39 views

Uploaded by ram131313

- Note to the Teacher _ This Lesson Plan Works Especially Well f
- US_Canada_Joint+AGM+Industry+Notice+2016
- Oil tanker operation manual
- Artificial Floating Islands- Cities of the Future.pdf
- Fundamentals of Naval Weapons Systems
- 0417_s11_qp_22.pdf
- Ripples and Smooth Areas on Water
- 01. VISION IAS Geography (CSM) 2016 Test 1 Answer (2)
- 313-1107-1-SM
- Time Modeling
- Ship Rules
- Clash_double-sided_cheatsheet.pdf
- Passage Planning
- Analysis and Correction of Sea Trials
- Standing Waves Lab
- المحاضرة الاولى في مادة الصوتيات لثانية عمارة
- In Pursuit of the Mind Masters
- Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan
- L. List of Certificates and Documents Required to Be Carried on Board Ships Rev18
- Earth Tide

You are on page 1of 156

Design of a probabilistic computer model for determination of channel transit risks to a seaport

Design of a probabilistic computer model for determination of channel transit risks to a seaport

AVV Transport Research Centre Section Navigation and Waterways R. Bouw November 2005

PREFACE

This master thesis forms the completion of my education at Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences. The project has been preformed by order of AVV Transport Research Centre, section Navigation and Waterways. Readers who are especially interested in the physical and mathematical background of HARAP or the selected alternative are referred to chapter 2 and appendix 1. The project conclusions are given in chapter 6. The program language of the selected alternative can be found in appendix 2. Special thanks go to E. Bolt and N. Dofferhoff for the daily supervision, nice discussions and constructive criticism. I would like to thank my supervisors from the university for the personal help and the freedom I got in doing the project. E. Cusell and W. Duif, thanks for correcting my English. The graduation committee consists of: - Prof. drs. ir. J.K. Vrijling - Dr. ir. P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder - Prof. ir. A.C.W.M. Vrouwenvelder - Ir. E.W.B. Bolt

II

SUMMARY

An entrance channel ensures the accessibility of most seaports. These channels are created through natural processes or by dredging and form the only port access for deep draught vessels. The dimensions of entrance channels have to follow scale enlargement of ships. It is possible to make the channels deep and wide enough for even the largest ships to access the port at any time, however the dredging cost will be high. To avoid these high dredging costs, the waterway authorities apply an admittance policy based on the risk of touching the bottom. This policy allows deep draught vessels to use the entrance channel only under particular conditions. The risk of touching the bottom during a channel transit depends on conditions like: the wave climate, astronomical tide and meteorological water level variations in combination with the ship characteristics. The inaccessibility percentage appears to be a good measure for waterway authorities to characterise their admittance policy and for companies to support their location selection. To calculate the inaccessibility percentage and tidal windows, AVV Transport Research Centre developed the probabilistic computer model HARAP (HARbour APproach). This model takes the occurrence frequency of most normative conditions into account by numerical integration of the probability density functions. For runtime reduction, the functions are divided into relatively large classes and the channel in large parts. The consequences: the results depend on arbitrarily chosen class borders and tidal window issues are based on the classes to which the predicted conditions belong instead of actual predicted data. The project objective is to design a computer model that uses a continuous channel and continuous probability density functions to calculate the inaccessibility percentage and an entrance regime for a tidal bound ship. Important physical and mathematical relations are studied, three alternatives are generated and a case study is done to compare the selected alternative and HARAP. The first alternative uses the existing model HARAP. The alternative calculates the inaccessibility percentage with at least ten times more classes and channel parts. Alternative 2 determines the inaccessibility percentage using the Monte Carlo method. It simulates channel transits by drawing the conditions from their distribution functions and positions along the channel axis. The third alternative determines the inaccessibility percentage in approximately the same way as alternative 1, but now with a constant integration step size. In HARAP and alternative 1, the integration steps are defined by the users and are not necessary constant of size. Alternative 2 is selected because its runtime is approximately 1013 times faster than alternatives 1 and 3. Both the existing model HARAP and the alternative 2 calculate the expected number of bottom touches E [ ] during a channel transit. By substituting E [ ] in the Poison distribution, the probability of one or more bottom touches can be calculated. The probability has to be lower than a particular safety criterion. Besides a safety criterion, serviceability criteria are formulated to ensure for instance the manoeuvrability of the ship. During a transit, both the safety and serviceability criteria have to be checked.

III

A tidal window issue is based on a set of predicted conditions. In reality the conditions vary around these predictions. Therefore alternative 2 draws ksimu times a set of real conditions. With each set of real conditions and Npksi drawn positions along the channel axis, the E [ ] is calculated. The mean of ksimu E [ ] is checked on the safety criterion. This is repeated for a number of starting moments in a tidal cycle. If a sequent series of starting moments fulfils the safety criterion, it forms a tidal window. Simulating lsimu times a tidal window issue by drawing the same number of times a set of predicted values from their distribution function, the inaccessibility percentage can be calculated (see figure).

frequency frequency frequency frequency frequency

predicted wave condition predicted meteorological condition predicted sailing speed predicted draught real astronomical condition

water level

time

frequency

frequency

frequency

real wave condition real meteorological condition real sailing speed real draught

A

input channel transit CHANNEL VIEW FROM ABOVE

frequency

ship motion bottom position

Inaccessibility percentage

The Euro and Maas channel to Rotterdam are taken for the case study. HARAP calculated a percentage of 4.3% in a runtime of 5 minutes and the selected alternative 4% in a time of 80 hour. This difference between the inaccessibility percentages is acceptable. The runtime of 80 hour is relatively large. Optimising of the algorithm, limiting the number of draws and the use of a compiled computer language will reduce the runtime. With the results of the case study it can be concluded that it is possible to make a good model based on the Monte Carlo method. Alternative 2 calculates with: continuous probability density functions, a continuous course of the channel, real tidal data and uses actual predicted conditions for tidal window issues. The results seem to be promising, therefore further research is recommended.

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface Summary List of figures List of tables 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives 1.3 Outline of the report 1.4 Shipping definitions with respect to accessibility Project background 2.1 Maritime industry background

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 Scale of the maritime industry in the Netherlands Procedure for incoming vessels Actors around the admittance policy A measure for the accessibility Keel clearance Ship movements due to horizontal velocities Ship movements due to waves Relations between the physical processes From under keel clearence to probabilistic models Chance of touching the bottom From wave spectrum to the motion spectrum of ships Probability of a condition Admittance criteria Level-classification of calculation methods Numerical Integration Monte Carlo Simulations Mathematical background Modules Input variables

I III IX XI 1

1 2 2 2

5

5 5 6 7 8 8 8 9 11 12 13 13 13 14 16 16 18 18 18 20 21 21 22 24 27

2.2

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4

2.3

Probabilistic background

2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5

2.4

Calculation methods

2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3

2.5

2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3

2.6

Chapter conclusions

3.1.1 3.1.2 Degree of describing the physical processes Advantages and disadvantages Problem definition and project objective Project boundaries Project assumptions

29

29 29 30 31 31 31 32

3.2

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3

4.1.1 4.1.2 Description of the model Advantages and disadvantages Description of the model Advantages and disadvantages Description of the model Advantages and disadvantages Description of the model Advantages and disadvantages Description of the model Advantages and disadvantages Description of the model Advantages and disadvantages

33

33 33 34 34 35 37 38 38 41 42 42 43 43 44 45 46 46 47 47 48

4.2

4.2.1 4.2.2

4.3

4.3.1 4.3.2

4.4

4.4.1 4.4.2

4.5

4.5.1 4.5.2

4.6

4.6.1 4.6.2

4.7 4.8 5

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 Ship data Channel data Astronomical data Meteorological data Wave data Criteria data Number of draws: positions Number of draws: real conditions Number of draws: predicted conditions

51

51 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 67

5.2

5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3

VI

5.3

5.3.1 5.3.2 Number of draws: positions Number of draws: predicted conditions Calculated inaccessibility percentages Calculated tidal window

5.4

5.4.1 5.4.2

5.5 6

Chapter conclusions

68 69 71 72 72 72 73

6.1.1 6.1.2 Conclusions evaluation alternatives Conclusions case study Investigation of model faults Investigation of model improvements

75

75 75 76 77 77 78

6.2

Recommendations

6.2.1 6.2.2

Literature Appendix 1: Wiskundige achtergrond (in Dutch) Appendix 2: Matlab program alternative 2 Appendix 3: Random number generator Appendix 4: Meandering due to external forces Appendix 5: Explanation of the case study conclusions Appendix 6: Type input data in the case study

VII

VIII

LIST OF FIGURES

fig. 1.1-1 fig. 1.1-2 fig. 1.4-1 fig. 1.4-2 fig. 1.4-3 fig. 2.1-1 fig. 2.1-2 fig. 2.1-3 fig. 2.1-4 fig. 2.1-5 fig. 2.2-1 fig. 2.2-2 fig. 2.2-3 fig. 2.2-4 fig. 2.2-5 fig. 2.2-6 fig. 2.2-7 fig. 2.2-8 fig. 2.3-1 fig. 2.3-2 fig. 2.3-3 fig. 2.3-4 fig. 2.4-1 fig. 2.4-2 fig. 2.5-1 fig. 2.5-2 fig. 2.5-3 fig. 2.5-4 fig. 2.5-5 fig. 2.5-6 fig. 3.1-1 fig. 4.1-1 fig. 4.1-2 fig. 4.2-1 fig. 4.2-2 fig. 4.2-3 fig. 4.2-4 fig. 4.2-5 fig. 4.2-6 fig. 4.2-7 fig. 4.3-1 fig. 4.3-2 fig. 4.3-3 fig. 4.3-4 Example causes of ship failure Example aspects that determine the probability of a bottom contact Tidal window Example calculation of the downtime and inaccessibility percentage Keel clearance Berge Stahl Freight import and export in the Netherlands in 2003 Pilots transport Euro and Maas channel Actors around the admittance policy Keel clearance Trim of a ship Constant crosscurrent Large crosscurrent gradient Handling in a strong wind Six degrees of freedom of a ship Refraction Diagram of the theoretical framework of physical relations RAO function Process to find the linear relation between H E10 and Z s Run aground vessel Oil tanker 'Prestige' breaks due to a storm Flow chart Numerical Integration Flow chart Monte Carlo method Probability density distribution with discrete classes Differences sections and segments Principle description astro class Wave frequency distribution, H E10 Wave frequency distribution, H res Joint probability density distribution wave height Arrangement of the classes Number of classes Small part of the structure program diagram of HARAP with the location for the module refraction Drawing PmeanHE10 Drawing astronomical tide Drawing H(k) Drawing positions Drawing d(p) Calculation of ksi(k) Converging speed calculation method Determining PmeanHE10(1) Determining the astronomical tide Determining PmeanHE10(Li3) Determining H(ki3) 1 1 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 15 15 16 17 19 20 22 22 25 26 26 26 30 33 34 35 35 36 36 36 36 37 38 38 38 39

IX

fig. 4.3-5 fig. 4.3-6 fig. 4.3-7 fig. 4.3-8 fig. 4.4-1 fig. 4.5-1 fig. 4.5-2 fig. 4.5-3 fig. 4.5-4 fig. 5.1-1 fig. 5.1-2 fig. 5.1-3 fig. 5.1-4 fig. 5.1-5 fig. 5.1-6 fig. 5.1-7 fig. 5.1-8 fig. 5.1-9 fig. 5.1-10 fig. 5.1-11 fig. 5.1-12 fig. 5.2-1 fig. 5.2-2 fig. 5.2-3 fig. 5.2-4 fig. 5.2-5 fig. 5.2-6 fig. 5.2-7 fig. 5.3-1 fig. 5.3-2 fig. 5.3-3 fig. 5.4-1 fig. 6.2-1

Determining the position Determining d(kp) Calculation of ksi Stopping the algorithm Lower and upper boundary Principle sketch of the distribution of the single transit criterion over the wave height Construction of the distribution of ksi Distribution of the single transit criterion over the wave height and the meteo-effect Difference between a distribution along one or two axes Traffic separation scheme Euro and Maas channel Channel input HARAP Channel input alternative 2 Astronomical input alternative 2 Discontinuous probability density function Discontinuous distribution function Continuous distribution function Discontinuous probability density function of H E10 Definition of the HE10 value for a tidal window issue = maxHE10 Discontinuous distribution function of H E10 Continuous distribution function of H E10 Influence of Npksi on ksi (set 1, 4 runs) Influence of Npksi on ksi (set 2, 4 runs) Moving mean of E[ ] for ksimu (set 1, 3 runs) Moving mean of E[ ] for ksimu (set 2, 2 runs) Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times, values of Npksi and values of ksimu (set 1) Moving mean of the inaccessibility percentage for lsimu (set 1) Moving mean of the inaccessibility percentage for lsimu (set 2) Influence of Npksi on ksi (4 runs) Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times and values of Npksi Moving mean of the inaccessibility percentage for lsimu Presentation examples of variable variation along the channel axis for different positions along the channel axis

39 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 45 52 53 53 53 54 55 55 55 56 56 56 56 60 60 61 61 66 67 67 69 70 71 73 79

LIST OF TABLES

tab. 2.1-1 tab. 3.1-1 tab. 4.3-1 tab. 4.8-1 tab. 5.1-1 tab. 5.1-2 tab. 5.1-3 tab. 5.2-1 tab. 5.2-2 tab. 5.2-3 tab. 5.2-4 tab. 5.2-5 tab. 5.2-6 tab. 5.2-7 tab. 5.2-8 tab. 5.2-9 tab. 5.3-1 tab. 5.3-2 tab. 5.4-1 Trends in transport per harbour Relation matrix between wind and waves Comparison number of calculations HARAP and alternative 3 Number of calculations of the models Astronomical input HARAP Calculation values meteo-classes with respect to Mean Sea Level [m] Prediction matrix in HARAP Sets of input values for the investigation of Npksi Sets of input values for the investigation of ksimu (one starting moment) Sets of input values for the investigation of ksimu (more starting moments) Tidal windows for various ksimu-values and input Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times and values of ksimu (set 1) Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times and values of ksimu (set 2) Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times and values of ksimu (set 3) Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times, values of Npksi and values of ksimu (set 1) Sets of input values for the investigation of lsimu Set input values for the investigation of Npksi Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times and values of Npksi Tidal windows for astro class 2, meteo class 2 and wave classes 1 to 5 6 29 41 48 54 55 57 59 61 62 62 63 64 65 66 67 69 70 72

XI

1

1.1

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Ships can have internal problems like: fire, explosions and falling cargo. Extreme conditions like waves and wind can cause stability problems or failure of the construction. Also collisions occur with other ships, icebergs, obstructions or the sea bottom. This report is focussed on failure due to sea bottom contact (figure 1.1-1). To prevent contact with the sea bottom, entrance channels are used to sail to a seaport. These channels are dredged or created through natural processes and form the only access for relatively large ships. In general the largest ships are tidal bound ships. Despite the presence of a channel the distance between the keel and the bottom is not sufficient for these ships during the entire tidal cycle. Whether the keel clearance is sufficient or not, depends on the risk of touching the bottom. The risk that a ship touches the bottom depends on various aspects like: its motions due to wind, waves and currents, draught of the ship and the water depth (fig.1.1-2). When the risk of a bottom touch is acceptable, the ship can sail to the port. Otherwise it has to wait for a better moment. Mostly these moments are available in a tidal cycle. The period in a tide in which a ship is allowed to sail through the entrance channel is called a tidal window. The percentage of tides in which no tidal window is available, is the inaccessibility percentage. This percentage turns out to be a good measure for the applied admittance policy of a waterway authority. The smaller the inaccessibility percentage, the less delays ships will have. The inaccessibility percentage depends on the occurrence probability of the conditions that determine the availability of a tidal window. Probability density functions describe the occurrence probability and are therefore important for the determination of the inaccessibility percentage. For tidal window issuing and the determination of the inaccessibility percentage the existing computer model HARAP (HARbour APproach) can be used. HARAP is a probabilistic model and is developed by AVV Transport Research Centre (part of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management). The model uses a numerical integration method to take the probability density functions of the normative conditions (also astronomical data) into account.

WAVE FORCES

ICEBERG COLLISION

SHIP COLLISION

FAILURE OF THE SHIP: INSTABILITY BREAKING SINKING MATERIAL DAMAGE HUMAN CASUALTIES CAPSIZE LEAKAGES .....

BOTTOM CONTACT

OBSTRUCTION COLLISION

EXPLOSION

FALLING CARGO

INTERNAL LEAKAGE

......

SHIP MOTIONS

CURRENTS

SHIP CHARACTERISTICS

......

fig. 1.1-2 Example aspects that determine the probability of a bottom contact

To reduce the calculation time, HARAP uses rather large integration steps. This way continuous probability density functions are transformed into discrete probability density functions. Therefore the results obtained with HARAP are partly influenced by arbitrarily chosen integration step sizes (HARAP calls these steps: classes). Consequences: the calculated safety level is doubtful, it is tempting (but unsafe) to play with the class boundaries to get the lowest inaccessibility percentage and tidal window issuing cannot be determined on actual predicted data.

1.2

OBJECTIVES

The project objective is to design a better computer model than HARAP. The new model has to calculate the inaccessibility percentage and an entrance regime for a tidal bound ship using continuous input variables. First a literature study is done to the physical and mathematical background of the important relations and calculation methods. Then alternatives are generated and evaluated. The chosen alternative is compared with HARAP in a case study.

1.3

The results of the literature study are given in chapter 2 and will provide the project background information. Chapter 3 gives the problem analysis. To achieve the project objective three alternative computer models with three possible extension modules are generated. These alternatives and modules are described in chapter 4. The results of the case study with the selected alternative and HARAP are presented in chapter 5. An evaluation of the objectives and recommendations for further research to the topic and development of the program can be found in the last chapter, chapter 6.

1.4

Entrance channels The accessibility of many seaports has to be ensured by entrance channels. These channels are dredged, or created through natural processes. Channel-bound and tidal-bound ships Vessels that can only reach the port through the entrance channel are called channel-bound ships. Tidal-bound ships get also tidal windows because the water level is not always sufficient for those vessels. Only at high tide, they can reach the harbour.

Tidal window A tidal window is a time window in which a ship is allowed to enter the channel. During the channel transit, tidal windows indicate the different opening and closing times at different locations. Between those points in time it is safe to sail through a particular part of the channel. The length of the tidal window depends especially on the astronomical tide, ship characteristics (like draught), wave climate and meteorological conditions. The more unfavourable the situation gets (for example more wind or waves), the narrower the tidal window becomes. In the most extreme situation no tidal window is available and the vessel has to wait for a next tide and better circumstances (fig.1.4-1).

time

start of channel

end of channel

distance

fig. 1.4-1 Tidal window

Downtime and inaccessibility percentage The downtime equals the percentage of time during which a vessel cannot access the harbour because no tidal window is available. The inaccessibility percentage equals the percentage of tides during which no tidal window can be provided, due to unfavourable water level or weather conditions (fig.1.4-2).

Water level Tidal window 1

(2:15 hour)

Tidal window 2

(2:45 hour)

Tidal window 3

(2:30 hour)

M.S.L.

Time

Tide 1

(12:25 hour)

Tide 2

(12:25 hour)

Tide 3

(12:25 hour)

Downtime =

length tide 1+2+3+4 - length tidal window 1+2+3 x 100% = 85% length tide 1+2+3+4 number of tides without a tidal window number of tides x 100% = 25%

Inaccessibility percentage =

Gross keel clearance (according IMO1) The gross keel clearance is the distance between the keel of a motionless ship in motionless water and the intervention level for dredging (fig 1.4-3).

Net keel clearance (according IMO) The net keel clearance is the gross keel clearance diminished with the squat, vertical ship motions due to waves, a margin for unexpected sedimentation between two soundings and sounding inaccuracies (fig 1.4-3).

Predicted water level Actual water level Draught Squat Safety margin for ship motions due to waves Net keel clearance Margin for sedimetation between two soundings Sounding inaccuracies Extra dredged depth Dredging tolerance Intervention level Gross keel clearance Nautical guaranteed depth

ref. [15]

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Chapter 2 gives the results of a literature study, preformed to research the following master thesis objective, formulated by Delft University of technology and the Transport Research Centre (AVV): Design a new computer program that can be used to design an entrance regime and that calculates a measure for the accessibility for tidal bound ships to a harbour, given an accepted safety level. On the basis of this objective the following seven research questions were formulated: 1. What is the procedure for tidal bound ships? 2. Who wants to know the measure for accessibility and why? 3. Which parameter gives a good measure for the accessibility? 4. What determines the accessibility? 5. What is an acceptable safety level? 6. Which calculation methods are available? 7. Which program is used at the moment? The answers to these questions will be used as background for the rest of the project and to define a more specific project objective in chapter 3. Paragraph 2.1 summarizes background information of the maritime industry. The physical background of ship motions is presented in paragraph 2.2. The safety level is discussed in paragraph 2.3. How the safety level can be determined is given in paragraph 2.4. An existing program that is used at the moment is discussed in paragraph 2.5. Subparagraph 2.6 gives a summary of all the answers to the questions.

2.1

Some background information about the maritime industry is given to illustrate the project problem. Subparagraph 2.1.1 gives some figures about the scale of the Dutch maritime industry. The procedures around ships entering a harbour are presented in subparagraph 2.1.2. The actors who determine the admittance policy are given in 2.1.3. In subparagraph 2.1.4 is explaind which parameter gives the best measure for the accessibility.

2.1.1

SCALE OF THE MARITIME INDUSTRY IN THE NETHERLANDS The amount of transferred freight keeps growing in the Netherlands. From 1980 to 2003, the amount of transfer has increased 35%, while the amount of ships has stayed almost constant. This was possible due to scale enlargement of the ships. At the moment the biggest ship that enters Rotterdam is Berge Stahl. This ship is 343 m long (length overall), 63 m wide, has a draught of 22.6 m and can carry 365,000 ton of iron ore.

Import and export In the year 2003 sea-going vessels transported 76% of the import and 36% of the export:

48 46 7

52 102

330

110

17

Import

Export

fig. 2.1-2 Freight import and export in the Netherlands in 2003 (millions of tons)

Transport per harbour The port of Rotterdam is the largest harbour in the Netherlands and takes care of 78% of the total port traffic (table 2.1-1). ref. [11]

tab. 2.1-1 Trends in transport per harbour (millions of tons)

Year Waddensea region Amsterdam region Rotterdam River Scheldt region Total 1999 4 56 314 26 400 2000 5 64 334 25 428 2001 5 68 327 25 425 2002 4 65 339 28 437 2003 5 70 333 27 435

2.1.2

PROCEDURE FOR INCOMING VESSELS Only a small percentage of ships can enter the harbour without any pilot assistance and at any time. They are quite manoeuvrable, have no problems with the existing depths and know the map and regulations of the harbour. Ships who need help can ask for a pilot, and for most ships pilotage is compulsory. For instance in Rotterdam pilotage is compulsory in general when the length of the ship exceeds 70 m. A pilot helps the vessel to safely enter and leave the port. The pilot goes aboard for this, but in some weather conditions they keep in contact with a ship from ashore (fig. 2.1-3).

Channel bound ships that have to wait for a pilot or the opening of the tidal window can use the sea anchoring areas outside the channel. These areas are deep enough for the largest tidal-bound ships (fig 2.1-4). 300' 330' 400'

LONG TERM ANCHORAGE FOR DEEP DRAUGHT SHIPS TURNING -AREA EURO PLATFORM

0'

MA AS

SHORT TERM ANCHORAGE FOR DEEP DRAUGHT SHIPS

CHA NN EL

5200' H.v.H.

