See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336530248

FULL SCALE MEASUREMENTS OF PASSING SHIP EFFECTS

Conference Paper · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

4 206

2 authors, including:

Henk van den Boom

Maritime Research Institute Netherlands
34 PUBLICATIONS 191 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ocean towing of offshore structures View project

Dynamic behaviour of mooring lines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Henk van den Boom on 30 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

FULL SCALE MEASUREMENTS OF PASSING SHIP EFFECTS

by Eric Wictor ∗ and Henk van den Boom∗

ABSTRACT

Within the ROPES (Research on Passing Effects of Ships) joint-industry project (JIP), an extensive full scale mea-
surement campaign has been conducted. On four selected locations in the Port of Rotterdam the moored ship
motions and line loads were measured while tracking the passing ships. This campaign aimed to investigate the
passing ship effects in real world conditions and to collect data for validation of the ROPES software to predict the
loads excited by passing ships.
The mooring line loads were measured by means of wireless load cells. Both the low frequency and high frequency
motions of the vessel were recorded. For this purpose use was made of a combination of accelerometers, rate
gyros and RTK-GPS. In addition the vessel transverse and yaw motions were measured by acoustic sensors from
the quayside. The passing vessels were recorded by collecting AIS data from which ship size and displacement,
speed, heading and passing distance were derived. Furthermore the water levels just in front and behind the
moored vessel were measured, as well as the local current and wind.
The selected measurement locations concerned a container terminal, a dry cargo terminal along a river, an inland
water location and deep water dolphin mooring location. The moored ships ranged from a small barge to dry cargo
vessels, large container ships and a VLCC. At two locations measurements were conducted with conventional
mooring lines and with active mooring systems.
In this paper the full scale measurement campaign will be presented in detail. Selected results of the measurement
campaign will be presented and the use of active mooring systems will be discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Context
New ports and terminals for LNG carriers, increasingly large container vessels and crude carriers are being de-
signed and constructed. These new facilities have to be designed to provide safe mooring and operating conditions,
also when moored vessels are subjected to hydrodynamic effects such as suction and water level drop which result
from the passing of other vessels. Such passing vessel effects have, in the past, led to incidents and accidents. In
extreme cases this has resulted in loss of lives, loss of the vessel and severe damage to mooring facilities. Current
port design practice is often based on the use of simplified hydrodynamic models for predicting the forces associ-
ated with passing vessel effects. Such methods ignore site-specific conditions and may not adequately account for
important physical effects. Moreover, mooring load and vessel motions predictions are often based on static rather
than dynamic models, and as a result can be severely flawed.

Purpose
Suction, water level drop and forces on moored vessels resulting from hydrodynamic effects from passing vessels
may be influenced by a multitude of parameters. The aim of the ROPES Joint Industry Project (JIP) was to increase
the understanding of which factors are important. This includes the speed, displacement and course of the passing
vessel, but also site-specific elements such as bathymetry and the type of mooring of the moored vessel. An
elaborate investigation into the relevance of these parameters is made in TALSTRA, H., & BLIEK, A.J. (2014).
The ROPES JIP additionally aimed to increase knowledge about the effects of different methodologies and tools
when predicting mooring loads and moored vessel motions during passing events. Both model scale and full scale,
real world data of actual passing vessel events was recorded during the project, for the purpose of verification
and validation of a numerical tool developed within the project scope (see PINKSTER, J.A., & PINKSTER, H.J.M.
(2014). The full scale data was also intended as a ’reality check’ and observation of mooring practice. This paper
elaborates on the data collection methods used during the full scale monitoring campaigns, and the observations
from this data. Data was primarily collect in the port of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. An additional full scale dataset
suitable for validation and verification was provided by ROPES JIP participant Cavotec. This data was recorded in
Port Hedland, Australia, and is not covered in this paper.
∗ MARIN, Trials and Monitoring, Wageningen, the Netherlands

1 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

MONITORING METHOD

Locations and moored vessels

Full-scale monitoring of the ROPES JIP was conducted in the Rotterdam port area (see map in Fig. 1) with ships of
convenience. Monitoring was divided into four campaigns at distinct locations, each location selected on the basis
of historical evidence of safety issues due to passing vessel effects.

