to perform these
tasks may be all the time needed for the tanker to run aground. Further, with the tanker
running at speeds approaching maximum (generally 12 to 15 knots), it is potentially dangerous
for a tug to be in close proximity to the ship.
 Page 3.

Hence, if the objective of providing tanker escorts is to minimize the risk of a disabled ship
grounding or being in collision, then using tethered escort tugs seems eminently sensible, if
not essential. Tugs should attach to a tanker at the earliest opportunity, at reduced speed, and
then the ship could proceed to berth at a speed at which the tug can keep pace on a slack line
and at a reasonable distance. This scenario envisions using a bow line on a winch on the tug,
connected to the tanker's stern. In some parts of Puget Sound, similar procedures are
currently in place.

Arguments against a tethered escort are however both practical and sound. There are
concerns about the safety of the tug(s) when attached to a fast moving ship. There are risks
of tow lines fouling the tanker propeller, or even of the tug overrunning its own line. A
conventional type of tug, even with a bow winch, would be in danger of being girted in this
attitude. The pilot would also have to extend his concentration to the combination of vessels
in his charge, and this may detract from the overall safety of the operation.

Given the fact that the vast majority of escort operations will be "non-events", the safety of
the escort service is perceived to be higher if tugs are not tethered. However in restricted
channels, a tethered escort is the only means to avoid a grounding incident.

Tug Position

Present escort practice in Puget Sound, and in Georgia Straits is for the tug to lead the tanker
at a "safe" (¼ to ½ mile) distance off the forward quarter. However it is well documented
[4], that tugs are more effective in manoeuvring a ship when stationed aft, rather than when
trying to turn the bow, as the drag of the tug itself becomes an effective rudder, in
combination with the applied thrust.

There is however a strong rationale for having the escort tug(s) run ahead of the tanker during
routine deployment. In this position, the tugs provide an additional lookout for small craft,
they provide an additional navigation function when approaching bridges, etc., and if called
upon to attach to the tanker, can do so much more rapidly than if they had to overtake the
escorted ship.

The downside of this position is that should the tug be disabled for any reason, it is put at risk
by the approaching tanker.

However, the general consensus of opinion in discussions held to date has been that the
forward position for untethered tugs is distinctly preferable to running astern.
 Page 4.

Retarding or Turning

In the event that a vessel loses power or steerage, the most effective means of taking way off
is to initiate a turn. This has the effect of both slowing the ship and reducing the headway.
Full speed turning circle manoeuvres with tankers require typically 3L advance and 2.5L
transfer. Typical crash stop manoeuvres require approximately 10L advance. Clearly a turn
is preferable to prevent a ship grounding or colliding if there is adequate sea room.

Considering the various roles which may be assumed by an escort tug as described above, in
order to properly define the requirements for a tug escort service it is essential to accurately
define the forces, motions and energy associated with any specific operation.

This can be expensive and time consuming, and although in some locales such as at LOOP [8]
and in Puget Sound extensive full scale testing and analysis has been performed, there is a
need for a simplified approach to the preliminary determination of appropriate tug
performance.

It is this "first order" estimation of escort tug requirements that this paper addresses.

Current Empirical Standards

With the initiation of requirements for tanker escort tugs, several Port authorities have, in the
absence of definitive data, adopted empirical formula used to establish assist tug requirements
as a standard for defining escort tugs.

This is highly regrettable, not only because the role of the escort tug is dramatically different
to that of most assist tugs, but also because many of these empirical formulae do not reflect
modern tug performance, and have their origins in the use of older, open screw tugs.
 Page 5.