TURNING -AREA

VOORNE

GOEREE

In general only channel-bound ships use the entrance channel to reach the harbour. In the port they can get assistance from one or more tugboats. Tugboats take a ship to the right location in the port. Once the ship has arrived, a boatman makes sure that the ship is securely moored alongside a quay, a jetty or buoys. 2.1.3 ACTORS AROUND THE ADMITTANCE POLICY In general the waterway authority decides when a ship is allowed to enter the harbour. They determine the tidal windows and pass these on to the pilots. The waterway authority is also responsible for the channel dimensions. A very simple representation of the actors and their relations may be as follows: Politicians determine the acceptable risk level. With this risk level the waterway authority determines its admittance policy. And this policy is one of the factors for companies to determine the location of their business. In reality there are interactions between the involved parties (fig. 2.1-5). For this report especially the interaction between companies and the waterway authority is important. To some extend the infrastructure capacity should follow the needs of the companies. For example, in Rotterdam the maximum possible draught was around 40 feet (12.2 m) till the late fifties. At the moment bulk carriers in Rotterdam can have draughts up to 74 feet (22.6 m).

Companies

Waterway authority

Admittance policy

2.1.4

A MEASURE FOR THE ACCESSIBILITY Reliable infrastructure in shipping is infrastructure that can be used frequently and under most circumstances. For most companies it is acceptable that they cannot reach the harbour during extreme conditions when the delay does not last too long. Time costs money and companies are willing to pay this price as long as it is compensated by low costs for using the infrastructure. The costs for infrastructure depend partly on the building and maintenance costs of the entrance channel, which the waterway authority charges to the companies. To find an optimum between the costs and the accessibility of a harbour, it is important to find a measure for the accessibility. Two parameters are widely used as a measure for the accessibility: the downtime and the inaccessibility percentage. These two values are quite different. It is possible to have a downtime of 80% and an inaccessibility percentage of 0%. For tidal bound ships it is most important that there is an opportunity to reach the harbour each tidal cycle (low inaccessibility percentage). It is less important how long this opportunity exists during the cycle (low downtime). Therefore the inaccessibility percentage will be used as the most important measure for the accessibility.

2.2

To calculate the inaccessibility percentage it is important to know how a ship reacts to different circumstances. The motions depend on a lot of factors, like the wave climate, currents, bathymetry of the sea bottom, channel design, water levels and ship characteristics. A model is always a simplification of the reality. Some models describe the reality better than others. The best model takes all the physical processes into account in the right way. The important physical processes are mentioned in this paragraph. They are numbered {..} in the text. These numbered processes will be used to compare the different models with eachother in chapter 4. Subparagraph 2.2.1 considers vertical ship motions due to relatively slow processes, like the vertical astronomical tide. In subparagraph 2.2.2 the motions of a ship due to horizontal velocities are discussed. Vertical motions resulting from waves are described in 2.2.3. At the end of this paragraph a diagram is given with all the processes and their interrelations.

2.2.1

KEEL CLEARANCE Consider a motionless ship in motionless water. The water column under the keel of the ship is called the gross keel clearance. It depends on the water level wl , draught Td and bottom level d (fig. 2.2-1).

Variations of the water level wl over a longer period, like an hour, occur due to the tide {1} and meteorological conditions {2}. The tide is the vertical rise and fall of the sea level surface, caused primarily by the change in gravitational attraction of the moon, and to a lesser extent the sun. Due to differences in atmospheric pressure and strong winds from a constant direction the sea surface can be pushed up or drawn off. The effect mainly depends on the wind intensity, wind direction, fetch length and water depth. The draught Td of a particular ship depends mainly on the degree of loading, the shape of the hull and the trim of a ship {3}. The trim defines the longitudinal inclination of the ship. Trim may be expressed as the angle between the baseline of the ship and the water plane, but it is usually defined as the difference in draughts at the bow and the stern.

Morphological factors like: sedimentation, sand waves and the dredging cycle determine the position of the channel bottom d {4}. ref. [15] 2.2.2 SHIP MOVEMENTS DUE TO HORIZONTAL VELOCITIES Now consider a sailing ship on a sea with currents and a flat surface. A ship moving through water modifies the pattern of flow lines and thus changes the dynamic pressure distribution around the hull. Due to a small distance between the keel and the bottom of the channel, a low-pressure area under the ship can occur, which increases the ship draught. The effect depends on the speed of the ship {5} with respect to the water. The resulting change in draught and trim is known as squat {6}. An estimation of the maximum squat is given by the method of Tuck-Taylor (adopted by ICORELS2):

Zv =

Zv vs g h

2 Fnh 2 1 Fnh

[m] [m/s] [m/s2] [m]

vs g h

water displacement ship length between perpendiculars squat coefficient

L pp

C squat

The crosscurrent {7} influences the orientation of the ship with respect to its sailing course. In a flow field a ship has to correct the crosscurrent to stay on its course (fig 2.2-3). In this way the crosscurrent affects the squat and the angle of the incoming waves.

Cross current

2

Sailing course

vground vtrue

A large cross current gradient in a harbour entrance affects the handling of the ship. The falling away of the cross current on the bow, while the stern is still under influence of the current, causes the stern to be pushed away. When the ship-handler reacts to late, the ship will hit a breakwater (fig 2.2-4). If the ship-handler interferes too early, the ship may leave its sailing course.

Breakwater

Sailing course

Cross current

Breakwater

The current is a vector summation of the following physical phenomena: - horizontal astronomical tide {8} In the North Sea the tide enters the basin along the North of Great Britain to the South. Before the Strait of Dover it bends towards the Netherlands and goes northwards. It leaves the North Sea along Norway. - local wind driven currents {9} Local meteorological conditions can cause wind driven currents, resulting from transfer of wind energy to the water. The main wind direction along the coast of the Netherlands is SouthWest. This main direction causes a net current along the coast to the North. - river discharges {10} The discharge of the river leads to currents and a difference in the density of the seawater. When a ship is sailing from the sea into a port it sails from salt to more fresh water. Because of the density differences the draught of the ship changes. Also density waves can cause ship motions. - ocean currents The dominant forces in physical oceanography are gravity, buoyancy due to difference in density of seawater and wind stress. These forces create horizontal pressure gradients that are balanced almost exactly with the Coriolis force resulting from horizontal currents. This balance is known as the geostrophic balance. The balance is for a model for Dutch harbours of less importance. Crosswind will cause the ship to drift sideways or to take up an angle of leeway (fig 2.2-5). It affects the squat and influences the approach angle of the waves with respect to the ship {11}. The crosswind effects depend on the wind speed and direction relative to the ship, the windage area of the ship and the depth/draught ratio.

Wind Channel boundary

Channel boundary

The meandering of the ship around its intended course due to response time of the ship-handler on the influence of wind, waves, currents, etc. does not lead to significant effects (see appendix 4). ref. [12]

10

2.2.3

SHIP MOVEMENTS DUE TO WAVES The motion of a ship can be separated in six components. The three translational components are: surging along the longitudinal X-axis, swaying along the lateral Y-axis and heaving along the vertical Z-axis. The three rotational components around these axes are called: rolling, pitching and yawing, respectively (fig. 2.2-6). The translation and rotation of a ship depend on the characteristics of the waves, ship, water, bottom material and the bathymetry. It is a rather complex interaction between these factors. The ships motions can be modelled with coupled differential equations of motion for six degrees of freedom.

External force In these equations the waves are the external forces on the ship. The wave height, period and the approach angle of the waves with respect to the ship are the most important characteristics of this force. The approach angle of the waves with respect to the vessel has a large influence on the ship movements. Waves approaching perpendicular to the sailing direction have less influence compared to waves oblique of behind. The characteristics of a wave spectrum depend on the characteristics of the wind fields {12} and the bathymetry. Waves generated by local wind fields {13} are steep waves: relatively high wave height/length ratio. The opposite is true for swell waves {14}, which are generated by wind fields from elsewhere. Incoming waves generated by passing ships have no influence3 due to the relative short period of the waves. When waves interact with the sea bottom, their shape and direction will change. Sometimes this can lead to breaking {15} before the channel and refraction of the waves {16} in the channel (fig.2.2-7). Inertia Ships with a large water displacement react slowly to incoming waves. Therefore they can only react to the waves with a long period.

Waves Channel boundary Current

Channel boundary

Damping Not all wave energy is translated into motions of the ship. Energy dissipation occurs due to the interaction of the ship between water and bottom. The water displacements due to ship motions cause damping. Proximity of the bottom causes an increase of damping forces. ref. [13]

11

2.2.4

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES The following processes were mentioned above:

{1} {2} {3} {4} {5} {6} {7} {8} vertical tide meteorological water level draught variation morphological factors sailing speed variations squat crosscurrent effects horizontal tide {9} {10} {11} {12} {13} {14} {15} {16} meteorological currents river discharges crosswind effects relation wind and waves local wind field waves swell breaking of waves refraction of waves

The relations between processes that lead to the net keel clearance are presented in figure 2.2-8.

RIVER DISCHARGE

ASTRONOMICAL TIDE

CURRENTS

WINDFIELDS

WINDFIELD ELSEWHERE OR EARLIER WINDFIELD

WIND SET-UP

LOCAL WINDFIELD

WATER LEVEL

SWELL

MORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSES

DREDGING CYCLUS

BATHYMETRY

WATER DEPTH

SHIP

DRAUGHT TRIM HULL SAILING SPEED

SQUAT

PEAK PERIOD

WAVE DIRECTION

12

2.3

PROBABILISTIC BACKGROUND

Paragraph 2.2 described how a ship reacts to different circumstances. This paragraph presents how the frequency of occurrence of the circumstances can be taken into account and how the safety of the channel can be quantified. Most harbours define their admittance policy based on under keel clearance models. The advantages and disadvantages of these models compared to probabilistic models are presented first. The probability of touching the bottom is described in subparagraph 2.3.2. Subparagraph 2.3.3 gives the relation between a wave spectrum and the motion spectrum of a ship. The probability density functions of the variables are mentioned in subparagraph 2.3.4. The admittance policy is based on admittance criteria. Subparagraph 2.3.5 gives the criteria that are used in the Netherlands. The derivations of the equations in subparagraph 2.3.2 can be found in appendix 1.

2.3.1

FROM UNDER KEEL CLEARENCE TO PROBABILISTIC MODELS Most under keel clearance (UKC) models examine if the gross keel clearance is large enough during the transit. The required keel clearance depends on safety factors, for example the vertical ship motions, depth variations and draught inaccuracies. These safety factors are based mostly on experience. In more advanced models the safety factors can vary for different combinations of conditions. For instance during a period in which low waves are predicted, the factors are smaller. Also exclusions during particular conditions can be applied, like exclusions due to strong crosscurrents near the port entrance. UKC models have the advantages that they are easy to construct and there is no need for long-term statistics. The disadvantages of these models are: - On beforehand, it is impossible to quantify the safety level of the admittance policy. - It is only possible to calculate the downtime and inaccessibility percentage when the safety factors do not vary for different conditions and there are no conditional exclusions. - To find the economical optimum of the entrance channel, it is necessary to know the risks. These are not possible to determine with UKC methods. - Due to the accumulation of the safety factors, the policy is very conservative.

2.3.2

CHANCE OF TOUCHING THE BOTTOM The probability that a ship touches the channel bottom is equal to the probability that the vertical downward movement due to waves of the most critical point of the ship exceeds the keel clearance KC . The keel clearance is here defined as: KC = d + wl Td Z v (2.3-1) d depth wl water level Td draught ship Z maximum squat

v

13

Consider a ship that sails from points A to B through a channel. In advance it is not known when or where a bottom touch will occur, but imagine that the following is true: - The mean frequency of bottom touches is constant in time. In a time interval with length t the expected value of bottom touches is t . - The bottom touches per transit are independent random variables: one bottom touch tells nothing about the others.

E[ ] = T pas

(2.3-2)

E[ ] Tpas

expected number of bottom touches during a transit total number of bottom touches during a transit passage time

(T ) P ( = k ) =

pas

k!

T pas

(2.3-3)

for k = 0,1,2,

The mean frequency of bottom touches is equal to the mean frequency of vertical ship motions that are bigger than the keel clearance. Based on the formula of Rice this is given by:

KC 2 1 exp 2m Tm 0

(2.3-4)

Like the distribution of the incoming waves it is assumed that also the vertical motions of a ship are Raleigh distributed. Therefore the following relation is true: (2.3-5) m = 1 Z2

0 16

s

2.3.3 FROM WAVE SPECTRUM TO THE MOTION SPECTRUM OF SHIPS The only unknown parameters in (2.3-4) and (2.3-5) are the mean period of the ship motions Tm and the significant vertical ship motion Z s ; both follow from the ship motion spectrum. In paragraph 2.2.3 it is already mentioned that the motions of a ship can be described by coupled differential equations. The computer model that will be used for the case study in this report to determine the response of a ship to waves in an entrance channel is SEAWAY. SEAWAY is based on the strip theory and calculates ship motions for six degrees of freedom. The strip theory divides the ship into a number of slices. The thickness of a slice is small enough to allow a two-dimensional treatment of the flow in its plane. Per slice it determines the twodimensional hydrodynamic coefficients: added mass, damping, wave excitation and the external forces. By integrating these values over the length of the ship it is possible to solve the coupled equations of motions.

14

The output of SEAWAY consists of Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) for a particular sailing speed, depth/draught ratio and approach angle of the waves with respect to the ship. The RAO function gives the relation between a wave spectrum and a motion spectrum of a ship. Figure 2.3-1 presents two examples of a RAO function, for a small and large ship. When the wave frequencies are very low, the ship response will be hydrostatic, this means that the RAOs for these frequencies are one. When the wave frequencies are very high the ship will not react at all (RAOs are zero). In between the RAO varies for different frequencies, with a peak response at the natural frequency of the ship.

RAO

0

small ship large ship

frequency

Large ships, like tidal bound ships to Rotterdam, only react to relatively long waves, like swell. If the shapes of the long wave spectra do not fluctuate much, they could be described by one parameter. This is the case for the port of Rotterdam. As parameter a characteristic wave height of the low frequent wave energy H E10 is used. The shape of the ship motion spectrum depends on the wave spectrum and the RAO function. In the case of Rotterdam it is therefore possible to describe the motion spectrum also with one parameter. Here the significant vertical ship motion Z s is used. A linear relation is assumed between the H E10 -value and the Z s -value. To find the linear relation, AVV Transport Research Centre developed a program additional to SEAWAY. This program uses thousands of measured wave spectra and the calculated RAO function. For each wave spectrum a motion spectrum is calculated with the RAO function. The program determines from the wave spectrum the H E10 -value and from the motion spectrum the Z s -value (fig. 2.3-2)..

Repeat n times

S WAVE SPECTRUM i S SHIP MOTION SPECTRUM i

RAO function

frequency

frequency

HE10 i

ZS i

ZS

2

H E10

fig. 2.3-2 Process to find the linear relation between HE10 and Zs

15

Through the coordinates (H E10 , Z s ) the program calculates a linear regression line and the standard deviations s of the scatter around this line. Next the program determines a polynomial relation between the standard deviations and the H E10 -values: Z s = a H E10 + b (2.3-6) (2.3-7) = a H 2 +b H +c

s

1

E 10

E 10

s

a, b, a1 , b1 , c1 H E10

2.3.4

Zs

significant vertical ship motion standard deviation of the normal distributed scatter around the regression line motion characteristics significant wave height from the low frequent wave energy

PROBABILITY OF A CONDITION Conditions may change in time, in space, during a transit and/or between transits. The predictions are based on deterministic models or statistical data. The astronomical water level is an example of a deterministic value. It can be predicted quite accurately for the coming years for different locations. The wave height, meteorological conditions and the depth are examples of statistics. It is impossible to predict these values exactly in time and space. Only based on historical data something can be said about the expected frequency of occurrence of a particular condition in the future. The condition and its frequency of occurrence are described by probability density functions. To calculate the inaccessibility percentage that can be expected in the future, these functions are important. Statistical variables can be divided into four groups: 1 channel data, like: depth variation, width variations and material variations 2 meteorological data, like: water level and current variations 3 hydro dynamical data, like: wave conditions from local wind fields, swell and density waves 4 ship data, like: draught variations, sailing speed variations and transit frequencies A certain correlation can exist between data of the same group and between groups. For instance the meteorological current and water level are strongly correlated in most cases. A correlation between groups can be found between 2 and 3. For instance during Eastern wind in the Netherlands the water level will be lower and the waves from local wind fields will be relatively small due to absence of fetch length.

2.3.5

ADMITTANCE CRITERIA The admittance policy is based on admittance criteria. These criteria are related to safety and serviceability. In most situations the safety criteria are normative. Serviceability criterions become an issue in the case of manoeuvrability. For instance when the keel clearance is small, the turning ability is affected. Dutch Policy The Dutch government applies the following safety standard on the North Sea:

fig. 2.3-3 Run aground vessel

16

The probability of a ship-bottom contact resulting in the loss of the ship or in large-scale contamination of the marine environment or the beaches of the North Sea, should be virtually zero. The probability of a ship touching the seabed resulting in damage to the ship, personal injuries, minor cargo spills and temporary blockage of the approach channel should be small comparable to other possible risks related to navigation.

fig. 2.3-4 Oil tanker Prestige breaks due to a storm (Spain 2002)

For Dutch channels this leads to the following safety criterion: During a 25-year period the probability of touching the channel bottom with maximum minor damage must not be more than 10%. Probability of touching the bottom With use of the Poisson distribution (2.3-2) the probability is equal to one bottom touch in 237 years:

Number of bottom touches per year:

This leads to one bottom touch per T year on average:

The economic life of a channel is assumed to be 25 years. After this time the channel is likely to be redesigned. Consequence of a bottom touch Research to the effects of touching the channel bottom has been carried out. TNO-IWECO4 concluded that a bottom touch does not always result in major damage. When a vessel penetrates 0.25 m into the bottom, only minor damage will occur. By a penetration of 0.40 m plastic deformation will occur, but still the failure of single plates is unlikely. The probability of leaks is therefore minor. Some conservative assumptions were made in these calculations, like: - The calculations were made with a solid channel bottom. In most channels in the Netherlands a layer of mud is present. - The channel bottom is assumed to be flat, without any ridges. When a sailing vessel touches a ridge, the top of the ridge will be flattened and the reaction force will be less. ref. [16]

17

2.4

CALCULATION METHODS

There are different methods to calculate the probability of a bottom touch during a channel transit. The most accurate and intensive method is a level III method. Two essentially different level III methods will be described in this paragraph. Subparagraph 2.4.2 describes the Numerical Integration method and subparagraph 2.4.3 the Monte Carlo Method.

2.4.1

LEVEL-CLASSIFICATION OF CALCULATION METHODS Structural engineers investigate the strength R (from Resistance) and load S (from Solicitation) of a mechanism. When the load exceeds the strength, the mechanism fails. The state just before failure occurs, is the limit state. The reliability of the mechanism is the probability that this limit state is not exceeded. Using limit states, it is often possible to define so-called reliability functions. The general form of a reliability function is:

Z = RS

The probability of failure is:

The reliability is the probability P(Z>0) and therefore it is the complement of the probability of failure, in formula:

A parallel can be made between this reasoning and the probability of touching the bottom. The gross keel clearance can be seen as the strength in the model and the currents and waves as the loads. The probability of failure is defined as the probability of one or more bottom touches (2.3-2):

Pf = P ( > 0) = 1 e

In the structural domain, the Joint Committee on Structural Safety proposed a level-classification of the calculation methods. This classification includes the following three levels: Level III The level III methods calculate the probability of failure, by considering the probability density functions of all strength and load variables. The reliability is directly linked to the probability of failure. Level II This level assumes the reliability function to be linear in a carefully selected point. It approximates the probability functions of each variable by a standard normal distribution. Level I At this level no failure probabilities are calculated. The level I calculation considers a mechanism sufficiently reliable if a certain margin is present between the representative values of the strength and the loads. ref. [2] 2.4.2 NUMERICAL INTEGRATION Before a channel transit the conditions are predicted, like the expected wave height, water level variation, sailing speed and currents. In reality the actual values vary around the expected values. For each condition the variations around the expected value are described by their probability density functions f X i ( X i ) . The number of bottom touches can be described as a function of the conditions X : = g ( X 1 , X 2 ,, X n ) (2.4-1) The probability of failure can then be calculated with the integral: (2.4-2) P = P X f ( X , X ,, X ) dX dX dX

f

>0

( )

X 1 , X 2 ,, X n

18

Pf =

in which:

>0

0 0 0 0

1 1

( )

(2.4-3)

dFX = f X X dX 1 dX 2 dX n

If the base variables X i of the statistical vector X are independent, then:

1 1 1

( )

0

0 0

( )

(2.4-4)

To solve equations (2.4-3) and (2.4-4) various numerical integration methods are available. A simple method of numerical integration is the Riemann-procedure. A flowchart of how the Riemann procedure could be applied is given in figure 2.4-1.

Lower boundary of the integral:

X 01 , X 0 2 , , X 0 n

X 1 = X 01 + i1 X 1 X 2 = X 0 2 + i2 X 2

X n = X 0 n + in X n

( )

Pf = Pf ( ) f X X X 1 X 2 X n

( )

Pf = P f + Pf

yes

in < m n

yes

i2 < m 2 i1 < m1

Pf

yes

Pf Pf X f X X 0 + i1X 1 + i2 X 2 + + in X n X 1 X 2 X n

i1 = 0 i2 = 0 in = 0

m1

m2

mn

( ) (

(2.4-4)

19

2.4.3

MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS A Monte Carlo simulation is a simulation of a transit with one statistical vector X for the conditions drawn out of the joint probability density function f X . By repeating these simulations a number of times, the probability of failure Pf can be calculated.

( )

To draw a value out of a distribution the following statement is used: The non-exceedence probability of an arbitrary random variable is uniformly distributed between zero and one, regardless of the distribution of the variable. In formula:

FX ( X ) = X u

uniformly distributed variable between zero and one non-exceedence probability P(X<X)

(2.4-5)

FX ( X )

Xu

X = FX1 ( X u )

(2.4-6)

FX1 ( X u )

Examples of derivations of random number generators are given in appendix 3. To draw a value out of a joint probability density function, the function must be formulated as the product of the conditional probability distributions of the base variables. In formula: (2.4-7)

FX X = FX1 ( X 1 ) FX 2 X1 (X 2 X 1 ) FX n

( )

X 1 , X 2 ,, X n 1

(X

X 1 , X 2 ,, X n1 )

By taking n realizations of the uniform distribution between zero and one, a value can be determined for every X i (fig. 2.4-2):

X 1 = FX11 X u1

( )

X 2 = FX21 X 1 X u2 X 1

X n = FXn1 X 1 , X 2 ,, X n1 X un X 1 , X 2 , , X n 1

Number of basic variables = n Number of simulations = m Draw n times out of the uniform distribution

X 1 = FX 11 X u1

)

X1

(2.4-8)

i X

( )

X2 = F

1 X 2 X1

(X

u2

( ) ( )

Xu

sum = sum + i X

1 X n = FX n X 1 , X 2 ,, X n1 X u n X 1 , X 2 , , X n 1

)

yes

i<m

sum m

Pf ( )

20

2.5

HARAP (HARbour APproach) is a probabilistic computer model that calculates the inaccessibility percentage, the downtime and the permitted tidal windows for entrance channels. The model was developed by the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. At the moment, only the port of Rotterdam uses the program to support their admittance policy, in the near future probably the port of IJmuiden will follow. First the mathematical background of HARAP is given in subparagraph 2.5.1. Subparagraph 2.5.2 describes the modules of HARAP and subparagraph 2.5.3 the input variables.