•
Figure 1: Map of monitoring locations ( ), from left to right: Maasvlakte, Caland Canal, Scheur, Oude Maas
- map image courtesy of Port of Rotterdam

The selected locations varied significantly in terms of passing and moored vessels, bathymetry and environmental
factors:
• Maasvlakte container terminal: This location is almost directly on the coast and subject to both tides and
heavy traffic. The terminal is along a large, 26 m deep basin. Passing vessels were all container vessels,
some mooring at an adjacent berth, others picking up speed to make the seaward turn out of the harbor
basin. Moored vessels were a number of different container vessels, varying is length from 194 to 297 m.
• Scheur quayside: A tidal section of the Nieuwe Maas river, this location is subject to tides and river current,
including a salt-water undercurrent. Passing vessels were almost all in transit, travelling at speeds of 5 to 16
knots. Moored vessels were two bulk carriers of 110 and 170 m length respectively. Note this campaign was
divided into three separate periods.
• Oude Maas quayside: An inland waterway with minor tidal affects, passing vessels were a mixture of barges,
inland ships and oceangoing vessels. Al vessels were in transit as the quay where the campaign was con-
ducted was abandoned. The moored vessel was a rented 65 m long pontoon.
• Caland Canal dolphin berth: A deep water canal where vessels were moored on dolphins roughly 75 m from
the water’s edge. The canal’s harbors and staging areas primarily cater to chemical tankers and VLCCs. The
moored vessel was the ”TI Europe”, one of the world’s largest VLCC currently in operation.
All locations were subject to water level fluctuations resulting from tides. Another important common factor is
a history of problems with passing vessels, often resulting in operability issues during loading and unloading of
moored vessels. All locations are noted have a large volume of traffic through the main channel, with multiple
vessels passing every hour. Images of each location shown in Fig. 2.

Registration of passing vessels

Parameters of passing vessels, relevant to passing vessel effects, were obtained from Automatic Identification
System (AIR) data, provided by the Netherlands Coast Guard and Rijkswaterstaat. For the campaign conducted
at the Oude Maas, AIS data was augmented with radar imagery. AIS data typically provides vessel position, draft,
speed, heading, updated once per second. It also includes an International Maritime Organization (IMO) or Maritime
Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number, allowing passing vessels to be identified and their main dimensions to be
obtained. Course over ground and drift angle were derived from position data and heaving.

2 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

(a) Maasvlakte container terminal (b) Scheur quay

(c) Oude Maas barge quay (d) Caland Canal dolphin mooring

Figure 2: Full scale monitoring locations

Moored vessel motions and positions

The positions and motions of each moored vessel were recorded throughout the campaigns. Depending on the
location different combinations of real-time-kinematic (RTK) GPS, gyroscopic motion reference units (MRU) and ul-
trasonic rangefinders were used. GPS was used for obtaining an accurate global position and low-frequent motions,
while MRUs were used for high-frequent motions in 6 degrees of freedom.
Ultrasonic rangefinders were placed on the quaysides or dolphins to which vessels moored, measuring the absolute
distances between the quayside and points on the moored vessels’ hulls. Vessel position, sway motion, roll and
fender compression could then be calculated, depending on the number and location of rangefinders applied.

Mooring line tension

Wired and wireless loadcells rated from 10 to 100 ton load were used to measure the mooring line loads during each
of the campaigns. Loadcells were attached to quayside bollards with steel leads and connected to the mooring lines
with shackles. Typically two mooring lines were connect to each shackle, reflecting the typical practice of pairing
mooring lines on each bollard. The standard mooring pattern consisted of a pair of head and a pair of stern lines,
pairs of breast lines forward and aft, and paired forward and aft springs. During the Oude Maas and Caland Canal
campaigns only single mooring lines were connected to a bollard or dolphin quick-release hook via loadcells. Along
the Caland Canal extra pairs of head and stern lines were used.
In general there were less loadcells available than the total number of (paired) mooring lines coming from the
moored vessels, the exception being on the pontoon at the Oude Maas with only four mooring lines. Unless safety
was a concern, captains were requested and advised by the Rotterdam linesmen to keep un-instrumented mooring
lines slack. Another notable exception was the campaign at the Caland Canal: the moored tanker was required to
use a minimum of 18 mooring lines. Eight of these lines were equipped with loadcells.