In our investigations, the following were identified as empirical relationships in use for ship
assist operations:

SOURCE FORMULAE

PACIFIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY

Vancouver Harbour - before 1985 HP = 0.06 x DWT
- after 1985* HP = 0.05 x DWT

Roberts Bank - before 1985 HP = 0.10 x DWT

- after 1985* HP = 0.075 x DWT

EUROPORT (Rotterdam) [3] ship ª

))))
BP (tonnes) = 3,000

JAPAN PILOTAGE (Smaller Ships) [3] ship ª

HP = )))
10

(Large ships) [3] ship ª

‰ ))) x 60
BP (tonnes) = 100,000  + 40

* marked introduction of Z-drive tugs

into service

Table 1 Empirical Formulae for Relating Total Tug Power to Ship Size

There are significant differences in these empirical formulae. Using the following relationships,
which can be considered as representative of modern practice, i.e.:

Bollard pull = 30 pounds (13.6 kg)/HP

Displacement x 0.80 = DWT (for bulk carriers)
 Page 6.

then the requirements as defined by the above formulae can be compared against a sample of
typical vessels, as in Table 2.

VESSEL SIZE (DEADW EIGHT IN TONNES)

REQUIRED
BOLLARD PULL
(TONNES) 25,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

Vancouver Harbour 16.7 33.5 67.0 100.4 134.0

Roberts Bank 25.1 50.2 100.4 150.7 200.9

Europort 10.3 20.5 41.0 61.5 82.0

Japan (small) 41.9 83.7 - - -

Japan (large) - 76.3 113.2 150.1 187.0

Table 2 Comparison of Tug Bollard Pull Requirements

from Criteria for Ship Assist Services

The differences in the above values are a function of differing local environmental conditions, tug
types, and usual ship types calling at the ports. In spite of this, there is an obvious requirement
for a more rational approach to the determination of tug power.

In the use of "escort" tugs, the only standards presently in use, in North America, to our
knowledge are the following:

a. San Francisco Bay:

Interim Guidelines - BP (pounds) = 0.5 x DWT (short tons)

b. Puget Sound: - BHP = 0.05 x DWT (short tons)

c. Vancouver Harbour/
Georgia Strait: - specific requirements for tankers operating in and
around Vancouver Harbour are defined in a
Memorandum issued by the Port Authority, based
on the use of existing tugs (Appendix 1)

It is noteworthy that the BHP/DWT ratios defined in Appendix 1 for assisting tankers in the Port
of Vancouver are as follows:

40,000 - 50,000 deadweight: 9.6 to 12.0 percent

50,000 - 60,000 deadweight: 9.1 to 13.2 percent
> 60,000 deadweight: 7.1 percent
 Page 7.

Thus the assist requirements for oil tankers are from 1.4 to 2.6 times greater than those for other
ships, and utilize dedicated, specialized ship assist tugs. The 2,400 horsepower tugs and the
Seaspan Discovery (4,000 hp) referred to in Appendix 1 are all Z-drive tugs.

Table 3 summarizes the "escort" guidelines listed above for various sizes of tanker, in the same
manner as in Table 2 for assist tugs.

TANKER SIZE (DEADW EIGHT IN TONNES)

REQUIRED
BOLLARD PULL
(TONNES) 25,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

San Francisco Bay:

Interim Guidelines 4.98 9.97 19.93 29.90 39.86

Puget Sound 16.74 33.48 66.96 100.45 133.93

Vancouver Harbour - 69.6 118.7 - -

Georgia Strait - 53.0 53.0 53.0 -

Table 3 Comparison of Tug Bollard Pull from

Criteria for Escort Services

TANKER DATA

In order to quantify the forces required to retard or manoeuvre a tanker, a brief analysis of
dimensional relationships of tankers was performed. From a sample of recently published articles
on newbuildings, typical relationships between various vessel design parameters were compiled
as follows:

@ DWT versus Length (L)

@ DWT versus Draft (D)
@ Length versus Beam (B)
@ Length versus Depth (D)
@ Draft versus Depth

From these relationships, a standard sample of tankers of various sizes was defined for purposes
of determining the effects of escort tug forces on moving ships.
 Page 8.