2.5.1

MATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND HARAP is a mix of a level I and a level III method. It uses numerical integration as calculation method and some allowances. The core program of HARAP calculates the probability of touching the channel bottom during a transit for a given combination of conditions. This is repeated for all possible combinations over a certain period of time T. The weighted sum of all the small chances of touching the bottom during the simulated transits should be smaller than the long-term safety criterion as given in subparagraph 2.3.5. This is in short the working of HARAP. The mathematical description is as follows:

Number of bottom touches during a channel transit at wave condition j (eq. 2.3-1):

j = j T pas

(2.5-1)

with E B j = j f j T j = lim

f T N

[ ]

N j (T ) T

(2.5-2)

intensity of channel transits frequency of occurrence of the wave condition period of the calculation number of channel transits

it is possible to calculate the number of bottom touches in period T during wave condition j :

j = T T pas j j f j

(2.5-3)

By summing all the bottom touches in the transits the total number of bottom touches during period T is known: (2.5-4) = T T pas 1 1 f1 + + T T pas j j f j + = T T pas j j f j

The intensity of bottom touches is not (as suggested) constant during a transit, because it depends on the keel clearance and the wave spectrum. The keel clearance is given by equation (2.35) and depends partly on the actual water level and the depth of the channel. Over a part of the channel the water level and depth are assumed to be constant. With Tn the total amount of time in period T in which a certain water level and depth occurs, equation (2.5-4) can be extended: (2.5-5) = T pas f j jn jn Tn

j n

21

Also the wave conditions and the sailing speed can change during transit. Therefore the channel is split in different parts with different conditions. In each section different speeds and wave climates are possible. With m the number of sections, will be:

= f jm T pas _ m jmn jn Tn

j m n

(2.5-6)

The probability of k bottom touches, is known by the Poisson distribution, equation (2.3-2):

P ( = k ) =

( )k e

k!

(2.5-7)

frequency

In the most accurate model, the number of summations in (2.5-6) goes to infinity. This will also happen with the calculation time. Therefore HARAP calculates with classes for the conditions j (fig. 2.5-1) and divides the channel in finite different parts m and n . HARAP distinguishes the following j conditions: - wave climate - meteorological conditions - astronomical conditions - sailing speed - draught

condition

fig. 2.5-1 Probability density distribution with discrete classes

In HARAP it is assumed that the wave climate does not change during a transit through channel section m . The water level, depth and sailing speed can fluctuate more. Therefore the sections are divided into smaller segments n . During a transit through a segment, the water level, sailing speed and depth distribution are assumed to be constant. The draught variations are neglected during the transit of the channel, so density variations of the water are not taken into account (fig. 2.5-2). ref. [6] and [15]

section 2

constant wave climate

s ec

tio n

segment 5

segment 4

segment 3

segment 2

seg

me nt

2.5.2

MODULES HARAP has four modules. Each module contains different programs. The following modules are distinguished: - preparation - keel clearance: checks the nautical criterions - ksi: checks the safety criterions - window: calculates the tidal windows

22

Module 1 In the module preparation the programs verify the correctness of the input data and transform these data into calculation values for the next modules. Module 2 HARAP checks two safety and two nautical criteria: safety criterions: - long-term criterion - single transit criterion nautical criterions: - manoeuvrability criterion - cross current criterion The module keel clearance checks the nautical criterions for different starting moments of a transit. If during that transit the net keel clearance is less then 1 m (manoeuvrability criterion) or the cross current exceeds a certain value, that starting moment is excluded. This module makes a first selection of the starting times. Module 3 Module ksi calculates the probability of touching the bottom for different conditions and for the remaining starting moments from the module keel clearance. With equation (2.3-4) it is determined how many bottom touches can be expected during a transit, given a predicted combination of conditions. The calculated has to satisfy the single transit criterion. The single transit criterion is a conditional criterion. Given a combination of circumstances the probability of a bottom touch during the transit should be less than 1%: (2.5-8) Poisson

When a transit under particular conditions satisfies the single transit criterion, is multiplied with the probability that these conditions occur. This is repeated for all transit starting moments. The two successive starting moments that have the lowest probability of a bottom touch, form the optimal tidal window: ksitopt . All the ksitopt , according to equation (2.5-6) are summed: ksitot . This value has to satisfy the long-term criterion that is given in subparagraph 2.3-5. If not, HARAP keeps expelling optimal tidal windows with the largest contribution to the criterion, until it does. Module 3: subprogram CALCULATE KSI The subprogram CALCULATE KSI takes prediction inaccuracies into account. A ship gets a tidal window on the basis of predicted conditions. In reality, a probability exists that a different value occurs. This real value determines the probability that a ship touches the bottom.

23

HARAP distinguishes the following inaccuracies and in most cases they are assumed to be normal distributed around the predicted value: - draught prediction - sounding inaccuracy - water level prediction - inaccuracy in the linear relation between the significant wave height and motions of the ship - wave prediction A program structure diagram of module 3 is given below:

ksitot=0 for all astro classes for all meteo classes for all wave climates for all saling speed regimes for all allowed starting moments (tb = begin time) ksi0(tb)=0 for all channel sections m for all channel segments n for all depths for all draughts CALCULATE KSI ksi(tb) < single transit criterion true tb = allowed tb = not allowed if tb = allowed: ksi0t(tb) = ksi0t(tb) + ksi(tb)*f(astro)*f(meteo,wave)*f(speed) ksitopt = sum of the lowest two successive ksi0t(tb) in a tide ksitot = ksitot + ksitopt ksitot < long term criterion true throw away the biggest ksitopt

false

false

Module 4 The main program of module 4 is the program window. It calculates the final tidal windows. The calculated optimal tidal windows are stretched until the long-term criterion is reached and a minimal inaccessibility percentage is found. The final tidal windows are saved and plotted in different tables. ref. [3], [4] and [5]

2.5.3 INPUT VARIABLES The model HARAP has the following input values: - Ship data - Channel data - Astronomical data - Meteorological data - Wave data

Ship data HARAP divides ships into classes by type, draught and dimensions. The representative ship of a class is a ship with the most common dimensions. The movements of this ship at different sailing speeds and depth/draught ratio are also representative for all ships in that class.

24

The sailing speeds of a ship class are established in speed regimes. A regime prescribes the speed for each channel segment. Channel data The probability of touching the bottom is calculated in HARAP in a semi-stationary situation: a situation with a constant water level and channel depth. To vary these and other values the channel is divided in a number of parts. A channel exists of sections and the sections are divided into segments. It is possible to define the depth in a segment at a constant value or with depth classes. To compensate the influence of sand waves on the ship motions an allowance is possible. The sounding inaccuracies are compensated by a standard deviation. Astronomical data The astronomical water level is defined in HARAP by astro classes; each has a certain frequency of occurrence. An astro class exists of a water level curve with the length of a tidal period. The spreading of the real water level around the schematized curve is given by a standard deviation. An astro class is classified by the tide difference. This is the difference between the astronomical high water level and the astronomical low water level of the preceding low water. With an astronomical tidal series over a couple of years, it is possible to define the distribution of the tidal difference (fig. 2.5-3).

water level

tide difference

Currents are coupled to the astronomical water level and defined by a current velocity and direction. The inaccuracies are taken into account by the definition of the crosscurrent criterion. For the current along the ship an allowance is taken into account. Meteorological data The meteorological water level is defined as the difference between the real water level and the astronomical water level. The deviation of the astronomical water level is called the meteo-effect and is caused by wind and air pressure effects. The input is again in the form of classes. Similar to the position of the stroke middle of the astro curve, the meteo-effect causes a shift along the vertical axis. The independence of these two variables makes it possible to combine them in one distribution. The accuracy of the meteo-effect depends on the following factors: - uncertainties in the frequency distribution of the meteo-effect - uncertainties as a result of the schematization of the astro curve - interpolation errors between the water level stations: HARAP interpolates linear between locations - assumption error: it is assumed that the meteo-effect is constant during the tidal period.

25

Wave data HARAP offers three ways to describe the wave climate, by: 1. low-frequent wave energy lfe 2. a HE10- Hres relation 3. a Hs- Tp relation (significant wave height and peak period) The first description is a rather simple one-parameter schematisation of the wave climate. This is useful because for most applications more detailed descriptions are not available. The lfe parameter gives the amount of low-frequency energy in the range between 0.03 and 0.1 s-1. This parameter is translated to a characteristic wave height of the low frequent wave energy, the HE10:

occurence

0.03

0.10

-1 frequency [s ]

occurence

H E10 = 4 m0 m0 = S ( f ) f

a

(2.4-9)

a b f S( f )

0.10

-1 frequency [s ]

0.50

The Hres parameter equals the amount of energy in the range between 0.1 and 0.5 s-1. Depending on the water level it is possible to reduce the wave height linear to the depth. This can be desirable when the water depth is relatively low to the wave height (shallow waves). In two different ways it is possible to take the wave prediction accuracy into account: by a measure for the spreading or by a prediction matrix. A prediction matrix is a joint probability density function of the predicted wave and the wave that was measured in reality (fig 2.5.6). ref. [7] and [15]

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

frequency

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

26

frequency

2.6

CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS

Based on the previous paragraphs the following answers can be given: 1. What is the procedure for tidal bound ships? Tidal bound ships wait in anchoring areas for a pilot and the opening of a tidal window. The pilot helps the ship to sail safely into the harbour. In the harbour the ship can get assistance of one or more tugboats. Tugboats take a ship to the right place in the harbour. Once the ship has arrived, a boatman makes sure that the ship is securely moored alongside a quay, a jetty or buoys. Who wants to know the measure for accessibility and why? The waterway authority wants to classify their admittance policy and the companies need information to support their establishment policy. Which parameter gives a good measure for the accessibility? The inaccessibility percentage: the percentage of tides during which no tidal window can be provided, due to unfavourable water level or weather conditions. What determines the accessibility? The following variables are needed to make a reliable probabilistic model to calculate the accessibility: - channel dimensions and morphological processes around and in the channel - ship characteristics that define the draught and sailing speed and describe the behaviour of the ship in waves and currents in a given environment - wave climate and its variation in time and space - influence of the variation in time and space of meteorological conditions on the water level, wind and currents. What is an acceptable safety level? The following safety level is acceptable for the Dutch government: During a 25 year period the probability of touching the channel bottom with maximum minor damage must not be more than 10%. Which calculation methods are available? The most accurate are the level III methods. Two examples are numerical integration and Monte Carlo simulation. Which program is used at the moment? HARAP (HARbour APproach) is used by the port of Rotterdam.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

27

28

PROBLEM ANALYSIS

In the beginning of the previous chapter, seven questions were formulated. Although the answers give a lot of information, it is still not clear why a new program should be made. Therefore the following question: Why is the existing program insufficient? An evaluation of HARAP is given in paragraph 3.1. Paragraph 3.2 gives the project definitions based on this evaluation and on the project background, presented in chapter 2.

3.1

The evaluation how HARAP describes the processes is given in subparagraph 3.1.1. Subparagraph 3.1.2 gives the advantages and disadvantages.

3.1.1

DEGREE OF DESCRIBING THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES Paragraph 2.2 gives the background of the physical processes that are important to calculate the probability of touching the bottom. This subparagraph 3.1.1 evaluates how well HARAP describes these processes by placing a score from 1 to 5 behind the processes. A one means that HARAP does not take the process into account. If it takes the process into account, but not very accurate, it gets a two, three or four, depending on the accuracy. A five is given for a good translation of the processes.

{1} {2} {3} {4} {5} {6} {7} {8} vertical tide meteorological water level draught variation morphological factors sailing speed variations squat cross current effects horizontal tide 3 4 3 2 4 4 2 3 {9} {10} {11} {12} {13} {14} {15} {16} meteorological currents river discharges cross wind effects relation wind and waves local wind field waves swell breaking of waves refraction of waves 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 1

Explanation - Due to the classification of astronomical data, HARAP converts deterministic variables into statistical uncertainties. {1, 8} - Because of the transformation of continuous probability density functions into functions with discrete classes, HARAP never gets the full score of five points. {2, 5, 6} - The difference between the predicted draught and the real meteo classes draught can be taken into account. The draught variations due 1 2 3 1 0.20 0.10 0.04 to density variations are not taken into account. {3} 2 0.15 0.08 0.03 - The influence of sand waves is taken into account by an 3 0.05 0.08 0.02 allowance. {4} 4 0.03 0.06 0.02 5 0.02 0.03 0.02 - The cross current criterion, that excludes transits when a 6 0.01 0.01 0.01 certain cross current is exceeded, is not a proper description of 7 0 0 0.01 the cross current effects. {7} 8 0 0 0.01 9 0 0 0.01 - Meteorological current and river discharge variations are taken 10 0 0 0.01 into account as an allowance in the crosscurrent criterion. tot. 0.46 0.36 0.18 1.00 {9,10} - It is possible to take the dependence between the meteo-effect table 3.1-1 Relation matrix between wind and and waves into account, by a matrix (table 3.1-1). {12}

wave classes

waves

29

No distinction is made between swell and waves from local wind fields, but the wave climate can be described rather accurately with a wave direction, period and height. {13, 14} HARAP does not use a model to calculate the interaction between the bottom and the waves. Only a rough limitation of the wave height is possible. {15}

3.1.2

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages - Since the introduction of HARAP in Rotterdam in 1985, no bottom touches of tidal bound ships have been recorded. - The inaccessibility percentage of all ships is lower since the introduction. - It is easy to determine the tidal window for an incoming ship. Tables are used, so calculations are not needed. - Using the short version without much optimisation, the calculation time is about 5 minutes.

Disadvantages - The choice of the number of classes and their arrangement influence the results. Figure 3.1-1 shows two different arrangements: one with a constant class width and one with varying class widths. The study group Evaluation 74-feet channel researched a possible lowering of the inaccessibility percentage of 74-feet ships to Rotterdam. They concluded that the inaccessibility percentage could be lowered from 37% to 23.5% by shifting only one border of a class.

frequency

constant class width

frequency

5 6 789

condition

condition

Besides shifting the class borders, it is possible to shift the calculation value of the class. It is for instance not always logical to take the class middle. Due to the exponential function (2.3-3) the adverse class border has the most influence. A tidal window issue is not based on actual predictions of the astronomical tide, currents, meteorological water level variations and wave spectrum. HARAP uses ship classes for its calculation. In the future, it is desired to go to an admittance policy for individual ships. Some allowances in HARAP can no longer be retrieved. The semi-stationary calculation method due to the division of the channel in sections and segments has the same kind of variation possibilities as the class arrangements. HARAP allows ships to sail under heavy circumstances without satisfying the long-term criterion, if they satisfy to a stricter criterion during gentle conditions. This implies that the allowed may vary for different tidal windows as long as the expected value over all the circumstances is smaller than the long-term criterion. The long optimisation algorithm that divides the starting moments of transits over all circumstances has a long calculation time. Sometimes the calculation times are in the order of days or even without any results. It is not easy to expand HARAP with an extra module, because there is no clear distinction between the physical and probabilistic calculations.

30

The astro-classes in HARAP make it impossible to sail from one tidal cycle to another. Mirroring the tidal window at the end of the cycle solves this, but this is not a very good solution. ref. [8], [18], [19], [20] and [21]

3.2

The problem definition and project objective are defined in subparagraph 3.2.1. Subparagraphs 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 give respectively the project boundaries and assumptions.

3.2.1

PROBLEM DEFINITION AND PROJECT OBJECTIVE From the previous paragraph the following can be concluded:

Why is the existing program insufficient? The distribution of input variables into discrete classes is the biggest disadvantage of HARAP. Due to this results of HARAP are partly determined by arbitrarily chosen class bounds. Given the possibilities of modern technology, like the calculation speed of a computer, these disadvantages are not acceptable anymore. Only by making large adjustments to HARAP, it could be improved. With these adjustments, one could speak of a new program. Problem definition Due to the schematisation of input variables into discrete classes in the most extensive program in the Netherlands (HARAP), its results are partly determined by arbitrarily chosen class bounds. Project objective Design a better computer model than HARAP that calculates the inaccessibility percentage and an entrance regime for a tidal bound ship with a given draught, using continuous input variables. More specific, the program has to calculate with: - continuous probability density functions - continuous course of the channel - actual predicted conditions Project steps - Generate alternatives and evaluate each of them in the same way as HARAP. (chapter 4) - Compare the selected alternative with HARAP in a case study. (chapter 5) - Draw conclusions and give recommendations. (chapter 6)

3.2.2 PROJECT BOUNDARIES - The third dimension, the width of the channel, is left out of the calculations. - The exceptional situation that a ship comes outside the channel is not taken into account. - Only bulk carriers are taken into account. - The alternatives only take channels in relatively deep areas into account. - The programming language will only be applicable to a specific case study.

31

3.2.3

PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS - Results from the program SEAWAY and the additional program of AVV are correct. - The drift due to wind on fully loaded bulk carriers can be neglected. - Refraction and breaking of the waves can be neglected in the case study. - The input data for the case study of the alternatives will be the same as for HARAP. To translate discrete classes into continuous probability density functions, it is allowed to interpolate linearly between the class borders. - To determine the squat, the method of Tuck-Taylor may be used. - To make a comparison between the alternatives and HARAP, it is allowed to interpolate linearly between different input data in the same way as HARAP does (for example the interpolation between two measurement stations along the channel).

32

ALTERNATIVES

In this chapter, three possible computer models are described to achieve the project objective. The alternatives use the level III calculation methods: Numerical Integration or Monte Carlo Simulations. A description of both methods can be found in paragraph 2.4. Alternatives 2 and 3 may be extended with different modules: a module to reduce the run time and two modules to reach a lower inaccessibility percentage. A lower inaccessibility percentage for a given channel design is possible with a more optimized distribution of the tidal windows over conditions and ships. As long as the expected number of bottom touches E [ ] over the years is lower than the long-term criterion, the safety level for a single transit is allowed to vary for different conditions and ships. For instance during heavy conditions, some ships can only get a tidal window during the tidal cycle, if the waterway authority uses a relatively low safety level. This is allowed when the tidal windows are issued on the basis of a stricter long-term safety criterion during relatively gentle conditions. The same holds for a distribution of the tidal windows over the ships. Ships with a relatively large draught can satisfy to a more tolerant safety level as long as the ships with relatively small draughts compensate this. The following alternatives and modules are described in this chapter Alternative 1: Calculation with predefined classes Alternative 2: Monte Carlo method Alternative 3: Numerical integration Module 1: Runtime reduction Module 2: Optimisation for the conditions Module 3: Optimisation for the ships Each alternative or module is described in a different paragraph. A paragraph contains a model description and a list of the advantages and disadvantages. Chapter 4.7 gives an evaluation of the way the alternatives describe the physical processes (which were mentioned in paragraph 2.2). The chapter ends with some conclusions in paragraph 4.8.

4.1

The first alternative considers adjustments of the existing computer model HARAP. In paragraph 2.5 a description of HARAP is given and its evaluation can be found in paragraph 3.1. HARAP uses numerical integration as calculation method, but with predefined integration steps. The step size is defined by the users of HARAP and is not necessary constant.

4.1.1

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL - HARAP schematises the probability density functions into discrete classes. By taking more classes, for example 100 classes instead of the now used 10, the functions are almost continuous (fig. 4.1-1).

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -4 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -4

-3

-2

-1

-3

-2

-1

11 classes

100 classes

The model calculates with more channel parts, for example 100 instead of 10. Module 4: Venster has to be adjusted. It is not efficient anymore to work with printed tables if HARAP distinguishes 100 classes for every condition. In that case already for one ship class with a certain draught, 10,000 tables are needed. Each table contains 100 x 100 tidal windows. In total, with all the ship classes, 1010 tidal windows will be needed. These tidal windows have to be saved on a computer. Still a solution for the problems with the optimisation algorithm has to be found, see subparagraph 3.1.2.

4.1.2

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages - Relatively easy to realise. - The alternative is based on a tested model. - There are possibilities to work with an individual admittance policy. - The alternative works with continuous probability density functions. - The choice of the class calculation value is less important (subparagraph 3.1.2). - The inaccessibility percentage is relatively low due to the optimisation algorithm.

Disadvantages - The calculation time will be long. - The model will still calculate with astro-classes instead of the real tide: to issue a tidal window, one of the 100 tides has to be selected. - A database of at least 10 gigabytes is needed. - For the calculation speed, physical and probabilistic relations are not wise to keep separated. In some cases it is useful to calculate physical relations between probabilistic integration steps. This can considerably reduce the calculation for all astro classes for all meteo classes time. When expanding a model with for for all wave climates instance a module for refraction, it is for all saling speed regimes recommended to put this module after the for all allowed starting moments for all channel sections bottom position loop and before the ship for all channel segments draught loop (see figure 4.1-2). Due to the for all depths Module wave refraction independency of the draught and the wave for all draughts refraction, it is not necessary to calculate the calculate ksi effects of the bottom position on waves for every draught, because it will not vary. By fig. 4.1-2 Small part of the structure program diagram of HARAP with the location placing physical modules between probabilistic for the module refraction calculation steps, the model gets less transparent. - The problem with transits to other tides remains (see subparagraph 3.1.2).

4.2

Alternative 2 uses the Monte Carlo method to calculate the probability of a bottom touch during a transit for a given predicted set of conditions. This probability has to be smaller than a constant long-term criterion.

34

4.2.1

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL - The following three steps form the calculation sequence of the model for issuing a tidal window: 1. Predict the following conditions: mean wave height mean wave direction meteorological conditions (water level and current) mean sailing speed 2. Determine for different starting moments of a transit (with the above conditions) whether the nautical criteria are fulfilled during the transit. The nautical criteria are defined as follows: 1. The keel clearance should never be less than x metre during a transit. 2. The cross current should never exceed a certain value at a certain position. 3. Determine the probability of touching the bottom for the remaining starting moments, by taking the variations around the predicted conditions into account. This probability should be less than the long-term criterion that is defined in paragraph 2.3. - By simulating a tidal window issue a number of times, the inaccessibility percentage can be calculated. A simulation is done with a drawn set of predicted conditions and their probability density functions. - The calculation uses: - real tidal data: it draws tides from a succession of tides. - continuous probability density distributions of the conditions - a channel that is schematised by a continuous line: the model draws different positions along this line to calculate the probability of touching the bottom - a period of 15 minutes between the transit starting moments: this is copied from HARAP - Issuing tidal windows is no longer based on tables, but on running step 1 once and then steps 2 and 3.

The program structure diagram of the Monte Carlo alternative is given below:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 read input PmeanT = draught = constant lsimu = number of draws from the distributions of the predicted conditions ksimu = number of draws from the distributions around the predicted conditions NpKC = number of positions along the channel axis to determine the keel clearance Npksi = number of positions, drawn along the channel axis to determine ksi IP_sum = 0 (IP = Inaccessible Percentage) L=1 step 1 draw a set of predicted conditions from their distributions: PmeanHE10(L) = wave height (fig. 4.2-1) PmeanRHE10(L) = wave direction PmeanM(L) = meteo-effect Pmeanvs(L) = sailing speed draw a tidal cycle from a sequence of tides (uniform distribution ) (fig. 4.2-2) tb(1) = begin time of tidal cycle Ntbi = the number of starting moments of a transit during the tide delta_t = (channel lengh / (NpKC - 1)) / Pmeanvs(L)

frequency

water level

time

water level

time

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

step 2 i=1 position (of the ship) = 0 (at the beginning of the channel) time = tb(i) = starting moment of the channel transit wl_a = astronomical water level for given time and position c_a = astronomical current for given time and position wl_m = meteo water level rise for given position c_m = meteo current for given position Pmeand = mean bottom level for given position c = current = c_a + c_m (vector summation) Zv = squat (with Tuck-Taylor formula and current influence) KC = keel clearance = wl_a + wl_m + d - PmeanT - Zv check nautical criteria OK not OK time = time + delta_t tb(i) = not allowed position = position + Pmeanvs * delta_t tb(i) = allowed repeat until position = end channel or tb(i) = not allowed tb(i) = tb(1) + 15 minutes * i i=i+1 repeat until i = Ntbi step 3 i=1 tb(i) = allowed yes no k=1 i=i+1 draw a set of conditions from distributions around Pmean (normal distribution ): H(k) = wave height (fig. 4.2-3) Hr(k) = wave direction M(k) = meteo-effect vs(k) = sailing speed T(k) = draught p=1 draw a position along the channel axis (uniform distribution ) (fig. 4.2-4) determine the time at this position time = tb(i) + position(p) / vs(k) determine for position and time: wl_a, c_a, wl_m and c_m determine for position: Pmeand draw d(p) (= dept) from distribution around Pmeand (fig. 2.4-5) determine for position: KC and Zv determine PmeanZs = mean significant ship motion draw Zs (= significant ship motion) from distribution around PmeanZs determine Tm = mean period of ship motion m0 = 1/16 * Zs^2 labda(time) = =

frequency

Drawing

MSL

positon

KC 2 1 exp 2m Tm 0

time (time, labda) area = ksi

p=p+1 repeat until p = Npksi ksi(k) = area under labda(time) (fig. 4.2-6) k=k+1 repeat until k = ksimu

36

labda

77 ksi_total(i) = mean of all the ksi(k) 78 ksi_total < long criterion 79 yes no 80 tb(i) = allowed tb(i) = not allowed 81 i=i+1 i=i+1 82 repeat until i = Ntbi 83 If during the tidal cycle two sequent tb(i) are allowed IPL = 0 else IPL = 1 84 IPsum = IPsum + IPL 85 L=L+1 86 repeat until L = lsimu 87 IP = IPsum / lsimu * 100%

If for example lsimu = 10,000, ksimu = 1,000, Ntbi = 100 and Npksi = 100 the number of calculations is approximately 1011. Tidal window issue: lsimu = 1 and the number of calculations is approximately 107.