Fender compression and forces

Fendering was used at each of the monitoring locations, varying from pneumatic Yokohama and Trelleborg cone
fenders to a cantilever beam construction with elastomers springs at the Oude Maas quayside (see Fig. 4 for
examples). Data from the rangefinders pointed at moored vessels’ hulls was used to calculate the absolute distance
from hulls to quaysides. The amount of fender compression and the normal and friction forces could then be derived
providing fender properties were known.

3 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

(a) 1x 10 ton (Oude Maas) (b) 2x 100 ton (during battery change)

Figure 3: Loadcells in mooring lines, including shackles

(a) 1x 10 ton (Maasvlakte) (b) 1x 10 ton (Caland Canal)

Figure 4: Fendering used at monitoring locations

Water level changes

Sailing vessels passing by moored vessels in a restricted channel and/or at close range lead to water motion
between the two vessels. It is these water motions, typically the suction of water in a direction contrary to the
heading of the sailing vessel, and the resulting local water level drop, or draw down, which exert forces on the
moored vessel. This causes the moored vessel to move and leads, in turn, to changes in mooring line and fender
forces. The size of the disturbance, reflected in the size of the water level drop around the moored vessel, is an
important indicator for the severity of the passing event. To measure water level drop, two ultrasonic range finders
were placed along the quayside, one each near to the bow and stern of the moored vessels. The rangefinders
measured the distance to the water surface accurately and at a high frequency, registering both surface (wind)
waves, water level drop and bow and stern waves from passing vessels, and tidal affects. Fig. 5(a) shows an
example of a rangefinder near the bow of a moored vessel.

Environmental conditions
Water flow, including current and waves, were additionally measured using an ADCP placed on the bottom of
channel where measurement campaigns were carried out. Although capable of measuring surface waves, MARIN
set the ADCP to measure only water depth and current throughout the water column, since both parameters are
influential to the severity of passing vessel effects. During the Oude Maas campaign the ADCP was replaced by
a Valeport current meter measuring at half of the draft of the moored vessel. Previous testing has shown current
speed and direction from both devices to agree with each other. Both devices give 1 or 10 minute average readings,
depending on selected settings. Fig. 5(b) shows the ADCP waiting to be deployed.
With larger moored vessel wind forces on the superstructure and hull above the waterline can affect the forces
and motions measured during passing events. An anemometer was standard equipment during every campaign,
recording both wind speed and direction.

4 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

(a) Rangefinder measuring water surface elevation (b) ADCP on quayside prior to deployment

Figure 5: Wave, water level drop and current measuring instruments

Active mooring systems

A number of ’active’ mooring systems are currently commercially available or undergoing trials. They aim to increase
operability and safety over conventional moored lines by reducing moored vessel motions in high winds, adverse
wave conditions and during passing vessel events. One such system, ShoreTensionr , was used during portions of
the Maasvlakte and Scheur campaigns. ShoreTensionr is basically a 3 m long piston. The fixed end is connected
to a quayside bollard, the moving end to a high-strength mooring line - usually Dyneemar - wound onto a bollard on
the deck of the moored vessel. The air spring loading the piston is accompanied by an oil damper; characteristics of
both components can set by the user to accommodate specific moored vessels or expected disturbances to them.
Fig. 6 shows an example of a ShoreTensionr unit fitted to a double forward breast line. Two units were used during
the ROPES campaign, one per pair of breast lines at the moored vessels’ bows and sterns.
Note that the data collected at Port Hedland, Australia, made use of forces and displacements measured using
Cavotec Moormasterr pneumatic mooring systems. Ships moored at the Port Hedland jetty used only a series
these systems and rubber fendering, not conventional mooring lines.