Table 4 lists the standard deadweight sizes selected, and the associated vessel dimensions:

LOADED
DEADWEIGHT FREE-
(Tonnes) LBP DRAFT BEAM DEPTH BOARD

10,000 114 7.6 19.0 10.8 3.3

25,000 155 10.3 25.9 14.8 4.4
50,000 195 13.0 32.5 18.5 5.5
75,000 218 14.0 36.3 20.7 6.7
100,000 235 15.2 39.0 22.3 7.1
125,000 247 15.8 41.1 23.5 7.6
150,000 260 17.0 43.4 24.7 7.7

Table 4 Sample Tanker Dimensions (Metres)

ANALYSIS OF TUG FORCES

In order to define a specific relationship between tug power and ship size, it is first necessary to
define the manoeuvres expected of the tug. Thus two typical scenarios are defined as the basis
of analysis:

a. Tug turns tanker through a 90° turn

b. Tugs retard tanker by pulling astern, and maintain ship course

 Page 9.

Retarding Manoeuvre

The task of stopping a moving ship by the application of an external (i.e. tug) force can, in a
highly simplified form be considered as an energy transfer. The moving ship has a kinetic energy
E, represented by Equation 1:

(Eq. 1)

where M = the total mass of the ship

V = the velocity of the ship

The application of a retarding force "F", over a distance "S" gives the energy equation:

(Eq. 2)

where V0 = initial velocity

V1 = final velocity

If we assume that the final velocity is zero, and the hydrodynamic forces (friction and wave
making) are a constituent part of the total retarding force, then Equation 2 can be written in the
following form:

(Eq. 3)

Data from a number of published trials [3, 4 and 5] using tugs to stop tankers was collected and
is summarized in Table 5 below.

In evaluating this data, although the relationship between stopping distance "S", and the "energy"
(represented by DWT x VK2) is not perfectly linear for a given retarding force, a linear "best fit"
through the data points provides a very reasonable representation, and is sufficiently accurate
given the anomalies in the source data.
 Page 10.

STOPPING APPLIED BP
VESSEL DWT INITIAL SPEED DISTANCE (ASTERN)
(TONNES) (KNOTS) (METRES) (TONNES)
194564 6 305 287
194564 3 323 91
58644 5 386 36
194564 3 488 61
194564 6 610 120
194564 3 628 30
58644 6 811 36
194564 6 915 39
58644 8 1050 36
191516 3 1149 21
194564 6 1268 91
194564 12 1524 214
194564 12 1829 153
194564 16 1829 314
194564 6 1860 61
194564 12 2134 112
191516 3 2253 21
194564 16 2439 196
194564 12 2439 80
194564 16 3049 126
194564 12 3049 44
194564 6 3201 30
191516 6 3238 21
194564 12 3659 7
194564 16 3659 78
194564 16 4268 44
121920 11 5116 74
121920 11 6043 37
121920 11 7173 35

Table 5 Tanker Stopping Data

 Page 11.

Clearly, initial speed of a tanker is a very important factor. If the stopping distance is limited,
then initial speed must be restricted to that at which the tug(s) can connect to the ship quickly and
safely, and at which the stopping distance is within the limits of safe navigation. At the least,
stopping distance should not exceed ten ship lengths, which is typical for most self-stopping (crash
stop) manoeuvres on bulk carriers. Similar stopping distances have been achieved using
conventional tugs to retard tanker progress.

If this stopping distance criteria is applied and retarding force is equated to astern bollard pull,
then Equation 3 can be rewritten as follows:

(Eq. 4)

where K, derived from the test data illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, is a constant which accounts
for unit consistency, gravity, DWT/) ratio, etc.
 Page 14.

Derivation of the factor "K" from this data indicates that there is some dependency of "K" on the
value of bollard pull (i.e. "K" is not linear). However, again by making some simplifying
assumptions, values of "K" which are a function of tanker deadweight can be used and thus a
simplified formula can be derived as follows:

a. For tankers 50,000 tons deadweight and less:

(Eq. 5a)

b. For tankers over 50,000 tons deadweight:

(Eq. 5b)

Some clarifications are important:

1. There is a lower limit of BPa which should be respected, regardless of the formulated
value. We recommend that the minimum BPa for any tanker escort tug be 10.0 long tons.
2. The "energy" portion of this equation has used the commonly available maximum
"deadweight" value, instead of the more correct displacement ()) value. At full load the
ratio of DWT/) is relatively constant for most tankers, however Equations 5(a) and (b)
do not address partly laden vessels.