4.2.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages - It calculates with a continuous channel, continuous distributions and real tidal data. - Tidal window adapted to each individual ship. - Relatively convenient program. - It is relatively easy to expand the model without losing the clear distinction between physical and probabilistic relations. For every drawn set of conditions the physical relations have to be recalculated once. The core program of the model consists of a set of physical calculations and the input for this program is the set of draws from the probability density functions. The output of the physical calculations is used to calculate the probability of touching the bottom. - Entering another tidal cycle during the transit causes no problems. - Relatively few calculations are needed. - Tidal window issues are based on calculations with actual tidal data instead of tables.

Disadvantages - The inaccessibility percentage will probably be higher than in alternative 1, due to the absence of an optimisation algorithm. Instead module 2 could be used. - The accuracy of the results depends on the number of draws from the distributions: the larger lsimu, ksimu and Npksi, the more accurate the results will be. The project objective is to make a model that is not influenced by classes. If this influence is replaced by the influence of the number of draws, the objective is not achieved. However compared to numerical integration, less calculation steps are needed to remove the influence of the calculation method (fig. 4.2-7).

inaccessibility percentage

37

4.3

The third alternative has the same basic principles as alternative two and uses the same calculation method as HARAP: Numerical integration, but now the step sizes are constant and internal defined.

4.3.1

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL - The same three steps as in alternative 2 can be distinguished: 1 predict the conditions, 2 check the nautical criteria and 3 check the long-term criterion. - The calculation uses: - tidal data that is schematised into many classes - continuous probability density distributions of the conditions - a channel that is schematised with a continuous line: the model calculates the probability of touching the bottom and the keel clearance for many fixed positions on this line - a period of 15 minutes between transit starting moments: this is copied from HARAP - The issue of tidal windows is no longer based on tables, but on running once step 1 and then steps 2 and 3.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 read input Li1 = Li2 = Li3 = Li4 = Li5 = 1 determine the lower boundary: PmeanA(1) = astronomical tidal cycle PmeanM(1) = meteo-effect PmeanHE10(1) = wave height (fig. 4.3-1) PmeanRHE10(1) = wave direction Pmeanvs(1) = sailing speed determine the number of integration steps: L1 = number of integration steps of PmeanA L2 = number of integration steps of PmeanM L3 = number of integration steps of PmeanHE10 L4 = number of integration steps of PmeanRHE10 L5 = number of integration steps of Pmeanvs k2 = number of integration steps of M (= meteo-effect arround PmeanM) k3 = number of integration steps of H (= wave height around PmeanHE10 k4 = number of integration steps of RH (= wave direction around PmeanRHE10) k5 = number of integration steps of vs (= sailing speed around Pmeanvs) p = number of integration steps along the channel pd = number of integration steps of d = depth pZs = number of integration steps of Zs = significant ship motion determine the integration step size: delta_A = step size of PmeanA (size depends on L1) delta_M = step size of PmeanM (size depends on L2) delta_HE10 = step size of PmeanHE10(size depends on L3) delta_RHE10 = step size of PmeanRHE10 (size depends on L4) delta_vs = step size of Pmeanvs (size depends on L5) IPsum = 0 (IP = Inaccessible Percentage) step 1 PmeanA(Li1) = PmeanA(1) + (Li1 - 1) * delta_A (fig. 4.3-2) PmeanM(Li2) = PmeanM(1) + (Li2 - 1) * delta_M PmeanHE10(Li3) = PmeanHE10(1) + (Li3 - 1) * delta_HE10 (fig. 4.3-3) PmeanRHE10(Li4) = PmeanRHE10(1) + (Li4 - 1) * delta_RHE10 Pmeanvs(Li5) = Pmeanvs(1) + (Li5 - 1) * delta_vs tb(1) = begin time of transit = 0 Ntbi = the number of starting moments of a transit during the tide

frequency

PmeanHE10(1)

HE10 prediction

astronomical tide water level

time time

time time

frequency

frequency

delta_HE10

38

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

step 2 i=1 delta_t = (channel length / p) / Pmeanvs(Li5) delta_p = delta_t / Pmeanvs(Li5) position (of the ship) = delta_p / 2 (= almost at beginning of channel) time = tb(i) + delta_t / 2 wl_a = astronomical water level for given time and position c_a = astronomical current for given time and position wl_m = meteo water level rise for given position c_m = meteo current for given position d = bottom level for given position c = current = c_a + c_m (vector summation) Zv = squat (with Tuck-Taylor formula and current influence) KC = keel clearance = wl_a + wl_m + d - PmeanT - Zv check nautical criteria OK not OK time = time + delta_t tb(i) = not allowed position = position + delta_p tb(i) = allowed repeat until position = end channel or tb(i) = not allowed tb(i) = tb(1) + 15 minutes * i i=i+1 repeat until i = Ntbi step 3 i=1 tbi(i) = allowed yes no k2i = k3i = k4i = k5i = 1 i=i+1 ksi_total = 0 determine M(1) = meteo-effect delta_Mk = step size of M (size depends on k2) M(ki2) = M(1) + (ki2 - 1) * delta_Mk determine H(1) = wave height delta_Hk = step size of H (size depends on k3) H(ki3) = H(1) + (ki3 - 1) * delta_Hk (fig. 4.3-4) determine RH(1) = wave dierction delta_RHk = step size of RH (size depends on k4) RH(ki4) = RH(1) + (ki4 - 1) * delta_RHk determine vs(1) = sailing speed delta_vsk = step size of vs (size depends on k5) vs(ki5) = vs(1) + (ki5 - 1) * delta_vsk delta_t = (channel length / p) / vs(ki5) delta_p = delta_t / vs(ki5) position = delta_p / 2 (fig. 4.3-5) time = tb(i) + delta_t / 2 ksi = 0 determine for position and time: wl_a, c_a, wl_m and c_m determine for position: Pmeand kp = 1 determine d(1) = depth determine delta_d = step size of d labda(time) = 0 d(kp) = d(1) + (kp-1)*delta_d (fig. 4.3-6) determine for position: Zv and KC determine PmeanZs = mean significant ship motion kZ = 1 determine Zs(1) = significant ship motion determine delta_Zs = step size of Zs

frequency

delta_Hk

delta_p

Channel bo

Position

positon

delta_d

39

97 Zs(kZ) = Zs(1) + (kZ-1) * delta_Zs 98 determine Tm = mean period of ship 99 motion 100 m0 = 1/16 * Zs(kZ)^2 101 KC 2 1 exp 102 delta_labda = = 2m Tm 0 103 104 Prl = f(d) *delta_d * f(Zs) * delta_Zs 105 labda = labda + delta_labda * Prl 106 kZ = kZ + 1 107 repeat until kZ = pZs 108 kp = kp + 1 109 repeat until kp = pd 110 delta_ksi = labda(time) * delta_t 111 time = time + delta_t 112 position = position + delta_p 113 ksi = ksi + delta_ksi (fig. 4.3-7) 114 repeat until position = end channel 115 delta_k = delta_Mk * delta_Hk * delta_RHk * 116 delta_vsk 117 Prk = f(M, H, RH, vs) * delta_k ksi_total = ksi_total + ksi * Prk 118 119 ki5 = ki5 + 1 120 repeat until ki5 = k5 ki4 = ki4 + 1 121 122 repeat until ki4 = k4 ki3 = ki3 + 1 123 124 repeat until ki3 = k3 ki2 = ki2 + 1 125 126 repeat until ki2 = k2 127 ksi_total < long criterion 128 yes no 129 tb(i) = allowed tb(i) = not allowed 130 i=i+1 i=i+1 repeat until i = Ntbi 131 132 delta_L = delta_A * delta_M * delta_HE10 * delta_RHE10 * delta_vs 133 PrL = f(PmeanA, PmeanM, PmeanHE10, PmeanRHE10, Pmeanvs) * 134 delta_L 135 If during the tidal cycle two sequent tb(i) are allowed IPL = 0 136 else IPL = 1 137 sumIP = sumIP + IPL * PrL 138 Li5 = Li5 + 1 139 repeat until Li5 = L5 140 Li4 = Li4 + 1 141 repeat until Li4 = L4 142 Li3 = Li3 + 1 143 repeat until Li3 = L3 144 Li5 = Li5 + 1 145 repeat until Li2 = L2 146 Li4 = Li1 + 1 147 repeat until Li1 = L1 148 IP = IPsum * 100%

labda

40

In table 4.3-1 a comparison is made between the number of calculations using alternative 3 and the existing model HARAP. The calculation time with alternative 3 will be roughly 1015 times longer. Stopping the integration algorithm when a tidal window no longer is available could shorten the calculation time (fig 4.3-8). If for instance for a predicted wave height no tidal window is available, this will also be the case for unchanged other conditions and larger wave heights. With this procedure the number of calculations could be reduced by roughly a factor 100. This would lead to 1022 calculations, which is still a lot compared to HARAP.

tab. 4.3-1 Comparison number of calculations HARAP and alternative 3

24

HARAP 3 5 10 1 3 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 100 10

9

frequency

stop

Never a tidal window available during a tidal cycle

HE10 prediction

fig. 4.3-8 Stopping the algorithm

4.3.2

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages: - It calculates with one continuous channel and with continuous distributions. - When the number of integration steps of the astronomical tide (L1) is large enough, the tidal window issuing can be based on real tidal data. - Tidal window adapted to each individual ship. - Entering another tidal cycle during the transit causes no problem.

Disadvantages - The inaccessibility percentage will probably be higher than alternative 1 due to the absence of an optimisation algorithm. - The accuracy of the results depends on the number of integration steps: the larger L1-5, k2-4, dp and pZs, the more accurate the results will be. - The number of calculations is relatively large compared to HARAP and alternative 2. The calculation time depends on the number of stochastic variables. Therefore the calculation time will increase quickly with each addition of a stochastic variable. - It is relatively hard to expand the model with physical modules without loosing the clear distinction between probabilistic and physical calculations for the same reason as for HARAP.

41

4.4

The runtime can be reduced with a preparation calculation before a run with alternative 2 or 3.

4.4.1

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL The preparation calculation determines a lower and upper boundary for a condition. For a predicted condition below the lower boundary the ships always get a tidal window and above the upper boundary never (fig. 4.4-1). If a drawn value (alternative 2) or integration step value (alternative 3) lays between the boundaries the model has to run steps 2 and 3, otherwise the model can skip these steps. In some cases this can reduce the calculation time by 80%.

frequency

Always at least one tidal window available during a tidal cycle

H E10 prediction

Lower boundary Upper boundary

Determination of the upper and lower boundary: - Determine the most unfavourable set of conditions. Calculate if a tidal window is available by varying one condition from the most favourable value until a value at which no tidal window is available. By repeating this for all the stochastic conditions the lower boundaries for all the conditions can be calculated. For example, in Rotterdam a set of the most unfavourable conditions will be: Eastern wind, neap tide, swell from the North and low sailing speed. Now vary the wave height from zero with steps until the value at which no tidal window is available and keep the other conditions constant. The lower boundary is the value at which no tidal window is available. - Determine for the upper boundary the most favourable set of conditions. Calculate the availability of a tidal window by varying one condition from the most unfavourable value until the value at which a tidal window is available. Repeat this algorithm for all stochastic conditions, by starting each calculation with the most favourable set and determine the upper boundaries of all the conditions. - It is easier to assume that the conditions are independent from each other during the determination of the boundaries. If a dependency is taken into account, it is harder to determine the most unfavourable set of conditions. Assuming independency leads to wider boundaries. - The distance between the boundaries depends on the condition influence on the availability of a tidal window. When one condition is dominant (for instance the wave height), the boundaries of the other conditions remain almost unchanged. In this example the time benefit depends only on waves.

42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 95 96 97 read input PmeanT = draught = constant lsimu = number of draws from the distributions of the predicted conditions ksimu = number of draws from the distributions around the predicted conditions NpKC = number of positions along the channel axis to determine the keel clearance Npksi = number of positions, drawn along the channel axis to determine ksi IP_sum = 0 (IP = Inaccessible Percentage) determine the lower boundaries by numerical integration determine the upper boundaries by numerical integration L=1 step 1 draw a set of predicted conditions from their distributions: PmeanHE10(L) = wave height (fig. 4.2-1) PmeanRHE10(L) = wave direction PmeanM(L) = meteo-effect Pmeanvs(L) = sailing speed if PmeanHE10(L) < lower boundary wave height => IPL = 0 if PmeanHE10(L) > upper boundary wave height => IPL= 1 if PmeanRHE10(L) < lower boundary wave direction => IPL = 0 if PmeanRHE10(L) > upper boundary wave direction => IPL = 1 if PmeanM(L) < lower boundary meteo => IPL = 0 if PmeanM(L) > upper boundary meteo => IPL = 1 if Pmeanvs(L) < lower boundary sailing speed => IPL = 0 if PmeanRHE10(L) > upper boundary sailing speed => IPL = 1 else: do line 15 up to and including line 83 of alternative 2 IPsum = IPsum + IPL L=L+1 repeat until L = lsimu IP = IPsum / lsimu * 100%

The same principle holds for alternative 3 and the program structure diagram will not differ much.

4.4.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES This module has the following advantage and disadvantages, additional to the alternatives:

Advantage: - A shorter runtime than alternative 2 or 3. Disadvantages - The preparation calculation has to be done before every model run and it therefore must become a standard procedure. It is easy to forget this procedure when a run has to be done for a channel redesign. - Some knowledge and experience with respect to the influences of the conditions is needed to determine the most (un)favourable set of conditions.

4.5

As long as the criteria are fulfilled, it is allowed to distribute the tidal windows over the conditions. This can be explained using a different formulation of the long-term criterion. The probability of more than one bottom touch in a year P( > 0) year:

43

When n ships sail to a port in a year, every ship may have ship-allowed number of bottom touches:

P( > 0 )n ships

year

n

ship allowed = ln (1 P( > 0)ship ) = ln n 1 P( > 0) year with P( > 0) year = 1 25 0.9 ship allowed = ln 25n 0.9

(4.5-1)

The long-term criterion can also be defined as: The expected number of bottom touches during one transit of a ship over all the conditions E [ ] has to be equal or lower than the allowed number of bottom touches ship-allowed: (4.5-2)

E [ ] shipallowed

This means that it is allowed to have more bottom touches than ship-allowed during relatively rough conditions as long as is smaller during gentle conditions. It can be seen as a distribution of the number of bottom touches over the conditions with an expected number of bottom touches smaller than or equal to ship-allowed: (4.5-3)

E [ ] =

condition

4.5.1

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL - The module calculates for each condition how the single transit criterion can vary for different values of the condition. An example for the predicted wave height is given in figure 4.5-1, where the factor q determines the position of with respect to the long-term criterion ship-allowed. The value q _ max is equal to the maximum single transit criterion, which has the same definition as the single transit criterion in HARAP: equation (2.5-8).

shipallowed

q _ max

H E10

fig. 4.5-1 Principle sketch of the distribution of the single transit criterion over the wave height

A program structure diagram of the module for the wave condition is given below, but can be extended with other conditions:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 run alternative 2 or 3 with a constant single transit criterion equal to the long-term criterion, the calculated inaccessible percentage = IPmax maxHE10(1) = max wave height M = number of integration steps to calculate the distribution over the wave height delta_Mi = step size of PmeanM (size depends on M1) delta_q = step size of q q_max = maximum single transit criterion = 0.01 E[ksi] = long-term criterion Mi = 1 minHE10 = 0

44

delta_H

11 q(Mi) = E[ksi] + delta_q 12 PrMi = f(PmeanHE10(Mi)) * delta_Mi 13 delta_H = PrMi / f(minHE10(Mi)) 14 ksi(maxHE10(Mi) - delta_Mi / 2) = q(Mi) 15 ksi(minHE10 + delta_H / 2)) = q(Mi) - 2 * (q(Mi) - E[ksi]) (fig. 4.5-2) 16 run alternative 2 or 3 with the adjusted criterions 17 IP < IPmax 18 yes 19 IP = IPmax q(Mi) = q_max 20 minHE10 = delta_H + minHE10 21 q(Mi) = q(Mi) + delta_q 22 repeat until q = q_max 23 Mi = Mi + 1 24 repeat until Mi = M

frequency

minHE10 ksi

no

qmax E[ksi]

The same steps are possible for the meteorological water level variations. The distribution of the single transit criterion over both wave height H E10 and the meteo-effect wl m is shown in figure 4.5-3. The program structure diagram could be extended, to achieve better results. The largest ships for instance can never get a tidal window during the most extreme wave heights, despite a wider single transit criterion. Therefore it is not useful to allow more bottom touches during these transits. Here it is wise to distribute the single transit criterion also along the horizontal axis (fig 4.5-4).

E[ ]

shipallowed

H E10

H E10

wl m

fig. 4.5-4 Difference between a distribution along one or two axes (principle sketch)

fig. 4.5-3 Distribution of the single transit criterion over the wave height and the meteo-effect (principle sketch)

4.5.2

Disadvantages - The downtime will be higher. - If the probability density distributions of the predicted conditions are not correct, the long-term criterion can be exceeded in reality. The tidal windows are issued on the basis of variable single

45

transit criteria. These criteria are calculated with probability density functions of predicted conditions. If for instance more frequently a relatively high wave is predicted than was assumed beforehand, the probability of a bottom touch will be larger than the long-term criterion. In other words: the probability of a bottom touch in the 25 years will be more than 10%. If the conditions can change during the transit it becomes a rather complex calculation to understand. If for instance two wave fields are defined for two different channel parts, the single transit criterion would change during the transit. Therefore the single transit criterion should be renamed into a single channel part transit criterion. Another possibility is to calculate the expected single transit criterion during the transit time. The same can be done for other conditions when they vary along the transit. The expected value of the single transit criteria over the conditions at the end should be lower than the long-term criterion. However mistakes are easily made in this process. The calculation time will be longer. The time depends on the number of integration steps M , the step size delta_q and the number of conditions. If for instance M = 100, the number of steps to q _ max = 10 and the number of conditions = 2 the calculation time will be 2,000 times longer than the initial alternative.

4.6

Besides a distribution of the allowed number of bottom touches over the conditions, the number of bottom touches can be distributed over the ships. Ships with large draught, during equal conditions, have in general a larger probability of touching the bottom compared to smaller ships. By varying ship for different ships the inaccessibility percentage for all ships together can be lower. This is only allowed when the expected number of bottom touches of the ships E[ ship] is equal to or smaller than the allowed number of bottom touches ship-allowed (see equation 4.5-1):

E ship =

[ ]

25 n

0 .9

(4.6-1)

4.6.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL Any combination of alternative 2 or 3 with extension modules 1 and 2 can be used in this module as core program. A program structure diagram of the module is given below:

number of ships = n Q=0 long-term criterion is equally distributed over the ships IPsum_max = 0 (IP = Inaccessibility Percentage) ni = 1 calculate IP(ship(ni)) for ship(ni) with alternative 2 or 3 IPsum_max = IPsum_max + IP(ship(ni)) ni = ni + 1 repeat until ni > n sort the ships on IP and renumber the ships: largest IP: ni = 1 and lowest IP: ni = n IPsum = IPsum_max IPsum = IPsum - IP(ship(n)) - IP(ship(1)) add by the long-term criterion of ship(1) a factor q and subtract this factor from the criterion of ship(n) calculate IP for ship(1) and ship(n) with alternative 2 or 3 IPsum = IPsum + IP(ship(n)) + IP(ship(1))

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

46

17 IPsum < IPsum_max 18 yes 19 IPsum_max = IPsum Q=1 20 sort the ships on IP and renumber the ships: 21 largest IP: ni = 1 and lowest IP: ni = n 22 save the long-term criteria for the ships 23 repeat until Q = 1 24 IPsum = IPsum_max

no

The presented program structure diagram is a simple algorithm. With a more advanced diagram a lower inaccessibility percentage could be achieved.

4.6.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantage - The inaccessibility percentage for all ships together is lower.

Disadvantages: - The downtime of all ships together will be higher. - No fair treatment of ships: this module causes a higher inaccessibility percentage for small ships. - Large ships have a larger probability of a bottom touch. With the assumption that the consequences of a bottom touch for large ships are bigger compared to small ships, the risk of all ships together becomes higher in spite of the constant probability of a bottom touch E[ ship]. Therefore the consequences have to be taken into account, which for each ship separately are hard to determine.

4.7

The 3 alternatives describe the physical processes in the same way; they only use different calculation methods. Therefore they are evaluated here together. The extension modules do not change the translation of the physical processes and are therefore left out of the evaluation. Like the evaluation of HARAP behind every physical process of paragraph 2.2 a score from 1 to 5 is placed. A one means that the alternative does not take it into account. If it takes the process into account, but not very accurate, it gets a two, three or four depending on the accuracy. A five is given for a good translation of the processes.

alternatives alternatives 4 4 x 4 4 4 x x

47

HARAP

vertical tide meteorological water level draught variation morphological factors sailing speed variations squat cross current effects horizontal tide

3 4 3 2 4 4 2 3

5 5 4 2 5 5 2 5

meteorological currents river discharges cross wind effects relation wind and waves local wind field waves swell breaking of waves refraction of waves

HARAP 2 2 x 3 3 3 x x

Explanation - The alternatives score 5 points for processes {1} and {8}, because the alternatives calculate with the real tide to determine the tidal windows. - Because the occurrence of different processes is schematised by continuous probability density functions, the tidal windows are issued on actual predicted values. Therefore these processes get one point more in this evaluation than the evaluation of HARAP. {2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13 and 14} - Morphological factors, like sand waves, could easily be implemented into the alternatives 2 or 3 if the physical relations and the probability of occurrence are known. For the physical relations it is necessary to investigate how a ship reacts on sand waves. {4} - An implementation of the meteorological currents and currents due to river discharges is possible. Therefore the physical relations and the probabilistic dependency between the astronomical tide, river discharge and meteorological conditions have to be investigated for the project area. If this is done properly the real predicted current curve along the channel could be used to issue a tidal window. At the moment these relations are not implemented in HARAP for the port of Rotterdam. {9 and 10} - A better description of the ship movements is possible, by using the real predicted wave spectrum and the RAO-function of the ship instead of a representation by the H E10-value and a linear relation between H E10 and Z s. Therefore the maximum score of 5 is not given. {12, 13 and 14} - Processes {11}, {15} and {16} are not taken into account in the evaluation, because they lay outside the project boundaries (see paragraph 3.2).