Figure 6: ShoreTensionr on double breast lines

RESULTS

Water motions from passing vessels

An extensive database of results was obtained from the four monitoring campaigns. A first step in understanding
obtained results was comparing the parameters of the passing vessel and the environmental conditions during the
event, to the water motions. The drop in water level was considered to be indicative of the severity of a passing
event. The water level was expected to drop first on the side of each moored vessel from which each passing vessel
approached. The time required for the lowest water level to reach the other side of the moored vessel was expected
to correlate well with the speed and size of each passing vessel. Measurements from six different passing events
are taken as an example:
• 0721: Scheur, 168 x 27 x 8 m container vessel
• 0726: Scheur, 166 x 28 x 9 m container vessel

5 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

• 0902: Scheur, 142 x 23 x 5 m ro-ro vessel

• 1001: Oude Maas, 264 x 23 x 3 m large multiple barge combination
• 1003: Oude Maas, 86 m small barge
• 1012: Oude Maas, 124 x 17 x 8 m oceangoing tanker
The development of the tracks of the passing vessels leading to event are shown in Fig. 7. Note vessel outlines are
drawn to scale.

850
850

800
800

750
750
Range [m north]

Range [m north]
700
700
All GPS data in error!
650
650

600 Passing speed: 9 kn Passing speed: 12 kn

600

Minimum passing distance: 204 m Minimum passing distance: 193 m

550
550

800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
Range [m east] Range [m east]

(a) Event 0721 (b) Event 0726

800
450

750
400

700
350
Range [m north]

Range [m north]

650
300

600
250

550
Passing speed: 12 kn 200 Passing speed: 7 kn

500
Minimum passing distance: 130 m Minimum passing distance: 61 m
150

950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Range [m east] Range [m east]

(c) Event 0902 (d) Event 1001

500
450

450
400

400
350
Range [m north]

Range [m north]

350
300

300
250

250
200 Passing speed: 9 kn Passing speed: 10 kn
200
Minimum passing distance: 34 m Minimum passing distance: 100 m
150

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Range [m east] Range [m east]

(e) Event 1003 (f) Event 1012

Figure 7: Recorded passing vessel tracks and moored vessel positions (to scale)

6 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

The measurements in Fig. 8 show clear drops in water level due to suction, bow and stern waves from passing
vessels, and a degree of background noise. The size of the former two effects is dependant on event parameters
such as passing vessel dimensions, speed, distance and drift angle, and bathymetry and ambient current. Fig. 8(a)
shows hardly any bow or stern waves but a clear drop in water level. Conversely, Fig. 8(b) through Fig. 8(f) show
these waves can be or similar to even double the amplitude of water level drop. The relative importance of both
effects to forces on moored vessels will be considered later, in paragraph 9.

0.06 0.4

0.04 0.3

0.02 0.2
Draw down [m]

Draw down [m]

0 0.1

−0.02 0

−0.04 −0.1
II
I I
−0.06 −0.2
II

−0.08 −0.3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s] Time [s]

(a) Event 0721 (b) Event 0726

0.2 0.4

0.15 0.3

0.1
0.2
Draw down [m]

Draw down [m]

0.05
0.1
0
0
−0.05
−0.1 I
−0.1 II
II
I −0.2
−0.15

−0.2 −0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s] Time [s]

(c) Event 0902 (d) Event 1001

0.1 0.5

0.08 0.4

0.06 0.3

0.2
0.04
Draw down [m]

Draw down [m]

0.1
0.02
0
0
−0.1
−0.02
−0.2
−0.04 −0.3 I
−0.06 −0.4 II
II
I
−0.08 −0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [s] Time [s]

(e) Event 1003 (f) Event 1012

Figure 8: Rangefinder water level measurements: filtered to exclude tide and wind waves, (-) at bow, (-) at
stern, (I) lowest water level at bow and stern (II) of moored vessel

Event 1012 contained the largest water level drop measured during the Oude Maas campaign. This is attributable
to the significantly larger displacement of the passing vessel in question, compared to the rest of the vessels in the
campaign. Indeed, the importance of this larger displacement can be deduced from all other relevant parameters
being far from exceptional compared to the campaign averages. Other maxima, per campaign, are shown with the
previous exemplary events in Table 1.