Therefore, in such cases, instead of using maximum value of DWT (DWTm ) the "mass" factor
in Equation 5 should be:

where lightship weight (LS) is known and where DWTa = actual cargo DWT aboard during
escort. Where lightship is unknown total weight can be approximated as follows:
 Page 15.

3. It is vitally important to note that the above discussion is based on the assumption that
braking tugs are deployed astern of the tanker, and provide their retarding force by means
of astern thrust. The data used in deriving Figures 1 and 2 and thus Equations 5(a) and
5(b) reflect this assumption. However, tug performance is usually quoted in terms of
bollard pull ahead (BPf). For conventional screw tugs, BPa = 0.4 x BPf to 0.5 x BPf.
In summary, based on Equations 5a and 5b, Table 6 has been prepared, showing the
recommended BPa for various sizes of tanker at various initial speeds. Recommended minimum
values are shown, where appropriate.
 Page 17.

Turning Manoeuvres

The second critical manoeuvre required of escort tugs is that of turning a moving ship. The
envisioned scenario is one where a tanker loses steering, and has to be turned in order to avoid
grounding, or simply to stop the vessel in the shortest possible distance.

The proprietary program ShipDock was used to analyze the maximum forces experienced by the
sample of typical tankers (ref. Table 4) executing a 90° turn.

The design conditions used for this analysis were as follows:

@ Tide = 3 knots, at 0° to initial ship course

@ Wind = 20 knots, at 0°
@ Water depth = 25 metres
@ Vessel approach speed = 8 knots
@ Turning rate (for 90°) = time to transit ten ship lengths
(Since the maximum speed for most tugs is typically about 12 knots, initial tanker speed was
reduced to the point where a tug could keep pace and have a reasonable margin.)

Figure 3 summarizes the results of this analysis for the range of tanker sizes. Also shown on this
figure are the results of a comparison made of ship turning forces using a graphical method
devised by the National Ports Council of the United Kingdom [6]. The latter defines tug bollard
pull required to turn a ship of specified dimensions in a specific time and water depth, but without
the effects of wind, current or waves.

The effects of current and wind are clearly significant and, as defined above, virtually double the
static turning forces required.
 Page 19.

The above analyses however are not strictly valid for an "escort" scenario, as the turning forces
calculated do not fully consider the momentum of a moving tanker. The equations of motion
involving a moving ship attended by tugs are very much more complex, and were beyond the
terms of reference of the studies upon which this paper is based. However, on the basis of some
limited trials data [6], a graphical representation has been constructed of turning rate as a function
of ship deadweight and speed, using the same rationale as for retarding for various static bollard
pull levels. In order to adjust these latter values for the effects of wind and tide, the ratio of
environmentally influenced forces to the calm condition static turning forces (ref. Figure 3) has
been applied to the experimental data. The results are shown on Figure 4.

Although the relatively small tugs used in these trials are twin screw nozzle equipped tugs, they
are purpose-designed ship assist tugs and are able to manoeuvre sideways at considerable speed.
These attributes are certainly not universal amongst "conventional" tugs however, and this data
should therefore be used with caution.
 Page 21.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESCORT TUG OPERATIONS

Escort Operations

The following recommendations are made with regard to the performance of escort operations:

@ In restricted channels, escort tugs should be attached to the tanker.

@ Elsewhere, tugs should run ahead of and in reasonably close proximity to the escorted vessel.

@ Tugs should be deployed close to the stern of a disabled vessel when called upon to take control
of or guide the ship.

@ Escort tugs should only connect to the escorted vessel over the tug bow, or in the case of a
tractor tug, over the tug stern. Conventional screw tugs should never be deployed where they
might be at risk of being towed athwartships or stern first.