4.8

CHAPTER CONCLUSION

The alternatives have the following advantages compared to HARAP: - They give a better description of the physical processes of subparagraph 2.2. - They calculate with a continuous channel, continuous distributions and real tidal data and therefore take away the influences of the number of classes and channel parts on the results and makes it possible to issue tidal windows on actual predicted data instead of tables. - Tidal window adapted to each individual ship. The difference between the 3 alternatives can be found in the used calculation method. Alternative 1 and 3 use numerical integration and alternative 2 uses the Monte Carlo method. The advantage of numerical integration compared to the Monte Carlo method is the higher accuracy when enough integrations steps are used. Monte Carlo analysis on the other hand has: a more conveniently arranged program structure and a relatively short calculation time. A rough prediction of the number of calculations is given in table 4.8-1.

tab. 4.8-1 Number of calculations of the models

number of calculations 9 10 10 10

24 11

48

From the table can be concluded that alternative 2 roughly 100 times slower is than HARAP, but 1013 times faster than alternative 1 and 3. Because of the relatively fast calculation method: the Monte Carlo method compared to the Numerical integration method, alternative 2 is selected to work out further in the case study. The three modules for runtime reduction and a lower inaccessibility percentage can only be used when some experience with the model have been gathered. For proper use, first the following points should be known: - the influence of the conditions on the availability of tidal windows (for module 1) - the accuracy of the probability density functions of predicted conditions (for module 2) - the consequences of a bottom touch per ship (for module 3) When these points are not known, the calculated inaccessibility percentage can be inaccurate, or worse, the calculated risks could be structural lower than the real risks.

49

50

CASE STUDY

The selected alternative of chapter 4: alternative 2: Monte Carlo Method will be compared to HARAP in a case study. Both the inaccessibility percentage and the presentation of the tidal windows will be compared. For this case study, the port of Rotterdam is taken, because: - the waterway authorities in Rotterdam are the only users of HARAP at the moment - a lot of reliable statistical data of the entrance channel is available - most of the physical processes of subparagraph 2.2 are present in this area. Paragraph 5.1 gives the input of the case study. How many draws alternative 2 and a variant on this alternative need to converge to the theoretical inaccessibility percentage is described in respectively paragraph 5.2 and 5.3. The variant draws, compared to alternative 2, on a different moment during the calculations from the distribution functions. The results of the case study for HARAP and alternative 2 are presented in paragraph 5.4. The chapter ends with conclusions in paragraph 5.5. Alternative 2 and its variant are programmed in the mathematical computer programme Matlab, version 7 release 14. The program languages can be found in appendix 2.

5.1

INPUT DATA

Alternative 2 uses the same input data as HARAP in this case study. The transformation of discrete input data into continuous data will be done by linear interpolation. When the waterway authorities decide to take the model from the design phase into the operational phase, proper continuous input data has to be used. The following input data is distinguished: - Ship data - Channel data - Astronomical data - Meteorological data - Wave data - Criteria data In separate subparagraphs each data sort is described for both HARAP and alternative 2. An explanation about the input variables of HARAP can be found in subparagraph 2.5.3. A complete list of the input data with its type (stochastic or deterministic) is given in appendix 6.

5.1.1

SHIP DATA The Berge Stahl is taken following characteristics: = 316 L pp = 1.75 C squat = 22.63 Td = 0.1 PTd = 372750 vs =4 vs = 0.5 Pvs = 0.1

as ship for the case study. Berge Stahl transports iron ore and has the [m] [-] [m] [m] [ton] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] length between perpendiculars squat coefficient mean draught standard deviation predicted draught (normal distribution) water displacement mean sailing speed with respect to the bottom standard deviation sailing speed (normal distribution) standard deviation predicted sailing speed (normal distribution)

The motion coefficients are calculated with SEAWAY (see subparagraph 2.3.3) for two different depth/draught ratios h/Td, three different sailing speeds vs and one wave direction. For Rotterdam

51

HARAP calculates with the most unfavourable wave direction, because the wave direction cannot be measured accurate enough for swell waves. In the future this will be possible. The following motion coefficients are determined ( Z s [m] and Tm [s]): Combination: vs = 5.1 m/s, h/Td = 1.125 Combination: vs = 3.1 m/s, h/Td = 1.125 Z s = 1.488 H + 0.060 Z s = 1.492 H + 0.039 Z s = 0.198 Z s = 0.123

Tm = 12.93 Tm = 13.25

Tm = 12.45

Tm = 12.99

Tm = 12.17

Z s = 2.114 H + 0.154

Z = 0.143

s

Tm = 12.46

5.1.2

CHANNEL DATA The port of Rotterdam is accessible via the Euro and Maas channel. In accordance with the traffic separation scheme, ships can reach the Euro channel from the Dover Strait (fig. 5.1-1).

LONDON

RO EU EL TO ANN CH

DOVER

BOULOGNE-SUR-MER

LE TRPORT

The Euro channel is 45.65 km ( 25 mile) long, 600 m wide and the nautical guaranteed depth (with respect to Mean Sea Level) varies from 25.4 to 24.8 m. The direction is 82 . On both sides of the channel lays a 300 m wide bank with a depth of LLWS 5 -22.00 until -22.10 m. From 0 km until 34.5 km sand waves occur.

52

The Maas channel is 11.35 km ( 6 mile) long, the width of the channel varies from 600 m at Maas Centre until 500 m at the port entrance and the nautical guarantied depth is 24.3 m. The direction is 112 (fig. 5.1-2). The channel has no banks.

45.65 km

EURO PLATFORM

0 km

N W S

34.5 km 23 km

82

MA A

112

.5 km

SC

MAAS CENTRE

HA

57 NN E L km

5200' H.v.H.

300'

For the case study the project area ends at the port entrance. Normally HARAP also takes the area in the port into account. HARAP distinguishes two sections: the Euro and Maas Channel. The Euro channel contains four segments and the Maas channel one. Each segment has a constant depth (fig. 5.1-3). Alternative 2 translates the segments into one continuous line (fig. 5.1-4). This is a rough translation and a bit at the unsafe site. For the case study is assumed that the depths does not fluctuate in time. Also the occurrence of sand waves is ignored.

position

0 km 11.5 km 23 km 34.5 km 45.65 km 57 km

0 km 11.5 km 23 km 34.5 km 45.65 km -24.30 m

position

57 km

-24.30 m

Euro channel

Euro channel

5.1.3

ASTRONOMICAL DATA At three locations along the channel astronomical data is available. The data consists of the predicted astronomical: water level, current and current direction. The locations are: the Euro Platform (2.83 km), Maas Centre (45.65 km) and the harbour entrance (57.00 km).

HARAP distinguishes three classes for each location with the following probability of occurrence: ASTRO 1 = 25% ASTRO 2 = 50% ASTRO 3 = 25% An overall water level spreading of 0.12 m is assumed in HARAP.

53

The calculation values of the ASTRO-classes for the Euro Platform are given in table 5.1-1.

tab. 5.1-1 Astronomical input HARAP (Euro Platform)

ASTRO 1 Water level [m] -0.62 -0.57 -0.51 -0.44 -0.37 -0.28 -0.17 -0.01 0.19 0.40 0.56 0.63 0.63 0.55 0.44 0.29 0.13 -0.06 -0.25 -0.47 -0.67 -0.85 -0.95 -0.99 -0.97 Current Direction [m/s] current [degree] 0.2500 215 0.3500 220 0.3375 220 0.3250 220 0.3125 220 0.3000 218 0.2250 218 0.1500 218 0.0750 218 0.0000 0 0.1125 25 0.2250 25 0.3375 25 0.4500 25 0.4375 25 0.4250 25 0.4125 25 0.4000 25 0.3000 25 0.2000 25 0.1000 25 0.0000 0 0.0625 215 0.1250 215 0.1875 215 ASTRO 2 Water level [m] -0.78 -0.72 -0.64 -0.57 -0.49 -0.41 -0.32 -0.19 0.03 0.35 0.63 0.79 0.81 0.74 0.60 0.44 0.25 0.05 -0.19 -0.46 -0.75 -0.98 -1.11 -1.13 -1.09 Current Direction [m/s] current [degree] 0.4500 215 0.500 220 0.4937 220 0.4875 220 0.4812 220 0.4750 218 0.3562 218 0.2375 218 0.1187 218 0.0000 0 0.1562 25 0.3125 25 0.4687 25 0.6250 25 0.6000 25 0.5750 25 0.5500 25 0.5250 25 0.3937 25 0.2625 25 0.1312 25 0.0000 0 0.1125 215 0.2250 215 0.3375 215 ASTRO 3 Water level [m] -0.95 -0.87 -0.79 -0.70 -0.61 -0.52 -0.42 -0.27 -0.02 0.35 0.72 0.94 0.99 0.91 0.77 0.60 0.42 0.22 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 -0.69 -0.80 -0.83 -0.79 Current Direction [m/s] current [degree] 0.6500 215 0.6500 220 0.6500 220 0.6500 220 0.6500 220 0.6500 218 0.4875 218 0.3250 218 0.1625 218 0.0000 0 0.2000 25 0.4000 25 0.6000 25 0.8000 25 0.7625 25 0.7250 25 0.6875 25 0.6500 25 0.4875 25 0.3250 25 0.1625 25 0.0000 0 0.1625 215 0.3250 215 0.4875 215

Alternative 2 calculates with a continuous tidal sequence in time. For the input, the period between 1 February 2005 and 1 August 2005 is used. The month April is presented in figure 5.1-5.

Water level Euro Platform

1.5 1

400 350

0.8 300

Waterlevel [m]

Current [m/s]

0.5

Direction [degree]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.6

0.4

-0.5

-1

0.2 50

-1.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time [days]

Time [days]

Time [days]

1.5 0.9 0.8 1 0.7

400 350 300

Waterlevel [m]

Current [m/s]

Direction [degree]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.5

-0.5

-1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time [days]

Time [days]

Time [days]

1.5 1

400 350

0.8 300

Direction [degree]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Waterlevel [m]

Current [m/s]

0.5

0.6

0.4

-0.5

0.2 50

-1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time [days]

Time [days]

Time [days]

5.1.4

METEOROLOGICAL DATA For the three locations that were mentioned in subparagraph 5.1.3, the distributions of the meteorological water level are known. HARAP distinguishes five classes for each location with the following probability of occurrence: METEO 1 = 15.0% METEO 2 = 52.0% METEO 3 = 30.7% METEO 4 = 2.2% METEO 5 = 0.1% The calculation values are the class middles and are given in table 5.1-2.

tab. 5.1-2 Calculation values meteo-classes with respect to Mean Sea Level [m]

Alternative 2 calculates with continuous distribution functions. Therefore the discontinuous probability density function f (M ) of HARAP (fig. 5.1-6) is first transformed into a distribution function F (M ) (fig. 5.1-7). This distribution function is made continuous by linear interpolation between the class boundaries (fig. 5.1-8). For the three different locations these distribution functions are made. Alternative 2 uses these distribution functions as input.

f (M) [%] F (M) [%]

100.0

F (M) [%]

52.0

85.0

30.7

15.0

33.0

2.3

2.2

0.1

-1.015

0.1

-0.725

-1.015

-0.725

-0.045

-0.045

-1.015

-0.725

0.1

2.3

-0.390

-0.045

0.250

0.250

0.530

0.530

33.0

0.250

85.0 0.530

-0.390

-0.390

Alternative 2 calculates with a spreading of 0.1 m around the predicted mean. HARAP has put this spreading in the 0.12 m around the predicted astronomical water level, which is not taken into account in alternative 2. For the case study it is assumed that the wave climate is independent of the meteorological conditions. By ignoring this physical relation, the calculated inaccessibility percentage will be higher. Also the influence of the meteorological conditions on the currents is left out of the calculations. This has influence when exclusions on the basis of cross currents are done in the model. Otherwise the influence will be minor.

100.0

55

5.1.5

WAVE DATA HARAP distinguishes ten classes for modelling the probability density function of HE10 (fig 5.1-8). The function is based on a set of predicted wave heights in the past. A tidal window is issued on the basis of the maximum HE10 value that is predicted in the period six to twelve hours after the prediction moment (fig 5.1-9). The tidal window is issued just after the prediction moment: almost six hours before the opening of the tidal window.

f (HE10) [%]

81.91

max H E10

0.25 9.63 0.40 2.65 0.55 1.60 0.70 1.09 0.85 0.61 1.00 0.49 1.15 0.36 1.30 0.22 1.45

1.44

0.00

2.95

12 time [hour]

fig. 5.1-10 Definition of the HE10 value for a tidal window issue = maxHE10

The transformation of the discontinuous probability density function into a continuous distribution function for alternative 2 is done in the same way as in the previous subparagraph (fig. 5.1-10 and 5.1-11).

100.00 91.54 94.19 95.79 96.88 97.49 97.98 98.34 98.56

F (H E10) [%]

F (H E10) [%]

81.91

1.15

1.45

0.00

1.30

2.95

81.91

0.00

The HMR6 issues tidal windows for Rotterdam. They also predict the HE10 value. The relation between the predicted and the actual measured HE10 value is described by a conditional probability density function. HARAP schematises this function by a prediction matrix.

56

2.95

100.00

The real wave height is assumed to be normal distributed around the predicted wave height. The mean and standard deviation are given by the following equations:

H H

E 10

(5.1-1)

E 10

This means that the HMR in general overestimates the HE10 value. The prediction matrix for HARAP is given in table 5.1-3. Alternative 2 can calculate with the equations (5.1-1).

tab. 5.1-3 Prediction matrix in HARAP

Predicted wave class 1 2 1 0.9985 0.3718 2 0.0015 0.4626 3 0 0.1540 4 0 0.0114 5 0 0.0002 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 10 0 0 3 0.1516 0.2970 0.3311 0.1730 0.0422 0.0048 0.0003 0 0 0 4 0.0804 0.1575 0.2525 0.2566 0.1651 0.0673 0.0174 0.0028 0.0003 0 5 0.0512 0.0900 0.1614 0.2138 0.2091 0.1509 0.0804 0.0316 0.0092 0.0023 6 0.0367 0.0565 0.1038 0.1537 0.1834 0.1763 0.1366 0.0852 0.0429 0.0249 7 0.0284 0.0384 0.0698 0.1081 0.1424 0.1597 0.1523 0.1237 0.0855 0.0916 8 0.0233 0.0277 0.0493 0.0774 0.1071 0.1308 0.1410 0.1341 0.1126 0.1969 9 0.0198 0.0210 0.0364 0.0569 0.0806 0.1034 0.1199 0.1260 0.1197 0.3163 10 0.0117 0.0076 0.0115 0.0167 0.0232 0.0310 0.0399 0.0494 0.0587 0.7502

For the case study it is assumed that the probability density function is constant along the channel. In reality it can be expected that the wave spectrum in the Maas channel will be different compared to the Euro channel.

5.1.6 CRITERIA DATA The following criteria are taken into account: - long-term criterion - single transit criterion (only HARAP) - manoeuvrability criterion

At the moment the tidal window issue is based on 250 tidal bound ships per year. This number turns out to be overestimated, but for now 250 ships is assumed to be true. The following definition of the long-term criterion was given in subparagraph 2.3.5: During a 25-year period the probability of touching the channel bottom with maximum minor damage must not be more than 10%. The probability of a bottom touch in a year is given by:

25

250

57

With the Poisson distribution (see subparagraph 2.3.2) the allowed number of bottom touches for a transit is equal to:

P( > 0) ship = 1 e

ship

In this case study the recommendation from the TNO-IWECO investigation (see paragraph 2.3.5) to multiply the long-term criterion by a factor 10 is adopted. A more constructive method would be to allow a bottom penetration of 25 cm. This is not done in the case study; otherwise a comparison with HARAP would not be possible. With the factor 10 the long-term criterion is: (5.1-2) = 1.686 10 4

ship

HARAP uses a single transit criterion of 1%. The manoeuvrability criterion is fixed on 1 m keel clearance. The cross current criterion is left out of the calculations. This criterion, like the manoeuvrability criterion, does not influence the probability of a bottom touch. It only excludes starting moments of a transit on the basis of a deterministic value. By leaving the cross current criterion out of the model it is easier to investigate the influence of various conditions. The manoeuvrability criterion disturbs the evaluation of the influence of various conditions much less, because there is always a starting moment in the tidal cycle at which this criterion is fulfilled. It is likely that this moment also has a larger probability of satisfying the long-term criterion compared to a moment without a satisfied manoeuvrability criterion. By first excluding starting moments based on the manoeuvrability criterion, the calculation time can be reduced.

5.2

Statistics enable to predict an inaccessibility percentage, but there will always be a difference between the calculated inaccessibility percentage and the measured inaccessibility percentage in practice. The difference has multiple causes. The following causes can be distinguished: - Incorrectness of the statistics The probability density functions of the conditions determine the magnitude of the calculated inaccessibility percentage. The correctness of these functions has influence on the accuracy of the percentage. If for example the tidal windows are issued with more large waves than was assumed beforehand, the measured inaccessibility percentage will be higher than the calculated. Besides the correctness of the probability density functions, the dependency between various conditions has influence. - Inaccuracy of the calculation method The Monte Carlo method consists of drawing a number of values out of their distribution functions. The number of draws determines the accuracy of the calculated inaccessibility percentage. The accuracy of the calculation method of HARAP has no influence on the difference between the calculated and measured inaccessibility percentage. If more classes are taken into account both the calculated and measured inaccessibility percentage will change. This is the advantage of working with tables for issuing tidal windows instead of a calculation based on actual data. - Experience of the ship handler Nowadays it is easier to gather weather predictions. When a ship handler knows from experience that he will not get a tidal window with the predicted conditions, he may change his

58

sailing schedule or decide to sail with less draught. Both will lead to a lower measured inaccessibility percentage. This paragraph gives the results of an investigation to the calculation method accuracy of alternative 2. The following research question is formulated: What is the influence of the number of draws on the calculated inaccessibility percentage? Alternative 2 draws: - values from the distribution functions of the predicted conditions (lsimu times) - values from the distribution functions around the predicted condition (ksimu times) - positions along the channel axis (Npksi times) The parameters lsimu, ksimu and Npksi are the number of draws. For a tidal window issue, lsimu is always one. Therefore the number of draws from the distribution functions of the conditions has no influence on the safety level7. Because ksimu and Npksi are not one for the calculation of a tidal window, they influence both the accuracy of the inaccessibility percentage and the safety level. Investigation results to the influence of each parameter: lsimu, ksimu and Npksi are given in different paragraphs.

5.2.1 NUMBER OF DRAWS: POSITIONS Alternative 2 calculates for Npksi positions in the channel, the frequency of a bottom touch . The frequency is defined by equation (2.3-4). The number of bottom touches for a transit is linearly dependent of the frequency.

By running the model for different values of the parameter Npksi, its influence on the number of bottom touches can be investigated. For 15 values of Npksi, runs were done. This was repeated 4 times for 2 sets of input values. At the end 15 4 2 = 120 runs were done. The 2 sets of input values are given in table 5.2-1 and the following values of Npksi were used: Npksi = [100; 200; 300; 400; 500; 1000; 2000; 3000; 4000; 5000; 10000; 50000; 100000; 500000; 1000000]

tab. 5.2-1 Sets of input values for the investigation of Npksi

Variable vs Me Mm Mh H tb Td

Description sailing speed meteo-effect Euro Platform meteo-effect Maas Centre meteo-effect harbour entrance wave height begin time draught

This is not true when module 2: optimisation for the conditions is used (see subparagraph 4.5.2).

59

Figure 5.2-1 gives the results for set 1 as input values and figure 5.2-2 for set 2.

8 7 x 10

-4

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 10

10

10

10

10

-3

x 10 1.8 1.6

10

10

10

10

Conclusion When Npksi approaches a value of 1,000,000, the number of bottom touches goes to a constant value. If a variation of of about a factor 4 is accepted, a value of Npksi of 1000 will do. For a factor of 2, 10,000 draws are needed.

5.2.2 NUMBER OF DRAWS: REAL CONDITIONS A tidal window issue is based on a set of predicted conditions. In reality a different set of conditions will occur. Alternative 2 takes the prediction inaccuracies into account by drawing ksimu times a value around the predicted value. Simulations are done to investigate the effect of ksimu on: the expected number of bottom touches for one starting moment and the length of a tidal window.

60

One starting moment The expected number of bottom touches E [ ] during a transit for a given starting moment is the mean of ksimu simulated transits. For two sets of input values the moving mean for ksimu up to 100,000 is calculated; three times for set 1 and two times for set 2. Table 5.2-2 shows the sets of input values:

tab. 5.2-2 Sets of input values for the investigation of ksimu (one starting moment)

Description sailing speed meteo-effect Euro Platform meteo-effect Maas Centre meteo-effect harbour entrance wave height begin time draught number of position

The results of the runs with set 1 are given in figure 5.2-3 and the results with set 2 in figure 5.2-4.

5 4.5 x 10

-4

1 2 3 4 5

10

10

10

10

10

5 4.5 x 10

-4

x 10 1 0.5 0 0 10

-3

1 2 3 4

10

10

10

10

10

10

fig. 5.2-4 Moving mean of E for ksimu (set 2, 2 runs) (inset: entire ksi-domain)

[]

61

Conclusions one starting moment - For ksimu 1000, E [ ] varies with a factor 2.5, ksimu = 10,000 the factor is 1.5 and for ksimu = 100,000 a factor of 1.25 can be expected. - It looks like that there is some relation between E [ ] and ksimu when Npksi = 100. In reality this relation does not exists although it is very likely that the graph has this shape. An explanation can be found in appendix 5. More starting moments For a tidal window issue it is necessary to calculate the expected number of bottom touches for different starting moments. The starting moments of channel transits are assumed to be uniform distributed over the tidal window. This means that the ship handler has no preferential starting moment. In reality the most ship handlers want to sail directly after the opening of the tidal window. The uniform distribution is chosen to be similar to HARAP.