7 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

The duration of each passing event, or rather the time taken for water level drop to pass from one end of a
moored vessel to the other, should be in the same order as the time it takes for passing vessels to move from
the bow to the stern of the moored vessel (or vise versa). In Table 2 values calculated assuming duration =
passing vessel length/passing speed, are compared with the measured duration: the time between the minimum
water levels at bow (I) and stern (II). The measured values are taken from low-pass filtered signals, and no correction
is made for ambient current, leading to some discrepancy.

Passing vessel Passing Passing Max. water

Event Campaign Drift angle
dimensions distance speed level drop
[−] [−] [m × m × m] [m]c − c [m/s] [◦ ] [m]
0721 Scheur 168 x 27 x 8 204 4.8 0.1 0.09
0726 Scheur 166 x 28 x 9 193 6.3 0.2 0.19
0902 Scheur 142 x 23 x 5 130 6.1 -2.2 0.13
1001 Oude Maas 264 x 23 x 3 61 3.8 4.8 0.14
1003 Oude Maas 86 x 11 x n/a 34 4.6 0.4 0.08
1012 Oude Maas 124 x 17 x 7 100 5.2 0.8 0.43
0101 Maasvlakte 332 x 43 x 14 131 4.0 5.5 0.11
0502 Maasvlakte 141 x 23 x 8 120 2.1 -3.6 0.02
0804 Scheur 166 x 28 x 9 158 6.5 -2.3 0.28
Caland
3013 244 x 42 x 15 150 3.0 1.6 0.07
canal

Table 1: Water level drop and passing vessel parameters for selected events from all campaigns

Vessel Vessel
Event Duration Time I-II
length speed
[−] [m] [m/s] [s] [s]
0721 168 4.8 35 22
0726 166 6.3 26 16
0902 142 6.1 23 25
1001 264 3.1 69 37
1003 86 4.1 19 27
1012 124 3.1 24 19

Table 2: Passing event parameters, calculated and measured duration

Mooring forces
The forces registered by the loadcells during several passing events are shown in Fig. ??. Again, events 0721,
0726, 0902, 1001, 1003 and 1012 are taken as examples. Note these results contain catenary effects. A number
of observations can be made from these figures alone:
1. Vessels moored to quaysides, dolphins or jetties with steel or nylon mooring lines and fenders can be consid-
ered actuated mass-spring-damper systems, with the water motions resulting from passing vessels constitut-
ing actuating forces. The time-series developments of water motions therefore result in a elastic response of
system. This results dynamics of the moored vessel and mooring configuration which may continue after the
water level returns to normal. The duration and amplitude of the response depends on the mass, stiffness
and damping properties of the mooring configuration.
2. Damping and the resulting decay of mooring line force response to a passing event shows that high-frequent
actuation - typically from bow and stern waves - is often filtered by the mass-spring-damper system. The
forces resulting from such high frequent water motions are often less dominant than forces due to water level
drop.
3. When forward spring line tension increases, aft spring line tension decreases, and vise versa. The same
applies to breast lines and the bow and stern lines.
4. On the side of the moored vessel where the water level drops first, spring line tension increases while the
other line tensions decrease. The suggests the moored vessel moves in the same direction as the suction
resulting from the passing vessel, and begins moving downward with the falling water level.
5. There are large variations in pretension between the multiple lines of each moored vessel directly prior to
passing events. This pretension level likely affects the maximum tension measured in a given line. Unless