Escort Tug Characteristics

Tugs performing escort duties should be tested and approved for that purpose by the jurisdiction
responsible for tanker movements. At the very least, escort tugs should have documented proof
of the following performance characteristics:

@ Static bollard pull ahead

@ Static bollard pull astern
@ Free running speed
@ Stability as a minimum in compliance with CFR 46-173.095 (USCG Tow Line Pull Criteria)

Overall retarding capability is perhaps the most critical criteria for escort tugs, however its
measurement is not readily accomplished. Data on this capacity should be recorded wherever
possible.

Tug Braking Performance

The astern static bollard pull of an escort tug should not be less than that determined by reference
to Figures 1 and 2 as appropriate to each particular size of tanker and approach speed.
 Page 22.

Tug Turning Performance

The minimum bollard pull of an escort tug should not be less than that determined by reference
to Figure 3 and the associated calculation method (ref. Annex "A"). If only one tug is deployed
to perform the turning function, the minimum BP defined shall be the lesser of its ahead or astern
static BP measurements. Where two tugs are used in concert to turn a ship, then the minimum
BP defined for each boat should be the average of the ahead and astern BP measurements of that
boat.

Tug Equipment

Any tug performing escort operations should be appropriately equipped. At least the following
should be considered as essential equipment for escort service:

@ Fendering all-round the tug, of a highly elastic type

@ Effective means of communication between tugs and ship
@ Highly visible markings to assist pilot identification
@ Unique light and possible sound signals (e.g., strobe or "police" type lights) to identify tug as
in active escort duty
@ Line throwing device or line handling crane
@ Line handling winch
@ Soft towing line, of appropriate strength

Tug Propulsion

The most critical aspect of any tug for escort service is its propulsion system, and the manner in
which that system delivers effective thrust during the complete range of escort or assist operations.

The need in escort service for a tug to perform all of the following functions:

@ run free at high speeds (preferably 12 knots or higher)

@ apply maximum thrust to a moving ship
@ apply maximum "reverse thrust" in a retarding mode, in negative flow regime
can not be efficiently achieved in a conventional tug. To provide these requirements, escort tugs
should at least be equipped with:

a. Twin Screw Propulsion

- redundancy
- improved manoeuvrability
 Page 23.

b. Controllable Pitch Propulsion

- maximum power available in either free running or pushing modes
- immediate application of reverse thrust in retarding

Specialized propulsion systems, namely cycloidal propellers, or Z-drive propellers, in the

configurations which have become widely accepted are strongly recommended as the safest and
most efficient propulsion configurations for performing escort duties.

Further Research

There are a great many aspects of the subject of tug escorts which require further research. A
considerable amount of work has been done, but much of it is proprietary, as this service is still
very much in its infancy. Companies with particular types of tugs are anxious to protect their
investments, and proponents of particular types of equipment are eager to extol the virtues of their
product in comparison to others.

Nonetheless, there is absolutely no question that some specialized types of tugs, specifically the
Voith-Schneider tractor tug and the Z-drive reverse tractor configuration are significantly more
efficient and safer in performing escort duties than are any conventional types of tugs. Since the
data used as the basis of the recommendations in this study has been obtained generally from fairly
conventional types of tugs, it is important that test information be collected on the comparative
capabilities of the more specialized tugs in the functions of braking and turning ships.

SUMMARY

There is presently a relatively small amount of data available in the public domain on the subject
of handling large vessels with tugs, other than that dealing solely with ship berthing functions.
Thus to develop a definitive, yet simple and workable method for matching escort tug to ship size
is not possible without benefit of much more extensive research. The analysis presented in this
paper has utilized as much information as was available in a restricted time frame, and this data
has been used to establish what we recommend be considered only as an "interim guideline". As
more model and full scale testing is performed and is made publicly available, the formulations
and relationships proposed here can (and must!) be amended, refined or replaced with alternatives
which reflect a true "measure of merit" for each tug in this demanding service.
At the present time, static bollard pull and free running speed are two easily measured and readily
quantifiable elements of tug performance which have a direct bearing on escort capability. While
these factors are by no means the only performance criteria to be defined for escort tugs, they are
critically important, and form a useful starting point for defining an escort tug performance
specification.
 Page 24.