For each quarter of an hour in a tidal cycle the expected number of bottom touches is calculated. If the mean number of bottom touches of a series quarters is smaller than the long-term criterion, the length of the tidal window is known. For 4 different values of ksimu and 3 input sets, the lengths of the tidal windows are calculated. This leads to 4 3 = 12 runs. After these runs the influence of Npksi on the length of tidal windows is tested. The 3 sets of input values are given in table 5.2-3 and the following values of ksimu are used: ksimu = [1; 50; 100; 1000]

tab. 5.2-3 Sets of input values for the investigation of ksimu (more starting moments)

Description sailing speed meteo-effect Euro Platform meteo-effect Maas Centre meteo-effect harbour entrance wave height begin time draught number of position

Table 5.2-4 gives the lengths of the tidal windows for each set of conditions. The E [ ] -values for each starting moment is given in tables 5.2-5 until 5.2-7.

tab. 5.2-4 Tidal windows for various ksimu-values and input (time relative to first low water)

ksimu 1 50 100 1000 Set 1 0:45 - 8:15 1:15 - 8:00 1:15 - 8:15 1:30 - 8:00 Set 2 1:15 - 6:30 4:00 - 4:30 3:15 - 4:45 3:15 - 4:15 Set 3 1:45 - 6:00 no tidal window no tidal window no tidal window

62

tab. 5.2-5 Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times and values of ksimu (set 1)

ksimu = 1 ksimu = 50 ksimu = 100 ksimu = 1000 tidal window : 0:45 - 8:15 tidal window 1: 1:15 - 8:00 tidal window 1: 1:15 - 8:15 tidal window 1: 1:30 - 8:00 ksi ksi ksi ksi ksi<1.686e-04 ksi<1.686e-04 ksi<1.686e-04 ksi<1.686e-04 KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m 0.00000624323591 true 0.04328122528001 false 0.01822134808894 false 0.05707608869780 false 0.00000128071752 true 0.00420680482770 false 0.02332598585342 false 0.01977108948036 false 0.00000000024992 true 0.00388342376982 false 0.00057006758702 false 0.00415060695310 false 0.00000000000024 true 0.00009276550364 true 0.00009321841403 true 0.00098453897810 false 0.00000000005042 true 0.00003636278688 true 0.00018480619261 false 0.00018330230817 false 0.00000000000754 true 0.00000673828518 true 0.00000130079981 true 0.00001729960594 true 0.00000000000004 true 0.00000998916860 true 0.00000009491401 true 0.00000326346050 true 0.00000004886653 true 0.00000007197234 true 0.00000079144008 true 0.00000126129319 true 0.00000000000001 true 0.00000040453324 true 0.00000000761985 true 0.00000014481177 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000002752230 true 0.00000003579483 true 0.00000004130447 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000102143 true 0.00000000625776 true 0.00000002455593 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000044543 true 0.00000000000207 true 0.00000000504302 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000003294 true 0.00000000007745 true 0.00000001061594 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000576 true 0.00000000000052 true 0.00000000000278 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000041 true 0.00000000000001 true 0.00000000000308 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000004 true 0.00000000000014 true 0.00000000000816 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000033 true 0.00000000000002 true 0.00000000015581 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000080 true 0.00000000000596 true 0.00000000200653 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000002272 true 0.00000000003809 true 0.00000000008061 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000020 true 0.00000000000873 true 0.00000000076286 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000063 true 0.00000000003272 true 0.00000001349292 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000195 true 0.00000000059756 true 0.00000004753420 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000319208 true 0.00000000007518 true 0.00000001462879 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000005416719 true 0.00000000172766 true 0.00000002713203 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000005680898 true 0.00000006098938 true 0.00000281038149 true 0.00000000027643 true 0.00000050333943 true 0.00000121840309 true 0.00000361650213 true 0.00000000000063 true 0.00000874227814 true 0.00000114645486 true 0.00002337887263 true 0.00000000002433 true 0.00005048647520 true 0.00000301137034 true 0.00001355401142 true 0.00000000040522 true 0.00001305807123 true 0.00001013444174 true 0.00021721543124 false 0.00000000000165 true 0.00024203185677 flase 0.00053371506025 false 0.00100268206977 false 0.00004526469937 true 0.00108699926615 flase 0.00097367651201 false 0.00306856171056 false KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m 0.00000562513050 true 0.00557715690007 flase 0.00636833324029 false 0.01696443883310 false TIDAL WINDOW TIDAL WINDOW TIDAL WINDOW

time 0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00 2:15 2:30 2:45 3:00 3:15 3:30 3:45 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 9:15 9:30 9:45 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 12:00 12:15

63

TIDAL WINDOW

tab. 5.2-6 Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times and values of ksimu (set 2)

ksimu = 1 ksimu = 50 ksimu = 100 ksimu = 1000 tidal window 1: 1:15 - 6:30 tidal window 1: 4:00 - 4:30 tidal window 1: 3:15 - 4:45 tidal window 1: 3:15 - 4:15 ksi ksi ksi ksi ksi<1.686e-04 ksi<1.686e-04 ksi<1.686e-04 ksi<1.686e-04 KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m 0.01945689833760 false 1.48637220135825 false 0.95437483981030 false 0.81698488092413 false 0.02003946394143 false 0.83809983333149 false 0.46680982728262 false 0.43433470064568 false 0.00457138838034 false 0.33091232331331 false 0.22800212098368 false 0.20035280739158 false 0.00021122289500 false 0.17189456643775 false 0.07590819466052 false 0.09978159924700 false 0.00024404358419 false 0.05929093374975 false 0.04111148677291 false 0.04525484181039 false 0.00002827580515 true 0.03458840117698 false 0.01698092858204 false 0.01690634035327 false 0.00006747303468 true 0.01853963426318 false 0.00986079560094 false 0.00753672276340 false 0.00000710056316 true 0.00415208932881 false 0.00577373741589 false 0.00478625499888 false 0.00000027549816 true 0.00285932318485 false 0.00219981299074 false 0.00204549293054 false 0.00000083111460 true 0.00196693665717 false 0.00105722403456 false 0.00114282088309 false 0.00000762431679 true 0.00078965976260 false 0.00048576669112 false 0.00056245244014 false 0.00000001154279 true 0.00014891448617 true 0.00010778855355 true 0.00024403590626 false 0.00000000620294 true 0.00035556879057 false 0.00022785911461 false 0.00022782358406 false 0.00000000014768 true 0.00021044683297 false 0.00007257365587 true 0.00014953182250 true 0.00000018264179 true 0.00006604179326 true 0.00008794905920 true 0.00009915204810 true 0.00000000255180 true 0.00023613564463 false 0.00012110515301 true 0.00010605305007 true 0.00000002893334 true 0.00018360895748 false 0.00013789391513 true 0.00025548968312 false 0.00000001357445 true 0.00129727606579 false 0.00029243682744 false 0.00032496112834 false 0.00000000411662 true 0.00038480057804 false 0.00027079742317 false 0.00054136309227 false 0.00000001719468 true 0.00089617565011 false 0.00134048289914 false 0.00120503242631 false 0.00000058634828 true 0.00134540944507 false 0.00373870580540 false 0.00208817031695 false 0.00003001397554 true 0.00773810113571 false 0.00417403854462 false 0.00537848097400 false 0.00000000136240 true 0.02991082152547 false 0.03019347187426 false 0.01694097972063 false 0.00130190590262 false 0.05139418216507 false 0.05376405036661 false 0.02976970076310 false 0.00118827224792 false 0.20211303750250 false 0.11527996761627 false 0.08342539283189 false KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m TIDAL WINDOW TW TW

time 0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00 2:15 2:30 2:45 3:00 3:15 3:30 3:45 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 9:15 9:30 9:45 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 12:00

64

TW

tab. 5.2-7 Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times and values of ksimu (set 3)

ksimu = 1 ksimu = 50 tidal window 1: 1:45 - 6:00 tidal window 1: ksi ksi ksi<1.686e-04 KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m 0.78115996183728 false 1.99347723159853 0.18152776371007 false 1.05622800441405 0.08279939664725 false 0.56992849025418 0.01790490265449 false 0.25648120476896 0.00392228997625 false 0.11559373337596 0.00040433132185 false 0.05100048749559 0.00020535745113 false 0.03569877287211 0.00004065885081 true 0.01218062360102 0.00002659306993 true 0.01367297943128 0.00003138218682 true 0.00435460548720 0.00000232786747 true 0.00345180944039 0.00000004546544 true 0.00166117971469 0.00000039150049 true 0.00104843071655 0.00000236823736 true 0.00059120795485 0.00000000850554 true 0.00064141300901 0.00000010117996 true 0.00050083283937 0.00000027453919 true 0.00045779348447 0.00000001059504 true 0.00115584950291 0.00001596682118 true 0.00436611481633 0.00000214008955 true 0.00549889467203 0.00019223874270 false 0.00504130330544 0.00027878628035 false 0.02083219790176 0.00027420161512 false 0.05867579181952 0.00276323165316 false 0.10354423416324 0.00718993741549 false 0.27093969499208 KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m TIDAL WINDOW ksimu = 100 tidal window 1: ksi ksi<1.686e-04 KC < 1m KC < 1m false 1.71694342084785 false 0.97285677584754 false 0.42870055660112 false 0.19856548451485 false 0.10411580487802 false 0.04362867979684 false 0.01974205767681 false 0.01038902784145 false 0.00469724775675 false 0.00379715222796 false 0.00172943551440 false 0.00079797510323 false 0.00065396045099 false 0.00040056394669 false 0.00026994767157 false 0.00029186187574 false 0.00148262412103 false 0.00120315207220 false 0.00155618747358 false 0.00291574064357 false 0.00586113777578 false 0.02539421978917 false 0.02822555425832 false 0.08156006854764 false 0.21261814115996 KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m ksimu = 1000 tidal window 1: ksi ksi<1.686e-04 KC < 1m KC < 1m false 1.28675809967124 false 0.77405726515730 false 0.43607770819052 false 0.22155206697971 false 0.10149956797284 false 0.05203037062063 false 0.03268584191754 false 0.01840226095811 false 0.01104955985053 false 0.00619117974123 false 0.00418922504319 false 0.00263084409497 false 0.00136870529154 false 0.00144373117858 false 0.00098977821660 false 0.00115132078253 false 0.00147236657169 false 0.00171148886765 false 0.00327107965028 false 0.00455687374989 false 0.01147407467816 false 0.02277303028641 false 0.03779302682023 false 0.08268969681061 false 0.18431438408491 KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m

time 0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00 2:15 2:30 2:45 3:00 3:15 3:30 3:45 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 9:15 9:30 9:45 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 12:00

ksi<1.686e-04

false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false

To investigate the influence of Npksi on the length of a tidal window 4 runs are done. The input consists of set 1 and the following combinations of ksimu and Npksi : ksimu, Npksi = [100, 1000; 1000, 100; 1000, 1000; 1000, 10000] The results are presented in table 5.2-8 a graphical representation of a part of the table is given in figure 5.2-5.

65

tab. 5.2-8 Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times, values of Npksi and values of ksimu (set 1)

ksimu = 100 ksimu = 1000 ksimu = 1000 ksimu = 1000 Npksi = 1000 Npksi = 100 Npksi = 1000 Npksi = 10000 tidal window 1: 1:30 - 8:00 tidal window 1: 1:30 - 8:00 tidal window 1: 1:30 - 8:15 tidal window 1: 1:30 - 8:15 ksi ksi ksi ksi ksi<1.686e-04 ksi<1.686e-04 ksi<1.686e-04 ksi<1.686e-04 KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m 0.05483500157204 false 0.07095708666818 false 0.07760430558033 false 0.07037673659620 false 0.02134817323932 false 0.02498553233327 false 0.02270464253422 false 0.02227692241517 false 0.00638867139139 false 0.00543120820186 false 0.00651649814813 false 0.00556159543585 false 0.00137185889062 false 0.00173193748054 false 0.00144806430935 false 0.00114555780576 false 0.00012219106220 true 0.00020049507258 false 0.00029187274049 false 0.00016014190111 true 0.00001873367601 true 0.00002952179690 true 0.00003117078197 true 0.00002220779516 true 0.00000376885262 true 0.00000279347660 true 0.00000632513671 true 0.00000323315367 true 0.00000033776967 true 0.00000098630849 true 0.00000115484392 true 0.00000104220259 true 0.00000018268527 true 0.00000024244742 true 0.00000030224214 true 0.00000025808391 true 0.00000004497405 true 0.00000006915143 true 0.00000021511026 true 0.00000009604204 true 0.00000000611688 true 0.00000002960016 true 0.00000001389857 true 0.00000001990398 true 0.00000000035532 true 0.00000000380552 true 0.00000000388926 true 0.00000000684528 true 0.00000000004135 true 0.00000001314757 true 0.00000000057206 true 0.00000000086575 true 0.00000000004717 true 0.00000000009452 true 0.00000000016863 true 0.00000000010287 true 0.00000000002484 true 0.00000000002463 true 0.00000000009306 true 0.00000000007375 true 0.00000000000667 true 0.00000000004080 true 0.00000000032393 true 0.00000000005675 true 0.00000000000914 true 0.00000000008391 true 0.00000000030270 true 0.00000000015849 true 0.00000000106840 true 0.00000000037784 true 0.00000000035706 true 0.00000000027437 true 0.00000000039607 true 0.00000000400888 true 0.00000000061922 true 0.00000000129581 true 0.00000000118652 true 0.00000000064904 true 0.00000000153969 true 0.00000000200795 true 0.00000000066202 true 0.00000000068952 true 0.00000000982637 true 0.00000000434843 true 0.00000001939611 true 0.00000000524023 true 0.00000002380692 true 0.00000002413211 true 0.00000000465534 true 0.00000014226829 true 0.00000003667661 true 0.00000004314691 true 0.00000016762132 true 0.00000029137654 true 0.00000031978901 true 0.00000018076396 true 0.00000004452239 true 0.00000110374572 true 0.00000058630053 true 0.00000058206992 true 0.00000088460276 true 0.00000341860037 true 0.00000213886831 true 0.00000346119448 true 0.00000538265956 true 0.00006240657122 true 0.00000827681669 true 0.00000892178564 true 0.00002139247808 true 0.00003912581473 true 0.00003086382361 true 0.00003876540935 true 0.00008256385531 true 0.00037134528773 false 0.00015498684228 true 0.00012046242015 true 0.00028886145422 false 0.00072840553810 false 0.00054261411636 false 0.00047919259450 false 0.00108611927963 false 0.00222171829330 false 0.00160719066560 false 0.00154571248033 false KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m TIDAL WINDOW TIDAL WINDOW TIDAL WINDOW

time 0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00 2:15 2:30 2:45 3:00 3:15 3:30 3:45 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30

1.0E+00 1.0E-01

1.5

Water level Euro Platform Water level Maas Centre Water level port entrance

Waterlevel [m]

0.5

-0.5

-1

10

12

14

ksimu = 100 Npksi = 1000 1.0E-10 1.0E-11 1.0E-12 0:45 1:15 1:45 2:15 2:45 3:15 3:45 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15 6:45 7:15 7:45 8:15 ksimu = 1000 Npksi = 100 ksimu = 1000 Npksi = 1000 ksimu = 1000 Npksi = 10000 long-term criterion

fig. 5.2-5 Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times, values of Npksi and values of ksimu (set 1) (inset: Water level for various channel positions and various starting times) 66

TIDAL WINDOW

Conclusions more starting moments - Tables 5.2-5, 5.2-6 and 5.2-7 show that the tidal window length does not vary much for a ksimu of 50 to 1000. - Small values of the expected number of bottom touches are calculated less accurately than larger values (see tables 5.2-5, 5.2-6, 5.2-7 and 5.2-8). This means that more draws for a stricter long-term criterion are needed. - Table 5.2-8 and figure 5.2-5 show that with both a ksimu and Npksi of 1,000, the tidal window is calculated accurately enough. With these values, a tidal window of 10 starting moments is calculated with 10 million draws. For the calculation of the inaccessibility percentage, a ksimu of 100 and a Npksi of 1,000 should be enough.

5.2.3 NUMBER OF DRAWS: PREDICTED CONDITIONS Alternative 2 calculates the inaccessibility percentage by drawing lsimu times a set of conditions from their distribution functions. To investigate the influence of lsimu on the inaccessibility percentage, again a number of runs are made. For two sets of input values the moving mean for lsimu up to 10,000 is calculated. Table 5.2-9 shows the sets of input values. The results of the runs with the two sets are given in figures 5.2-6 and 5.2-7.

tab. 5.2-9 Sets of input values for the investigation of lsimu

0.2 0.18 0.16

Set 1 50 1000

Set 2 Unit Description number of transit simulations 100 [-] number of positions 1000 [-]

Inaccessibility ratio

1 2 3 4

10

10

10

10

fig. 5.2-6 Moving mean of the inaccessibility percentage for lsimu (set 1)

0.2 0.18 0.16

Inaccessibility ratio

10

10

10

10

fig. 5.2-7 Moving mean of the inaccessibility percentage for lsimu (set 2) 67

Conclusions Set 1 gives an inaccessibility percentage of approximately 4.3% at lsimu = 10,000, but is not stable yet. Set 2 gives approximately 4.0% at lsimu = 5,000 and is stable.

5.3

Alternative 2 simulates ksimu times a transit for each starting moment. Therefore ksimu draws of the conditions wave height, sailing speed and meteo-effect are done and Npksi ksimu draws around the bottom profile and the significant ship motion. Instead of drawing the conditions prior to the channel transit, it is also possible to draw these during the transit. The results should be the same because of the averaging of the number of bottom touches over Npksi ksimu calculations. In the variant ksimu is one and Npksi has to be approximately 1,000 times larger. The influence of ksimu then disappears. The program structure diagram will be different from line 44 compared to alternative 2.

44 time = tb(i) i=i+1 45 position(1) = 0 46 p=2 draw Npksi positions along the channel axis 47 (uniform distribution ) 48 49 arrange the positions 50 draw a set of conditions from distributions around Pmean (normal distribution ): 51 52 H(p) = wave height 53 Hr(p) = wave direction 54 M(p) = meteo-effect 55 vs(p) = sailing speed 56 T(p) = draught 57 determine the time at this position 58 time = time + (position(p)-position(p-1)) / vs(p) 59 determine for position and time: 60 wl_a, c_a, wl_m and c_m 61 determine for position: Pmeand 62 draw d(p) (= dept) from distribution 63 around Pmeand 64 determine for position: KC and Zv 65 determine PmeanZs = mean significant 66 ship motion 67 draw Zs (= significant ship motion) from 68 distribution around PmeanZs 69 determine Tm = mean period of ship motion 70 m0 = 1/16 * Zs^2 71 KC 2 1 exp 72 labda(time) = = 2m Tm 0 73 74 p=p+1 75 repeat until p = Npksi + 1 76 ksi = area under labda(time) 77 ksi < long criterion 78 yes no 79 tb(i) = allowed tb(i) = not allowed 80 i=i+1 i=i+1 81 repeat until i = Ntbi 82 If during the tidal cycle two sequent tb(i) are allowed IPL = 0 else IPL = 1 83 IPsum = IPsum + IPL 84 L=L+1 85 repeat until L = lsimu 86 IP = IPsum / lsimu * 100%

68

5.3.1

NUMBER OF DRAWS: POSITIONS First the influence of Npksi on the expected number of bottom touches for one starting moment is checked, then the influence of Npksi on the length of a tidal window.

One starting moment For 13 values of Npksi, runs were done. This was repeated 4 times for a set of input values. At the end 13 4 = 52 runs were done. The set of input values is given in table 5.3-1 and the following values of Npksi were used: Npksi = [100; 200; 300; 400; 500; 1000; 2000; 3000; 4000; 5000; 10000; 50000; 100000]

tab. 5.3-1 Set input values for the investigation of Npksi

Description sailing speed meteo-effect Euro Platform meteo-effect Maas Centre meteo-effect harbour entrance wave height begin time draught

3 x 10

-3

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 2 10

10

10

10

Conclusions one starting moment - From Npksi 1,000, E [ ] varies with a factor 10. - It is not clear where E [ ] converges to. Therefore more draws are needed. More starting moments For 2 different values of Npksi, the lengths of the tidal windows are calculated. The set of input values is the same as above (tab. 5.3-1), but now with more starting moments tb. The results are presented in table 5.3-2 and figure 5.3-2 for the following values of Npksi: Npksi = [1000; 10000]

69

tab. 5.3-2 Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times and values of Npksi

Npksi = 1000 Npksi = 10000 tidal window 1: 1:30 - 8:00 tidal window 1: 1:30 - 8:00 ksi<1.686e-04 ksi<1.686e-04 ksi ksi KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m KC < 1m 0.08527070753681 false 0.05824198029346 false 0.01326645521343 false 0.01937027423491 false 0.00402044881231 false 0.00380233069791 false 0.00024960126524 false 0.00105068906404 false 0.00004445650537 true 0.00017044772480 false 0.00003017175421 true 0.00015102093220 true 0.00001924649325 true 0.00001428687619 true 0.00000013691248 true 0.00000329345713 true 0.00000003219093 true 0.00000059632235 true 0.00000024313121 true 0.00000015012171 true 0.00000000076651 true 0.00000000506952 true 0.00000000000037 true 0.00000000636751 true 0.00000000000035 true 0.00000000056129 true 0.00000000000008 true 0.00000000004010 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000016 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000627 true 0.00000000006629 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000001163 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000035 true 0.00000000000000 true 0.00000000000348 true 0.00000000000079 true 0.00000000032314 true 0.00000000000017 true 0.00000001400805 true 0.00000000030560 true 0.00000000233747 true 0.00000000011221 true 0.00000003378840 true 0.00000000000278 true 0.00000006185413 true 0.00000000048335 true 0.00006595679610 true 0.00000209926485 true 0.00002406535928 true 0.00005017633032 true 0.00006809231640 true 0.00053103505444 false 0.00093117923247 false 0.00172331863997 false 0.00249558822447 false 0.00303017168124 false 0.00901581503933 false KC < 1m KC < 1m TIDAL WINDOW TIDAL WINDOW

time 0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00 2:15 2:30 2:45 3:00 3:15 3:30 3:45 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30

1.0E-04 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 1.0E-07 1.0E-08 1.0E-09 1.0E-10 1.0E-11 1.0E-12 1.0E-13 1.0E-14 1.0E-15 1.0E-16 1.0E-17 0:45 1:15 1:45 2:15 2:45 3:15 3:45 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15 6:45 7:15 7:45 8:15 Npksi = 1000 Npksi = 10000 ksimu = 1000 Npksi = 10000 long-term criterion

fig. 5.3-2 Expected number of bottom touches of a transit for various starting times and values of Npks (For comparison, the line ksimu 1000 and Npksi 10000 from subparagraph 5.2.2 is added.) 70

Conclusions more starting moments The expected number of bottom touches fluctuates a lot for both values of Npksi, but converges to the line that was found with alternative 2.

5.3.2 NUMBER OF DRAWS: PREDICTED CONDITIONS With a Npksi of 1,000, the moving mean of the inaccessibility percentage for lsimu up to 10,000 is calculated. The results are presented in figure 5.3-3.

0.2 0.18 0.16

Inaccessibility ratio

1 2 3 4

10

10

10

10

Conclusions - The variant of alternative 2 with Npksi = 1,000 gives an inaccessibility percentage of 4.3% at lsimu = 10,000, but is still unstable. - More simulations have to be done, to find the number of draws (lsimu and Npksi) at which the inaccessibility percentage and the length of the tidal windows are stable. - Alternative 2 and its variant give more or less the same results as expected (see appendix 5). The advantages of the variant are: there is no influence anymore of ksimu and with fewer calculations more draws from the distributions around the predictions are possible. However it is relatively easy to program alternative 2, because some conditions, like the wave height, are constant during the transit. At the moment calculates alternative 2 faster, but this will probably change when the models are written in a compiled language.

71

5.4

Both HARAP and alternative 2 calculated the inaccessibility percentage and tidal windows for a given set of input variables. The calculated inaccessibility percentage is given in subparagraph 5.4.1 and some examples of tidal windows are given in paragraph 5.4.2.

5.4.1

CALCULATED INACCESSIBILITY PERCENTAGES HARAP calculated an inaccessibility percentage of 4.28% and alternative 2 calculated 3.94%. The difference is acceptable. The lower percentage of alternative 2 can partly be explained by the different input and chosen class boundaries in HARAP. The chosen class boundaries are unfavourably wide for the Berge Stahl in the critical situations and uselessly narrow for situations without the possibility of a tidal window.

The run with HARAP took 5 minutes and alternative 2 needed 80 hours. For the run of alternative 2, extension module 1: Runtime reduction was used, which made the program a factor 8 faster. Both models were run on the same computer. Until 1985 Rotterdam used an under keel clearance (UKC) model to calculate its entrance regime. For the advantages and disadvantages of such a model, one is referred to subparagraph 2.3.1. Rotterdam used an under keel clearance percentage of 20%. Running step 1 and 2, with a manoeuvrability criterion of 22.63 0.2 = 4.5 m, an inaccessibility percentage of 100% is found for the Berge Stahl.

5.4.2 CALCULATED TIDAL WINDOW A tidal window issue with HARAP is based on tables. These tables are made in module 4: window after the calculation of the inaccessibility percentage. Alternative 2 calculates the tidal windows by running steps 2 and 3 for a set of predictions. With HARAP a tidal window is determined instantly and it takes approximately an hour with alternative 2.

For astro class 2, meteo class 2 and wave classes 1 to 5 the tidal windows for both HARAP and alternative 2 are given in table 5.4-1.

tab. 5.4-1 Tidal windows for astro class 2, meteo class 2 and wave classes 1 to 5 (starting times with respect to high water at port entrance)

wave class 1 2 3 4 5

HARAP open close -4:45 -0:45 -4:30 -0:45 -4:15 -0:45 -3:15 -0:45 no tidal window

alternative 2 open close -6:45 -0:30 -6:15 -0:30 -5:30 -1:00 -3:15 -2:00 no tidal window

Alternative 2 gives wider tidal windows for wave classes 1 to 3 and a smaller tidal window at the highest wave class, compared to HARAP. This is partly due to the optimisation algorithm of HARAP. HARAP distributes the number of bottom touches over the wave height, so the length will be more constant. By using extension module 2: Optimisation for the conditions the same is possible with alternative 2.