8 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

pretension is adjusted and maintained over the course of the campaign, changes will result from the influence
of tides, loading condition of the moored vessel, and possibly movement to a (slightly) different position as a
result of passing event hydrodynamic forces.
Additionally it should be noted that no ’snap loading’ was measured in the events covered so far, nor in any of the
other events recorded during the four monitoring campaigns. Mooring line pretension as low as 2 kN was recorded.
During several passing events mooring lines, in particular spring lines, fell slack. Table 3 shows the minimum and
maximum line tensions measured during the passing events taken as examples previously and in Table 1. Note that
in three events, one spring line line fell completely slack. Slack lines are exposed to snap loading and subsequent
damage if the slack is taken up suddenly. No slack lines were recorded when ShoreTensionr systems were used.
During both the Scheur and Maasvlakte campaigns maximum mooring line loads were higher with these systems.
This is, in the first place, due to higher, constant pretension on the breast lines.

55 80

50
70
45
60
40
50
35
Forces [kN]

Forces [kN]
30 40

25
30
20
20
15
10
10

5 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s] Time [s]

(a) Event 0721 (b) Event 0726

350 100

90
300
80
250 70

60
Forces [kN]

Forces [kN]

200
50
150
40

100 30

20
50
10

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s] Time [s]

(c) Event 0902 (d) Event 1001

30 150

25

20 100
Forces [kN]

Forces [kN]

15

10 50

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [s] Time [s]

(e) Event 1003 (f) Event 1012

Figure 9: Mooring line forces: (-) forward spring, (-) aft spring, (-) bow line, (-) stern line, (-) forward breast,
(-) aft breast

9 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

Max.
Min. Max.
amplitude
Event Campaign mooring line mooring line
relative to
tension tension
pretension
[−] [−] [kN ] [kN ] [kN ]
0721 Scheur 6 51 16
0726 Scheur 0 78 55
0902 Scheur 6 321 223
1001 Oude Maas 4 95 51
1003 Oude Maas 0 30 15
1012 Oude Maas 4 142 99
0101 Maasvlakte 5 189 75
0502 Maasvlakte 7 201 116
0804 Scheur 0 295 282
Caland
3013 29 285 99
canal

Table 3: Minimum and mooring line tension for selected events from all campaigns

Moored vessel motions

Table 4 gives the maximum amplitude of heave, surge and sway recorded during the most notable runs across the
four monitoring campaigns:

Event Campaign Max. heave Max. surge Max. sway

[−] [−] [m] [m] [m]
0721 Scheur 0.06 0.05 0.04
0726 Scheur 0.04 0.11 0.11
0902 Scheur 0.16 0.35 0.46
1001 Oude Maas 0.05 0.05 0.11
1003 Oude Maas 0.02 0.06 0.05
1012 Oude Maas 0.21 0.08 0.08
0101 Maasvlakte n/a n/a n/a
0502 Maasvlakte 0.01 0.03 0.07
0804 Scheur 0.20 0.61 0.32
Caland
3013 0.00 0.10 0.10
canal

Table 4: Minimum and mooring line tension for selected events from all campaigns

Heave of the moored vessels, recorded by GPS and MRU devices during each passing event, are shown in Fig. 10
for six example events. It stands to reason that a downward (negative) heave motion of the moored vessel occurs
once water level falls, as a passing vessel sails by. However, heave minima do not necessarily occur precisely in
between the time instances when the lowest water levels were measured at the moored vessels’ stern and bow.
Indeed, there is quite some variation when the measured heave is compared with water motions in Fig. 8. This can
be attributed to several factors:
• Distribution of mass on the moored vessels, which changed over time as vessels were loaded or unloaded
and changed ballast condition.
• The speed of response of the moored vessel to the forces exerted on it by water motions depends on the
stiffness and damping in the mooring configuration of said vessel. This configuration is rarely symmetric
forward to aft. Pretension changes as crews tend to lines with changing loading conditions and tide level.
Pretension changes in turn affect normal forces on quayside fenders and hence the amount of friction the
fenders generate as the vessel moves.
Note that both the minimum and maximum heave values are at most the same size as the drop in water level, but
typically smaller. One may also observe that the moored vessel’s mooring configuration acts as a filter. Moored
vessels typically (but not always, see Fig. 10(b)) respond less significantly to bow and stern waves from passing
vessels, than to the drop in water level resulting from suction. The level of response is again dependent on the
mass, spring and damping properties of the mooring configuration.