The methods developed provide results which are in reasonable agreement, given the accuracy of
the original data and the assumptions made.
 Nomenclature

B = Moulded beam of ship

BP = Bollard pull
BPa = bollard pull, astern direction
d = Loaded draft of ship (metres)
D = Moulded depth of ship (metres)
DWT = Ship cargo capacity (deadweight) in tonnes
E = Kinetic energy
f = Freeboard (f = D - d) (metres)
L = Length of ship (usually Registered Length) (metres)
Tonnes = Metric ton (= 2,205 pounds)
V = Velocity (speed)
VK = Ship speed (knots)
V0 = Initial velocity (knots)
) = Displacement (tonnes)
 References

[1] The Canadian Towing Industry: Tugs, Barges and their Relationships, prepared by
Robert Allan Ltd., Vancouver, British Columbia for Canadian Coast Guard, Ottawa,
Ontario, December 1991.

[2] Analysis of Tanker Escort Services For San Francisco Bay, Robert Allan Ltd.,
Vancouver British Columbia for Harbour Safety Committee Of The San Francisco Bay
Region San Francisco, California.

[3] Full-Scale Trials to Examine Tugboat Utilization in the Control of Large Tankers,
Hydronautics, Inc., Laurel, Maryland. Prepared for Maritime Administration,
Washington, DC, March 1981.
[4] Foss Tractor Tugs in North Puget Sound Tanker Escort/Assist Service, Foss Maritime
Company, Seattle, Washington.

[5] Manoeuvring Safety of Large Tankers: Stopping, Turning, and Speed Selection, Crane,
Jr., C. Lincoln, Transaction Volume 81, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, 1973.

[6] The Use of Tugs for Manoeuvring Large Vessels in Ports - A Preliminary Study,
National Ports Council, Department of Industry, General Council of British Shipping,
1977.

[7] Tug Records - Harbour Manoeuvring Trials, Port of Vancouver, August 13, 1980.

[8] Escort Tug for Louisiana Oil Port, Ship & Boat International, November 1992.
 Appendix 2
Worked Examples of Calculation of
Required Tug Forces

This paper presents a combination of graphical and calculation methods for determining the tug
forces required to execute either a braking or turning manoeuvre as a function of ship size (DWT)
and ship speed (VK).

The following example is included as an illustration of how a preliminary selection of tug bollard
pull can be made in each circumstance:

Model Tanker:

DWT = 100,000 long tons

VK = 8 knots
L = 230 metres
d = 15.2 metres

a. Retarding Manoeuvre:

Calculate:

Required BPa = 25.0 long tons.

b. Static Turning Analysis:

To turn a 100,000 ton deadweight ship, under the tide, current and water depth conditions
defined previously:

@ Refer to Figure 3
@ Enter DWT on "x" axis
@ Read +70 ton BP (ahead) on "y" axis
c. Turning Manoeuvre:

@ Initial speed = 8 knots

@ Final speed = 0 knots
@ Average speed through manoeuvre = 4 knots
@ Time for manoeuvre:

@ Turning rate:

@ Enter turning rate on "y" axis in Figure 4

@ Calculate DWT x Speed2:

= 100,000 x 42 = 1.6 x 106

@ Values intersect at about 60 tonnes BP (ahead)

Summary

Tug(s) to escort a 100,000 ton deadweight tanker at 8 knots should have the following total
capacities:

1. Retarding: BPa = 25 long tons

2. Static turn: BP = 70 long tons ahead
3. Turning: BP = 60 long tons

To achieve 25 tons BP astern, most conventional screw tugs would produce 50 to 60 tons BP
ahead. Therefore a conventional tug with BP of 50 to 60 tons would be acceptable for this
service. An omni-directional drive tug of only 25 to 30 tons BP would be able to generate the
required retarding force and meet that critical criteria, but two such tugs would be needed to
perform the turning functions.

***