72

For each starting moment, it is possible to present the variation of every variable along the transit. Figure 5.4-1 gives some examples of the possibilities for starting moment 2:45 and wave class 4.

Water level

1.3 1 1.2

1 0.46 0.44

Squat

1.1

0.42

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.9

Squat [m]

0.38

0.8

0.36

0.7

0.34

0.6

0.32

0.5

0.3

0.4

10

20

30

40

50

60

-0.5

10

20

30

40

50

-0.5 60

10

20

30

40

50

60

Position [km]

Position [km]

Position [km]

Keel clearance

3.2 1.7

-24

120

2.8

depth [m]

1.4

-25

100

2.7

1.3

2.6

2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

10

20

30

40

50

60

-26

10

20

30

40

50

80 60

Position [km]

Position [km]

Position [km]

fig. 5.4-1 Presentation examples of variable variation along the channel axis (starting moment 2:45, wave class 4)

5.5

CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS

The more accurate the inaccessibility percentage and the tidal window issue have to be, the more draws are needed and the longer the calculation time will be. A stricter long-term criterion leads to more draws, if a constant accuracy is required. The difference between the calculated inaccessibility percentage with HARAP and alternative 2 is acceptably small. The calculation time of HARAP is about 5 minutes and alternative 2 needs 80 hours. The optimisation algorithm in HARAP partly causes the difference between the calculated tidal window lengths. Alternative 2 needs approximately an hour to determine a tidal window. For a tidal window issue there are a lot of possibilities to present different variables in graphs. Although not proved, it is very likely that the variant on alternative 2 will converge to a constant value. It is wise to use the variant instead of alternative 2 if it is possible to rewrite the variant in a faster algorithm. The dependency of the inaccessibility percentage accuracy on two values (Npksi and lsimu) instead of three (Npksi, ksimu and lsimu) is the biggest advantage of the variant compared to alternative 2.

73

-. Direction [degree]

2.9

74

This last chapter summarizes the conclusions, made in the previous chapters, and gives recommendations for developing the program and further research to the topic.

6.1

CONCLUSIONS

In paragraph 3.2 the following project objective is formulated: Design a better computer model than HARAP that calculates the inaccessibility percentage and an entrance regime for a tidal bound ship with a given draught, using continuous input variables. More specific, the program has to calculate with: - continuous probability density functions - continuous channel - actual predicted conditions

Project conclusion: The objective is reached because: - The designed computer model calculates with a continuous channel, continuous probability density functions and real tidal data for the determination of the inaccessibility percentage. - For the entrance regime the model uses actual predicted conditions. - With a case study it is proved that the used calculation method, in spite of the longer calculation time, is suitable for the practice.

More detailed conclusions will be given in the following subparagraphs. Subparagraph 6.1.1 gives the selection background of the alternatives. Conclusions from the case study are summed up in subparagraph 6.1.2.

6.1.1 CONCLUSIONS EVALUATION ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives and three extension modules are formulated in chapter 4 to achieve the objective: Alternative 1: Calculation with predefined classes Alternative 2: Monte Carlo method Alternative 3: Numerical integration Module 1: Runtime reduction Module 2: Optimisation for the conditions Module 3: Optimisation for the ships Alternative 1 and alternative 3 use numerical integration as calculation method, like HARAP. Alternative 2 uses the Monte Carlo method.

Alternatives versus HARAP - The alternatives use continuous probability density functions, a continuous channel and real tidal data. - The alternatives describe occurring physical processes like tidal currents and wave fields better. - Alternative 2 has the fastest runtime of the alternatives, but is still 100 times slower than HARAP.

75

Selected alternative versus the other alternatives - Alternative 2 is selected, because it calculates the inaccessibility percentage about 1013 times faster than alternatives 1 and 3. If for instance alternative 2 has a runtime of 1 hour, the other two alternatives will calculate approximately 1 billion years. - Alternative 2 is easier to expand with physical modules without loosing the distinction between physical and probabilistic calculations. Advantages and disadvantages modules - The modules have the advantage that they reduce the calculation time (module 1) and lower the inaccessibility percentage (modules 2 and 3). - Modules 2 and 3 lead to a larger downtime. - When not enough experience with the model is gathered, use of the modules can lead to an inaccurate calculated inaccessibility percentage, or worse, the calculated risks could be structural lower than the real risks.

6.1.2 CONCLUSIONS CASE STUDY In chapter 5 it is investigated how long alternative 2 needs to give a stable result. Then a variant on alternative 2 is investigated in the same way. The variant draws the conditions at a different moment during the calculations compared to alternative 2. After investigation of the needed number of draws, the results of runs with HARAP and alternative 2 are compared. The following is concluded: - The more accurate the inaccessibility percentage and the tidal window issue have to be, the more draws are needed and the longer the calculation time will be. - A stricter long-term criterion leads to more draws, if a constant accuracy is required. - The difference between the calculated inaccessibility percentage with HARAP and alternative 2 is acceptably small. The calculation time of HARAP (compiled computer language) is about 5 minutes and alternative 2 (interpreted computer language) needs 80 hours. - The optimisation algorithm in HARAP partly causes the small differences between the calculated tidal window lengths. - Alternative 2 needs approximately one hour to determine a tidal window. - Alternative 2 has many possibilities to present different variables in graphs at a tidal window issue. - It is very likely that the variant on alternative 2 will converge to the same constant value as alternative 2. It is wise to use the variant instead of alternative 2 if it is possible to rewrite the variant in a faster algorithm, because the variant accuracy depends on two values instead of three. Two values makes it easier to find the optimal number of draws.

The users of HARAP in Rotterdam are probably especially interested in the practical use of alternative 2 compared to HARAP. Assumed that the calculation time can be reduced by a factor 10 when alternative 2 is rewritten in a compiled computer language, they may question: What is the practical use of alternative 2 instead of HARAP for Rotterdam if the calculation time is one hour instead of 5 minutes, the tidal window issue takes 5 minutes instead of instantly and the results do not differ much?

76

Answer: - With alternative 2 there are no problems with existence of a temporary shallow spot in the entrance channel. In HARAP the depth of an entire segment has to be adjusted, in alternative 2 just the spot. - There are no problems anymore in choosing the meteo class or astro class for a tidal window issue. At the moment the most unfavourable class of the three stations: Euro Platform, Maas Centre and port entrance is normative Alternative 2 can use the actual predicted values of the separated stations. - With alternative the accuracy of the calculated risks no longer depends on a class schematization. - HARAP has a maximum wave class. For predicted waves, larger than the highest wave class (in Rotterdam 2.2 m), no tidal windows are issued. Alternative 2 has no restriction. - Alternative 2 gives the users, like the pilots, more confidence when they know that the tidal window issue is based on actual tidal data. - Compared to HARAP alternative 2 has more possibilities to extend the model with physical modules. - It is not investigated what will happen with the inaccessibility percentage when smooth continuous probability density functions will be used, but the results will be more accurate.

6.2

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are some faults in both HARAP and alternative 2 that can easily be corrected in alternative 2, but are left for the moment for two reasons: to make a good comparison possible between the two models and the availability of other statistical data in a short period of time. The faults can be found in subparagraph 6.2.1. Recommendations for possible improvements of alternative 2 are described in subparagraph 6.2.2.

6.2.1

INVESTIGATION OF MODEL FAULTS - It is assumed that the real significant vertical ship motion is normally distributed around the regression line (see subparagraph 2.3.3). Therefore it is possible (just like in HARAP) that for small waves a Z s -value is drawn smaller than zero metre. This is of course very wrong from a physical point of view. A different type of distribution function (for instance a Rayleighdistribution), especially for the smaller wave heights, is therefore recommended. The results for the case study are minimally influenced by this fault, because the inaccessibility percentage depends mainly on the larger waves. Besides that, the fault is on the safe side: by squaring the negative Z s -value to determine the 0th spectral moment of ship motions m0 , a higher probability of a bottom touch during a transit is calculated. - In the case study a correlation coefficient of 1 for the meteo-effect is assumed between the three stations: Euro Platform, Maas Centre and the harbour entrance. Both HARAP and alternative 2 calculate with coupled values for the meteo-effect. If for instance the meteo-effect for the Euro Platform is predicted, the other two values are also known. It is recommended to investigate the dependency between the stations. Then a tidal window issue can be based on uncoupled values for the three stations. - It is recommended to investigate the starting moment distribution over a tidal window. In the case study the starting moments of a channel transit are assumed to be uniform distributed. For very long and short tidal windows this is a rather good assumption, but on average ship

77

handlers will start their transit more at the opening than just before the closing of a tidal window. The position variation of the stroke-middle of an astro-class is integrated in the meteo-effect (see subparagraph 2.5.3). Due to the absence of astro-classes this position variation is not relevant anymore in alternative 2. For the long-term criterion of the port of Rotterdam it is recommended to use 1.686 10 5 instead of 1.686 10 4 and an allowed bottom penetration of 0.25 m instead of none. From a probabilistic point of view this is a better description of the findings of TNO-IWECO (see subparagraph 5.1.6). A variable allowed bottom penetration dependent on the ship type is even better. For the squat calculation in step 3 of alternative 2 and in module KSI of HARAP, the relation between the draught of the ship and its water displacement has to be implemented. The influence is negligible, but better from a physical point of view. The dependency between the following conditions for the port of Rotterdam have to be investigated: - meteorological circumstances and wave climate - tidal current, river discharge and meteorological circumstances - currents and wave climate - wave height and wave direction (therefore wave direction data has to be gathered) The dependency will lower the calculated inaccessibility percentage. It is recommended to use the mean position of the bottom over the width of the channel instead of the nautical granted depth. For alternative 2 it is recommended to use smooth continuous probability density functions as input instead of a translation of the discrete HARAP functions. In HARAP it is possible to vary some statistics along the channel, like the sailing speed and wave height. Alternative 2 can easily be adjusted to take this variation also into account, but first the dependency between the values along the channel axis has to be determined.

6.2.2

INVESTIGATION OF MODEL IMPROVEMENTS - Instead of using a characteristic wave height for the low frequent wave energy H E10 and the significant vertical ship motion Z s it is better to use the real spectra of the waves and ship motions. With the wave spectrum and the response amplitude operator function of SEAWAY the ship motion spectrum can be determined. By taking the 0th and 2nd spectral moment of this spectrum the following equation to determine the frequency of bottom touches can be used:

KC 2 m2 exp 2m m0 0

(6.2-1)

Finding the statistical relation between the predicted wave spectrum and the wave spectrum that the ship will encounter during the transit is the biggest obstacle of this method. It is also rather difficult to determine the distribution of the wave spectra in time for the calculation of the inaccessibility percentage. But it is recommended to research the possibilities because of the better ship motions description. A relatively easy improvement, to prevent a negative Z s and to couple the ship spectrum and its mean ship motion period Tm, is a linear relation between both m0 - H E10 and m2 - H E10 , similar to the Z s - H E10 relation. Also the standard deviation of both m0 and m2 and their

78

correlation have to be determined. By drawing m0 and m2 for a given H E10 from their joint probability density function, labda can be determined with equation (6.2-1). It is recommended to investigate the implementation possibilities of modules that can describe the conditions like water level, currents and waves more accurate. These conditions are now determined by linear interpolation between measuring stations. x 10 The Maas channel is the most critical part 3.5 of the channel transit. Therefore it is 3 2.5 recommended to draw relatively more 2 positions in this channel compared to the 1.5 Euro channel. An example of the calculated 1 mean frequencies of bottom touches 0.5 along the channel axis is given in figure 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6.2-1. The relatively small depth in the Position [m] x 10 Maas channel is the main reason for the fig. 6.2-1 for different positions along the relatively large s. channel axis The third dimension, width of the channel, can be integrated into the calculations, by drawing positions of the ship along the width of the channel. By doing this, the probability that a ship sails into the channel bank can also be calculated. To determine the distribution of the ship positions over the width of the channel, human influences are important. Tidal window issues for container ships should take the wind drift into account. In the case study the transit ended at the port entrance. HARAP normally takes also the area inside the port into account. For this area it is recommended to extend the model with a module that calculates the seiches. When a faster algorithm for the variant on alternative 2 is possible, it is recommended to use the variant instead of alternative 2. Before implementation it has to be checked when the results go to a constant value. It is recommended to use alternative 2 or the variant on alternative 2 instead of HARAP. For the implementation the following should be done: - program the model in a compiled computer language - test it with more ships - work out at least the recommendations of subparagraph 6.2.1 - run alternative 2 at the background for a while to gather confidence Program and test the modules. Use the modules only when enough experience is gained.

-3

Labda [s-1]

79

80

LITERATURE

[1] Blaauw H.G., T. Schilperoort en J. Strating, Optimalization of depths of channels. Delft: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, 1982. CUR190, Probability in Civil Engineering, Part 1: The theory of probabilistic design. Gouda: Stichting CUR, 1997. Doorn, J.T.M. van, Probabilistische berekeningen voor de Selected Route. Delft: Waterloopkundig laboratorium, 1990. Doorn, J.T.M. van, Harap, specificatie rapport. Delft: Waterloopkundig laboratorium, 1992.

[2]

[3]

Harap, Functioneel Ontwerp. Rotterdam: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1994a. Harap, Ontwerphandleiding. Rotterdam: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1994b. Harap, Gebruikershandleiding. Rotterdam: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1994c.

Hoek, A. van der, Pilot Berge Stahl Fase 1. Rotterdam: Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, 1999. Holthuijsen, L.H., Wind waves, collegedictaat ct 5316. Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft, 2005.

Informatie voor de vaart met geulgebonden schepen naar de haven van Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Rijkswaterstaat, e.a., 1995. Kerncijfers Goederenvervoer. Internetsite www.rws-avv.nl: Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, 2004.

PIANC-IAPH Working Group II-30 in cooperation with IMPA and IALA, Approach Channels, A guide for Design. Brussels: PIANC, 1997.

[11]

[12]

[13]

Principles of Naval Architecture. United States of America: The Society of Navel Architects and Marine Engineers, 1974.

Rice, S.O., Mathematical analysis of random noise. In: N. Wax, e.a., Selected Papers on Noise and Stochastic Processes. New York: Dover Pub. Inc., 1954, p.184-195. Savenije, A.C., Probabilistic admittance policy deep draught vessels. PIANC bulletin, 91 (1996), p.25-36. Savenije, A.C., Safety Criteria for Approach Channels. Rotterdam: AVV Transport Research Centre, 1998. Vrijling, J.K., and P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder, Probabilistic design in hydraulic engineering, college dictaat ct5310. Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft, 2002.

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

81

[18] [19]

Vrijling, J.K., Audit HARAP. Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft, 2004. Wijnstra, R., Meerjarig veiligheidscriterium Euro-maas geul, Notitie. Rotterdam: Rijkswaterstaat, 1993. Wust, J.C., Invoer randvoorwaarden, Evaluatie 74-voets geul. Rijswijk: 1994. Wust, J.C., Doorvaart naar volgend getij, Notitie. Rijswijk: 1995. Websites: http://mathworld.wolfram.com http://www.shipmotions.nl

[20] [21]

[22] [23]

82

Design of a probabilistic computer model for determination of channel transit risks to a seaport.

APPENDICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

a1 Wiskundige achtegrond a1.1 Poissonverdeling a1.2 Kielspeling a1.3 Verticale scheepsbewegingen

1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.1.6 1.1.7 1.1.8 1.1.9 1.1.10 Golfspectrum Random-fase/amplitude model Variantie-dichtheidspectrum Momenten van het golfspectrum Waterstanduitwijking op een willekeurig tijdstip Verwachte aantal golven per seconde Verwachte aantal golven per seconde groter dan bepaald niveau Golftoppen Golfhoogte Het verticale scheepsbewegingsspectrum

a1

a1 a2 a3 a3 a4 a5 a6 a6 a6 a8 a8 a9 a10

a2

Matlab program alternative 2 a2.1 Remarks about the program a2.2 Programming language alternative 2 a2.3 Programming language variant of alternative 2 Examples random number generators a3.1 Weibull distribution a3.2 Normal distribution Meandering due external forces Explanation of the case study conclusions a5.1 Estimation of the expected ksi for small Npksi a5.2 Example to illustrate the conclusions Type inpute data in the case study

a11

a11 a14 a32

a3

a37

a37 a37

a4 a5

a41 a43

a43 a45

a6

a47

aI

aII

LIST OF FIGURES

fig. 1.1-1 fig. 1.3-1 fig. 1.3-2 fig. 1.3-3 fig. 1.3-4 fig. 1.3-5 fig. 1.3-6 fig. 1.3-7 fig. 1.3-8 fig. 1.3-9 fig. 2.1-1 fig. 4.1-1 fig. 4.1-2 fig. 5.1-1 fig. 5.2-1 Tijdintervallen met random bodemberoeringen Golfrecord model Observatie van de oppervlakte-uitwijking in n golfrecord en het bijbehorende amplitude en fase spectrum Random-fase/amplitude model Transformatie naar de continue verdeling Cosinuskwadraat Verschil tussen de harmonische en de Stokes-type golf Opwaartse kruisingen door een bepaald niveau Verschil breed en smal spectrum Significante golfhoogte Two examples of the determination of calong Real sailing course Difference in length between intended and real course Fluctuation of ksi Results example a1 a3 a4 a4 a5 a5 a6 a8 a8 a9 a13 a41 a42 a44 a45

LIST OF TABLES

tab. 2.1-1 tab. 4.1-1 Used Matlab functions Maximum angle between intended and real course a11 a41

aIII

a1

WISKUNDIGE ACHTEGROND

Deze bijlage geeft de wiskundige achtergrond van HARAP en de alternatieven. Daarbij staat de volgende stelling centraal: De kans dat een schip met inkomende golven de geulbodem raakt, is gelijk aan de kans dat de verticaal neergaande beweging, van het meest kritieke punt van het schip, de kielspeling overschrijdt. Paragraaf a1.1 beschrijft hoe de kans op een bodemberoering tijdens een vaart kan worden bepaald, gegeven de statistische gegevens van de verticale scheepsbewegingen en de kielspeling. Op welke wijze de kielspeling en de verticale scheepsbewegingen berekend kunnen worden, staat omschreven in respectievelijk paragraaf a1.2 en a1.3.

a1.1

POISSONVERDELING

Een schip vaart van A naar B door een geul. Vooraf is niet bekend wanneer of waar een bodemberoering zal plaatsvinden, maar stel dat het volgende geldt: - De gemiddelde frequentie van bodemberoeringen is constant over de tijd. In een subinterval van de lengte u is de te verwachte aantal bodemberoeringen u . - De bodemberoeringen per vaart zijn onafhankelijke random variabelen. Dat wil zeggen dat de ene bodemberoering niets zegt over de andere. Hieruit volgt:

E[ ] = T pas

verwachte aantal bodemberoeringen tijdens een vaart totaal aantal bodemberoeringen tijdens een vaart tijdsduur van n vaart

E[ ] Tpas

Om de verdeling van te bepalen wordt eerst het interval [0, Tpas] opgedeeld in n intervallen met een lengte Tpas/n. Als n groot genoeg gekozen wordt, zal elk interval 0 of 1 bodemberoering bevatten. Als Ri het aantal bodemberoeringen in het interval I i is, dan kan Ri de waarde 0 of 1 aannemen (fig. 1.1-1). Hierdoor is de waarde Ri Bernoulli verdeeld:

P (Rj = 1) = p = E [ ] = n

T pas

n

Tpas

time = 0 R1 = 0 R2 = 1

P (Rj = 0 ) = 1 p

De kans dat op geen enkel interval een bodemberoering plaats vindt:

P( = 0 ) = (1 p )

Ri = 0

P( = 1) = p (1 p )

n 1

n

time

n! n k P( = k ) = p k (1 p ) k!(n k )!

Deze verdeling wordt ook wel de binomiaal-verdeling genoemd.

a1

Met:

p=

T pas

n

k n k

n! T T pas 1 pas n n k!(n k )! Deze vergelijking geldt alleen als n voldoende groot is om de Bernoulli verdeling te kunnen toepassen. Als n naar oneindig gaat: n! 1 n n 1 n k +1 1 1 lim = lim = n k!( n k )! n k n n n n k! k ! P( = k ) =

T pas n n(n 1) Taylor reeks lim1 T pas + (T pas )2 lim1 2 n n n n n n(n 1)(n 2) (T pas )3 + = e Tpas 3 n

T pas lim 1 n n

k

=1

De kans op k keer raken van de bodem gedurende een vaart is dan te schrijven als:

P ( = k ) =

(T )

pas

k!

T pas

Deze verdeling staat bekend als de Poisson-verdeling. De kans op n of meerdere bodemberoeringen is dan gelijk aan: T (1.1-1) P ( > 0) = 1 P( = 0) = 1 e pas De enige onbekende parameter in deze verdeling is de frequentie van bodemberoeringen . De frequentie wordt bepaald door de kielspeling KC en de verticale scheepsbeweging Z s (t ) . [1]

a1.2

KIELSPELING De kielspeling KC (Keel Clearence) is de afstand tussen de geulbodem en laagste punt van het

schip. De volgende variabelen bepalen de kielspeling: - waterstand ws - diepgang en squat van het schip Td + Z v - bodemligging d De waterstand wordt bepaald door het getij en de weersomstandigheden. Een aanhoudende wind uit een bepaalde richting kan water opstuwen of afwaaiing veroorzaken. Daarnaast kunnen hoge en lage drukgebieden de waterstand benvloeden. De diepgang van het schip is afhankelijk van de scheepsvorm, de stroomsnelheid, de vaarsnelheid, beladingsgraad en hoe goed het schip getrimd is. Samen met de scheepsvorm en de stroomsnelheid bepaalt de vaarsnelheid de squat, ofwel de inzinking van het schip. Een niet gelijklastig getrimd schip ligt schuin over de lengte richting. De maximum squat is te schatten met de methode van Tuck-Taylor:

a2

Zv =

waarbij:

2 Fnh 2 1 Fnh

[m] [m s-1] [m s-2] [m] [m3] [m] [-]

vs g h

(1.2-1)

Zv vs g h L pp c

Morfologische factoren bepalen de ligging van de geulbodem. Sedimentatie, zandgolven en de baggercyclus zijn hierin bepalend. De kielspeling KC is als volgt te bepalen:

KC = d + ws Td Z v

ref. [4]

(1.2-2)

a1.3

VERTICALE SCHEEPSBEWEGINGEN

Verticale bewegingen van schepen blijken voornamelijk afhankelijk te zijn van de laagfrequente golven (swell). Mede hierom is het bewegingsspectrum goed te beschrijven met dezelfde vergelijkingen waarmee het golfspectrum wordt beschreven. Eerst wordt in deze paragraaf het golfspectrum wiskundig behandeld en later zullen deze vergelijkingen omgeschreven worden naar de vergelijkingen voor het bewegingsspectrum van schepen.

1.1.1

GOLFSPECTRUM Golven op zee veroorzaken een onregelmatig bewegende wateroppervlak. De bewegingen van dit oppervlak worden meestal gemeten in een vast punt, gedurende een tijdsinterval, en vastgelegd in een record. Het record kan wiskundig beschreven worden door een groot aantal sinusgolven met verschillende amplitude, frequentie en fase te sommeren, Fourier series (fig 1.3-1).