10 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

0.03 0.04

0.03
0.02 0.02

0.01
0.01
Heave [m]

Heave [m]
0

−0.01
0
−0.02

−0.01 −0.03

−0.04

−0.02 −0.05
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s] Time [s]

(a) Event 0721 (b) Event 0726

0.15 0.02

0.1
0.01
0.05

0
Heave [m]

Heave [m]
0

−0.05
−0.01

−0.1
−0.02
−0.15

−0.2 −0.03
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s] Time [s]

(c) Event 0902 (d) Event 1001

0.8 0.1

0.6

0.4 0.05

0.2
0
Heave [m]

Heave [m]

−0.2
−0.05
−0.4

−0.6 −0.1
−0.8

−1 −0.15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [s] Time [s]

(e) Event 1003 (f) Event 1012

Figure 10: Heave measured during selected events

Surge of the moored vessels, recorded by GPS and MRU devices during each passing event, are shown in Fig. 11
for six example events. Positive surge is defined as a forward motion, hence passing vessels approaching the
moored vessel from the stern should cause a negative surge response first. Once water levels rise and the external
force on the moored vessel mass-spring-damper system decreases, the vessel moves (back) forward. For passing
vessels approaching from the bow this initial surge response should be positive. The responses in Fig. 11 show that
this is the case. Each of the considered passing events involved the passing vessel approaching from the moored
vessel’s stern. The surge motion following water level initially dropping near the bow is consistently negative, after
which the vessel surges forward to its original position with overshoot.
It is important to note that the water level drop is often preceded by a short rise in water level due to water being
pushed upwards slightly in front of the passing ship. This water motion actuates the mooring configuration, eliciting
a response. This is readily apparent in events 0721 and 1003 (see Fig. 11(a) and Fig. 11(e) and compare to water
level measurements in Fig. 8).
Sway of the moored vessels, recorded by GPS and MRU devices during each passing event, are shown in Fig. 12 for
six example events. Positive sway is defined as movement from starboard to portside. All vessels in the examples
were moored starboard side. Suction and ensuing water level drop during passing events caused the vessels to
move away from the quay and backwards in the elastic response. Note again that the elastic response in part a

11 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

0.6 0.06

0.04
0.4
0.02
0.2
0
Surge [m]

Surge [m]
0 −0.02

−0.2 −0.04

−0.06
−0.4
−0.08
−0.6
−0.1

−0.8 −0.12
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s] Time [s]

(a) Event 0721 (b) Event 0726

0.2 0.02

0.15

0.1 0.01

0.05
0
Surge [m]

Surge [m]
0

−0.05
−0.01
−0.1

−0.15 −0.02
−0.2

−0.25 −0.03
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s] Time [s]

(c) Event 0902 (d) Event 1001

0.04 0.04

0.03 0.03

0.02
0.02
0.01
Surge [m]

Surge [m]

0.01
0
0
−0.01
−0.01
−0.02

−0.02 −0.03

−0.03 −0.04
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [s] Time [s]

(e) Event 1003 (f) Event 1012

Figure 11: Surge measured during selected events

function of the mooring configuration, and in part a function of water motions other than a drop in level. This results
in additional complexity in the time-series development of surge motions.
One of the vessels moored at the Scheur quayside was moored first with, and later without, ShoreTensionr active
systems on her breast lines. Passing events were more severe during the first part of the campaign: the average
water level drop was 0.03 m higher and the maximum drop was more than twice as big. Yet the maximum motions
of the moored vessel were of very similar magnitude in all cases.

12 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

0.8 0.06

0.04
0.6
0.02
0.4
0
Sway [m]

Sway [m]
0.2 −0.02

0 −0.04

−0.06
−0.2
−0.08
−0.4
−0.1

−0.6 −0.12
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s] Time [s]

(a) Event 0721 (b) Event 0726

0.3 0.03

0.2 0.02

0.1
0.01
0
Sway [m]

Sway [m]
0
−0.1
−0.01
−0.2
−0.02
−0.3

−0.4 −0.03

−0.5 −0.04
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s] Time [s]

(c) Event 0902 (d) Event 1001

0.04 0.03

0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Sway [m]

Sway [m]

0 0

−0.01
−0.01
−0.02
−0.02
−0.03

−0.04 −0.03
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [s] Time [s]

(e) Event 1003 (f) Event 1012

Figure 12: Sway measured during selected events

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of passing vessels on water motions in restricted channels, and the influence of water motions on
moored vessels at full scale was investigated during the ROPES Joint Industry Project. An overview of the full scale
measurements, with examples, was given in this paper. The four campaigns provided sufficient real world data for
use in validation and verification of ROPES prediction software and mooring analysis tools.
Measurements were conducted at locations which provide a wide cross-section of typical port layouts with parallel
mooring, varying from quaysides along narrow river channels to deep harbor berths designed to accommodate
ULCCs and similar-sized container carriers. Eleven different vessels, representing ships typical to these locations,
were moored during the campaigns. Moored vessels ranged from a 65 m barge to a 380 mm ULCC. 118 passing
vessels produced discernible, relevant passing events.
The effect of passing vessels on water level could - on the whole - be easily identified from recorded measurements.
Complicating factors in interpreting water level data were current and the presence of wind waves and bow and
stern waves from passing vessels. The latter could be identified through filtering. During multiple passing events
the bulge in the water surface preceding a passing vessel was registered by measurement apparatus and identified.

13 of 14
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

The largest water level drop was 0.43 m, measured at the Oude Maas riverside quay when a tanker passed through
the narrow waterway.
The effect of passing vessels and resulting water motions on moored vessel motions and mooring forces produced
clearly different results between separate events. Mooring forces and motions were recorded with a high amount
of detail, revealing response of moored vessels to water level drop, bow and stern waves from passing vessels to
be dependant on the combined mass, stiffness and damping properties of the moored vessels’ mooring configura-
tions. Hydrodynamic damping and fendering friction forces damp the motions of a moored vessel and influence the
dynamic, elastic response of a rope-moored vessel.
Maximum and minimum mooring line tensions measured varied from 0 kN, completely slack, to a peak of 674 kN
recorded on a pair of mooring lines at the Maasvlakte moored container vessel. The largest heave, surge and sway
motions recorded were 0.3 m, 0.61 m and 0.52 m, respectively. Although all monitoring locations have a history
of operation problems due to passing vessel effects, none of the above values represent extremes endangering
operations or safety. Slack lines weren’t measured when active mooring systems were applied, and similar peak
motions were recorded under more severe passing events.
A prime reason no dangerous motion or tension levels were recorded was the general awareness of the campaign
among captains and pilots during the measurement periods. Additionally, while measuring in the Caland Canal
inland tankers moored along the VLCC presented restrictions on the speed and distance of passing vessels. The
condition of mooring lines and the vigilance of crews in maintaining pretension varied throughout the campaigns.
Indeed, slack lines - with potential for snap loading during passing events - were recorded.

REFERENCES

Pinkster, J.A., and Pinkster, H.J.M., ”A fast, user-friendly, 3-d potential flow program for the prediction of passing
vessel forces”, PIANC, San Franciso, USA, 1-5 June, 2014.
Talstra, H. and Bliek, A.J., ”Loads on moored ships due to passing ship events in a straight harbour channel”,
PIANC, San Franciso, USA, 1-5 June, 2014.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the ROPES JIP partners Deltares, Pinkster Marine
Hydraulics and Svašek Hydraulics, and would also like the permission given by all ROPES participants for the pub-
lishing of this paper. Additionally, the authors wish to express their gratitude to ROPES JIP participant Koningklijke
Roeiers Vereeniging Eendracht for their continuous support in the preparation of and carrying out the full scale
measurements for this project, and to participant Cavotec for providing additional data for correlation analysis.
The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the unanimous views
of all the ROPES JIP consortium members.

14 of 14
View publication stats