(t ) = ai cos( 2f i t + i )

i =1

1 4

1 2 1 0 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4

(t ) i

n ai fi

Met deze vergelijking kan n record wiskundig beschreven worden. Echter door vele invloedsfactoren zijn de records nooit aan elkaar gelijk. Om tot een beschrijving te komen van alle mogelijke observaties (records), die kunnen voorkomen onder bepaalde omstandigheden, wordt hieronder het zeeoppervlak beschreven als een stationair stochastisch proces. Stochastisch omdat de variabelen willekeurig (random) zijn en stationair omdat statistische eigenschappen van de variabelen, bepaald door middeling over alle records, niet variren in de tijd. ref. [9]

a3

1.1.2

RANDOM-FASE/AMPLITUDE MODEL Om statistische gegevens te verkrijgen uit de records worden de frequenties opgedeeld in intervallen f = 1 / D , met D de tijdsduur van de records. Per interval en per record wordt de amplitude en fase bepaald (fig. 1.3-2).

amplitude spectrum fase spectrum

(t )

t

ai

i

fi

f = 1/ D

fi

f = 1/ D

fig. 1.3-2 Observatie van de oppervlakte-uitwijking in n golfrecord en het bijbehorende amplitude en fase spectrum

Uit een groot aantal records zijn vervolgens per frequentie de gemiddelde waarden van de amplitude en fase te berekenen. Voor de meeste golfrecords blijkt dat de fase elke waarde tussen de 0 en 360 kan aannemen zonder een voorkeur voor een bepaalde waarde. De gemiddelde amplitude is te bepalen met:

ai =

1 m ai m j =1

(1.3-2)

De eigenschappen van de fase en amplitude liggen vast in kansdichtheidsverdelingen. De fase is uniform verdeeld en de amplitude heeft een Rayleigh-verdeling. In het random-fase/amplitude model hoort zo bij elke discrete frequentie f i = i / D n uniforme verdeling voor de fase en n Rayleigh-verdeling voor de amplitude, met een verwachtingswaarde als eigenschap. Voor een realisatie van (t ) wordt een waarde voor de amplitude ai en fase i getrokken uit hun kans-dichtheidsverdelingen voor elke frequentie apart en onafhankelijk (fig. 1.33). ref. [9]

f1

p ( 1 )

Uniform

1 / 2 0

f2

p ( 2 )

Uniform

1 / 2

p ( a1 )

p (a2 )

et cetera

Rayleigh

Rayleigh

1 = E [a1 ]

E [a1 ]

a1

E [ai ]

E [a 2 ]

2 = E [a 2 ]

a2

E [a i ]

amplitude spectrum

f1 f 2

fi

a4

1.1.3

VARIANTIE-DICHTHEIDSPECTRUM Het amplitude spectrum E [ai ] als functie van de frequentie f i geeft genoeg informatie om de wateroppervlakte-uitwijkingen te beschrijven. Er blijken echter voordelen te zijn om niet E [ai ] , maar de variantie E 1 2 ai2 1 als functie van de frequentie f i te nemen. Twee voordelen zijn: - de variantie is statistisch gezien relevanter dan de amplitude: Bijvoorbeeld de som van varianties van de golfcomponenten is gelijk aan de variantie van de som van de golfcomponenten. Dit geldt niet voor de amplitudes. - de energie van golven is proportioneel aan de variantie

E [ai ]

Amplitude spectrum

Om de discrete waarde van de frequentie f i om te zetten naar een continue verdeling wordt de variantie verdeeld over de frequentie-intervallen en de breedte van de intervallen wordt oneindig klein gemaakt (fig. 1.3-4):

S ( f ) = lim

ai2

f i 0

fi

De functie spectrum.

1 E f i

ai2

(1.3-3)

Variantie-spectrum

1 E f i

2 i

fi

Variantie-dichtheidsspectrum (discontinu)

De variatie van de oppervlakte-uitwijking (t ) blijkt gelijk te zijn aan het gemiddelde van het kwadraat van de oppervlakte uitwijking 2 . Dit wordt hieronder afgeleid. Kwadrateer de oppervlakte-uitwijking per discrete frequentie:

middel over de tijd en gebruik de regel2 E [aX ] = a E[ X ] waarin a een constante is (fig. 1.3-5): deze

S( f )

fi

Variantie-dichtheidsspectrum (continu)

i2 = E [ i2 ] =

[ ]

f

fig. 1.3-4 Transformatie naar de continue verdeling

1 E a cos 2 ( 2f i t + i )dt = E T 0

2 i

1,5 1 0,5 0 -0,5

[ ]

a i2

]

x

cos 2 ( x )

Sommeer de varianties:

n i =1

2 = E [ 2 ] = E [ i2 ] = E [1 2 ai2 ] =

n n i =1 i =1

Als f i 0 dan:

2 f i 0

1 E f i

2 2 ai f

-1 -1,5

cos( x )

1 E [ ] = lim E[ f

n i =1 i

1

2 i

]f

S ( f )df

0

E[a X ] = a X f ( X ) dx = a X f ( X ) dx =a E[ X ]

a5

1.1.4

MOMENTEN VAN HET GOLFSPECTRUM De hierboven berekende variantie is het 0e-moment van het variantie-dichtheidspectrum. Daarnaast zijn er nog n andere momenten als volgt gedefinieerd:

mn = f n S ( f )df

ref. [9] 1.1.5

0

(1.3-5)

WATERSTANDUITWIJKING OP EEN WILLEKEURIG TIJDSTIP De lineaire benadering van de oceaangolven (het random-fase/amplitude model) veronderstelt dat op een willekeurig tijdstip de waterstanduitwijking normaalverdeeld is. De kansdichtheidsverdeling met verwachtingswaarde 0 en variantie m0 :

p( ) =

(1.3-6) Dit is een benadering omdat golven in werkelijkheid niet sinusvormig zijn maar meer een Stokestype vorm hebben (fig. 1.3-6). ref. [9]

(t )

Stokes-type golf normale verdeling

2 1 exp 2m 2 m0 0

t

sinus golf

p ( )

geobserveerde verdeling

1.1.6

VERWACHTE AANTAL GOLVEN PER SECONDE Een golf bestaat uit twee as-doorkruisingen, een opwaartse en een neergaande. Om de gemiddelde golffrequentie te bepalen worden hier de opwaartse geteld. Anders gezegd; de afgeleide van (t ) is positief. In een tijdsinterval dt net voorafgaand van een opwaartse as-door-kruising, kan de uitwijking alleen een waarde aannemen tussen: de afgeleide van naar de tijd Het interval dt is hier zo klein genomen dat de lijn in het interval lineair mag worden verondersteld. Aangezien normaal verdeeld is geldt dat ook voor . Voor de afleiding van de variantie van gelden dezelfde stappen als eerder. Kwadrateer per discrete frequentie:

dt < < 0

( i (t ))2 = ( 2f i ai sin( 2f i t + i ) )2

middel deze over de tijd:

i2 = E [ i2 ] =

2 2 2 i

T

[ ]

1 4 f i E a sin 2 ( 2f i t + i )dt = 4 2 f i 2 E T 0

a6

[ ]

a i2

Sommeer de varianties:

2 = E [ 2 ] = E [ i2 ] = 4 2 f i 2 E [1 2 ai2 ] = 4 2

n n n i =1 i =1 i =1

1 2 fi E f i

ai2 f

Als f i 0 dan:

E 2 = lim 4 2

f i 0

i =1

[ ]

1 2 fi E f i

2 2 2 df = 4 2 m2 2 ai f 4 f i S ( f ) 0

(1.3-7)

De kansdichtheidsverdeling van :

p( ) =

2 exp 2 8 m 2 (4 2 m2 ) 2 1

p( , ) =

2 2 2 exp 2m 8 m 2 m0 4 2 m2 0 2 1

(1.3-8)

0

p( , )d d

0 dt 0 0

(1.3-9)

dt

p( , ) t 0 d = p(0, ) d = dt p(0, )

dt

geeft:

dt p(0, )d = dt

0

2 exp 2 d 8 m 2 2 0 2 m0 4 m2

8 2 m2 dt m2 u 2 2 du = 2 exp exp = dt 2 2 m0 4 m0 4 m2 u 4 m0 4 m2 8 m2 8 m2 =0 dt

De gemiddelde frequentie van nulkruisingen is hiermee bekend:

f0 =

m2 m0

(1.3-10)

ref. [14]

a7

1.1.7

VERWACHTE AANTAL GOLVEN PER SECONDE GROTER DAN BEPAALD NIVEAU Interessant is om te weten wat de frequentie is van waterstandsuitwijkingen groter dan een bepaald niveau . Analoog kan dan met dezelfde soort vergelijking bepaald worden hoe vaak de scheepsuitwijkingen groter zijn dan de kielspeling. Voor de gemiddelde frequentie van kruisingen moeten de grenzen van de binnenste integraal van vergelijking (1.3-9) aangepast worden in dt < * < (fig. 1.3-7):

0 dt

* * p( , )d d

(t )

Tn Tn Tn

p(

dt

, )

t 0

d = p( , )

*

d

dt

een bepaald niveau

geeft:

f =

ref. [14] 1.1.8

m2 exp 2m m0 0

(1.3-11)

GOLFTOPPEN Een golftop is het hoogste punt van een golf. Deze kan in een breed spectrum een positieve en negatieve waarde aannemen. Golven die echter een rol spelen in een toegangsgeul zijn gegenereerd in diepwater. Deze golven hebben een relatief smal spectrum, waardoor de waarden van alle golftoppen positief zijn (fig.1.3-8). Het aantal golftoppen is gelijk aan het aantal opwaartse nulkruisingen. Het aantal golftoppen met een waarde groter dan een bepaald niveau is dan gelijk aan het aantal opwaartse kruisingen door dat niveau. De fractie van golftoppen door een bepaald niveau top > gedurende een bepaalde periode D :

P ( top > ) =

fn D = f0 D

m2 exp 2m m0 0 m2 m0

2

smal spectrum

(t )

top

t

P ( top ) = 1 P ( top

breed spectrum

(t )

De kansdichtheidsverdeling:

2 > ) = 1 exp 2m 0

(1.3-12)

2 ptop ( ) = exp 2m m0 0

negatieve toppen

Deze verdeling staat ook wel bekend als de Rayleigh-verdeling. ref. [9]

a8

1.1.9

GOLFHOOGTE Uitgegaan van sinusvormige golven geldt dat de golfhoogte twee keer de amplitude is: H = 2 top . De kansdichtheidsverdeling van de golfhoogte kan dan bepaald worden met de Jacobiaan d top dH = 1 2 :

-hoogste golfhoogten. De significante golfhoogte is daarmee de ligging van het zwaartepunt ten opzichte van de lijn H = 0 van het gearceerde oppervlak in figuur 1.3-9. Het zwaartepunt is gelijk aan het oppervlaktemoment van het gearceerde vlak ten opzichte van de lijn H = 0 gedeeld door zijn p(H ) oppervlak.

3

d top

(1.3-13)

1

H s = E [H ]H H * =

Invullen van (1.3-13):

H*

H p( H ) dH

H*

(1.3-14)

p( H ) dH

H

*

H*

p ( H ) dH

s

H *2 u u H2 1 u=H 2 8m0 exp 8m0 du = exp 8m0 exp 8m0 = exp 8m0 = u H* u H * = 8m0 ln(3) Met de ondergrens H * en de noemer gelijk aan

integreren:

1

H2 + exp H * H * 8m 0

dH

a9

H * Vervangen door

8m0 ln(3) :

H2 dH H substituti e regel 2 2m0 ln(3) + 3 exp 8m dH U = 8m , dU = 8m , 0 H* 0 0 H* = ln(3) invullen 2 2m0 ln(3) + 3 2 m0 U = 8m0

*

ln(3)

))

ln( 3 )

exp U 2 dU =

(1.3-15)

erf ( x ) =

0

exp U 2 dU

De significante golfhoogte H s is met de standaard error functie in 1.3-15 te schrijven als functie van het 0e-moment van het variantie-dichtheidsspectrum: (1.3-16) H s = 4,0043 m0 4 m0 ref. [9] 1.1.10 HET VERTICALE SCHEEPSBEWEGINGSSPECTRUM Het bewegingsspectrum van schepen kan wiskundig met dezelfde vergelijkingen beschreven worden als het golfspectrum. Het aantal scheepsbewegingen per seconde is dan analoog aan vergelijking (1.3-10):

m =

met

m2 1 = m0 Tm

(1.3-17)

m

m0 ,m2 Tm

gemiddelde bewegingsfrequentie van een schip 0e en 2e spectrale moment van de scheepsbewegingen gemiddelde bewegingsperiode van een schip

Het gemiddeld aantal scheepsbewegingen per seconde die groter zijn dan de kielspeling KC is analoog aan (1.3-11):

KC 2 1 KC 2 m2 = = exp exp 2m m0 2m0 Tm 0 (1.3-18) De significante scheepsbeweging Z s is op dezelfde manier gedefinieerd als de significante golfhoogte H s : de gemiddelde waarde van de 1 3 -grootste scheepsbewegingen (1.3-16):

Z s = 4 m0 m0 =

ref. [4]

1 16

Z s2

(1.3-19)

a10

a2

This appendix gives the programming language of alternative 2 and its variant, but first some remarks are summed in paragraph a2.1.

a2.1

For the case study, alternative 2 is programmed in the mathematical computer-programming environment Matlab, version 7 release 14. Matlab is an interpretor and is therefore slower than the compiled programming languages such as: C, C++ and Fortran. However, programming with Matlab goes faster and graphs are easier to make. When alternative 2 will be used in practice, it is recommended to program the model in a faster language. Alternative 2 consists of three steps (see paragraph 4.2 for the program structure diagram): 1 draw values from the long-term statistics 2 check on the manoeuvrability criterion 3 check on the long-term criterion The checking on the manoeuvrability criterion is done in the programme keel clearance. This programme does not use the possibility in Matlab to calculate with matrices. Instead of checking the criterion for all the positions in the channel at once, it determines separately for each position in the channel and moment in time the keel clearance. Therefore relatively much repetitions loops are needed and at the end the calculation time will be longer. The advantage of this way of programming is the clear programme structure. Especially when the reader is not familiar with the Matlab language. Steps 1 and 3 use the possibility to calculate with matrices. This reduces the calculation time with Matlab a lot4. To show how steps 1 and 3 could be programmed in the same way as step 2 the following adjustments are made: - draws from the wave height and meteorological distribution functions are programmed in the same way as step 2 - step 2 uses more or less the same symbols as step 3, so it is easier to see how step 2 has to be extended to program step 3 The programme calculates in seconds, metres and degrees. The input of astronomical data is given in centimetres and the values are predicted every ten minutes. The used Matlab functions are given in table 2.1-1:

tab. 2.1-1 Used Matlab functions

Function rand(a,b) randn(a,b) interp1(A,n) Description draws a*b values of a uniform distribution draws a*b values of a standard normal distribution one dimensional data interpolation in a column matrix Example 0.4057 0.2785 0.5389 0.8784 2.2523 0.7399 -1.6148 1.1263 6.2000 5.4000 9.7000 8.3000 3.5000 9.0000

rand(2,3)= randn(2,3)= A=

n= interp1(A,n)=

Using third or higher dimensions of matrix spaces could make the programme again much faster. However

a11

Function interp1(b,A,bi)

sort(A) length(A) round(A) min(A) max(A) find(A==c) sum(A) cumsum(A) B = k:l:m cosd(alpha) sind(alpha) + - * / ^

sort the matrix A length of matrix A rounds the matrix A minimum of matrix A maximum of matrix A finds the matrix position sum of matrix elements cumulative sum B is a row from k with step size l until m Cosine of an argument in degrees Sine of an argument in degrees Arithmetic operations

.+ .- .* ./ .^ %

Arithmetic operations for matrix entries The percent symbol denotes a comment

Example 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 ai= 1.3000 2.0000 2.8000 interp1(a,A,ai)= 5.9600 5.4000 8.8400 a= 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 b= 10.0000 20.0000 30.0000 40.0000 50.0000 B= 3.4000 4.1000 3.5000 4.4000 4.2000 5.3000 5.4000 5.8000 4.7000 5.5000 ai= 1.3000 2.0000 2.8000 bi 13.0000 40.0000 28.0000 interp2(a,b,B,ai,bi)= 3.6580 5.8000 5.6160 A= 6.2000 5.4000 sort(A)= 5.4000 6.2000 length(A)= 4.0000 round(A)= 6.0000 5.0000 min(A)= 5.4000 max(A) 9.7000 find(A==5.4) 2.0000 sum(A) 29.6000 cumsum(A) 6.2000 11.6000 B=2:1:5= 2.0000 3.0000 cosd(90)= 0.0000 sind(90)= 1.0000 B= 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 B^2= 7.0000 10.0000 15.0000 22.0000 B.^2= 1.0000 4.0000 9.0000 16.0000 a=

a12

For the squat calculation, the sailing speed with respect to the ground is corrected with the astronomical current speed along the ship: calong. To avoid problems by interpolating between 360 a and 0 + b , the program interpolates between the (co)sine of the angle. In step 2, calong in the Euro channel is calculated with the following equation (fig. 2.1-1):

360, 0

calo

ng 2

1

MC calo n

cu

rre

nt 1

EC calong 1

270

calong 2 EC

EURO L CHANNE

82

90

curr

ent

g1

MC

M CH AAS AN NE L

112

180

Because step 3 calculates for all positions at once the mean frequency of bottom touches , it is easier to work with the following equation5:

a = cos( )

cos( ) = cos( ) (cos( ) + sin ( ) tan ( )) cos( ) = cos( ) cos( ) + sin ( ) sin ( )

a = (b + c ) cos( )

r=

a c

a13

a2.2

a14

a15

a16

a17

a18

a19

a20

a21

a22

a23

a24

a25

a26

a27

a28

a29

a30

a31

a2.3

a32

a33

a34

a35

a36

a3

The Monte Carlo method draws random conditions of the distribution functions. The transformation derivations of random numbers from a uniform distribution to random numbers from two various distributions are given in this appendix. The derivations use equation (2.4-5) of paragraph 2.4:

X = FX1 ( X u )

The following distribution functions will be used as example: - Weibull distribution - Normal distribution Each transformation of uniformly distributed random variable X u will be derived in a different paragraph.

a3.1

WEIBULL DISTRIBUTION

The probability density function of the Weibull distribution:

X f X (X ) =

The distribution function is equal to a uniform distributed variable between zero and one X u :

FX ( X ) = f X ( X ) dx = 1 e

Rewritten:

= Xu

X = ( ln(1 X u ))

a3.2

NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

An analytical formulation of the distribution function of the normal distribution is not possible to give. Therefore it is relatively hard to derive a random number generator for the normal distribution compared to the Weibull distribution. The Box Muller transformation is a rather efficient method. It uses two randomly uniform distributed values X u ,1 and X u , 2 to draw two values z1 and z 2 from a standard normal distribution:

(3.2-1) (3.2-2)

This can be verified by solving these equation for X u ,1 and X u , 2 . Square both equations for solving X u ,1 ,

2 z 2 = 2 ln ( X u ,1 ) sin 2 (2 X u , 2 )

z12 = 2 ln ( X u ,1 ) cos 2 (2 X u , 2 )

a37

(3.2-3)

Fill this equation in equation (3.2-2):

z1 cos(2 X u , 2 )

z2 =

X u ,1 z1 X u ,1 z 2 X u , 2 z1 X u , 2 z 2

2 z12 + z 2 = z1 exp 2 2 z 2 + z2 = z 2 exp 1 2 z2 1 = 2 2 2 z1 z2 1+ z 1 1 1 = 2 2 z1 z2 1+ z 1

) )

d (tan ( y )) d (tan ( y )) dy sin 2 ( y ) + cos 2 ( y ) dy = 1 Chain rule = =1 dx dy dx dx cos 2 ( y ) dy dy 1 )= tan 2 ( y ) + 1 = 1 tan ( y x = dx dx 1 + x 2 1 The derivative of y = tan ( x ) with respect to x is: tan ( y ) = x

d tan 1 ( x ) 1 = dx 1+ x2

If

( (

d tan 1 u du / dx = dx 1+ u2

a38

( X u ,1 , X u , 2 ) (z1 , z 2 )

X u ,1 = z1 X u , 2 z1

X u ,1

2 z 2 + z2 1 z 2 = exp 1 X u , 2 2 2 z 2

) =

1 z 2 1 z 2 exp 1 exp 2 2 2 2 2

To draw a value from a normal distribution with mean x and standard deviation x the following equation can be used:

X = x + x 2 ln( X u ,1 ) cos(2 X u , 2 )

Matlab has a pre-programmed routine (randn) that is used in the case study. ref. [22]

a39

a40

a4

Currents, waves, wind etc. causes perturbations of the intended course (fig. 4.1-1). The width of the swept path depends on a number of factors, the key elements are: - the magnitude of the external forces; - the inherent manoeuvrability of the ship (which will vary with water depth/draught ratio); - the ability of the ship-handler; - the visual cues (e.g. buoys) available to the ship-handler; - the overall visibility.

Waves Current Channel boundary Real course Theoretical course

Channel boundary

The meandering has an influence on the following aspects: - the determination of the dimensions in the design phase; - the distribution of the ships over the width of the channel; - the variation of the angle of incoming waves; - the length of the sailing course. The first two are not taken into account because this project deals only with the depth and length of the channel (see paragraph 3.2 Project definitions). To find out the influence of the third and fourth point, a calculation is done. For sine shaped paths with different amplitude (0 - 50 m) and a constant length (1000 m), the following is calculated: the maximum angle and the percentage of length difference between the real course and the intended course (see tab. 4.1-1 and fig. 4.1-2).

tab. 4.1-1 Maximum angle between intended and real course

Amplitude 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Max. angle (in degree) 0.0005 0.0011 0.0016 0.0022 0.0027 0.0033 0.0038 0.0044 0.0049 0.0055

a41

50 40 30 20

Amplitude [m]

10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Distance [m]

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Amplitude [m]

Maximum angle The maximum angle of 0.0022 degree can be neglected. Length difference An amplitude of 50 m (this is a lot, an amplitude of 20 m is more likely) leads to more or less 2.5% length difference. This is 6 minutes on a sailing time of 4 hour, which can be neglected. ref. [12]

a42

a5

The following conclusions of the case study will be explained: - why there is no relation between the number of bottom touches and ksimu in spite of the trend in figure 5.2-3 (subparagraph 5.2.2 of the report) - why the results of alternative 2 and the variant of alternative 2 will converge to the same constant value With a simple example these two conclusions can be explained. The example needs however some introduction. First will be explained how the expected number of bottom touches for small Npksivalues can be estimated.

a5.1

On page a31 of the appendices (paragraph a2.2) nine figures are given. From figure Tidal window availability by predicted HE10 (figure 7 of 9) can be concluded that for low wave heights (smaller than 0.3m) almost always a tidal window will be available and for HE10-values larger than 1m probably never. Such a conclusion cannot be found in the figures 8 and 9. Therefore the availability of a tidal window for the port of Rotterdam depends mainly on the wave conditions and in less extent on the sailing speed and meteorological conditions. The significant ship motions Z s in alternative 2 are linearly related to the wave conditions (HE10). With the significant ship motions the 0th-spectral moment of the ship motions m0 is calculated by:

m0 =

1 16

Z s2

E [ ] =

with: Tpas Tm KC

T pas

KC 2 exp 2m Tm 0

Figures 5.2-3 and 5.2-4 are calculated with a predicted wave height of 0.3m. The wave height that can be expected to occur in reality and its variation is given by the formulas in subparagraph 5.1.5 of the report:

H H

E 10

= 0.8914 * PmeanH E10 0.0019204 = 0.27 = 0.3406 PmeanH E10 + 0.0047929 = 0.11

E 10

The significant ship motion depends linearly on the wave height and is with the smallest depth/draught ratio (DDR) approximately given by (see subparagraph 5.1.1 of the report):

Z = 1.5 H

z

Z = 0.15

s

a43

Due to the dependency the standard deviation of the ship motions will be larger. With the following Matlab lines the standard deviation can be calculated: drawings=1000000 HE10=0.27; sigmaHE10=0.11; H=HE10+randn(drawings,1)*sigmaHE10; meanZs=1.5*H; sigmaZs=0.16; Zs=meanZs+randn(drawings,1)*sigmaZs; realmeanZs=mean(Zs) realsigmaZs=std(Zs) The aswers: realmeanZs = 0.41 realsigma = 0.23 Because the standard deviation is half the mean, the significant ship motions fluctuate strongly. The number of bottom touches ksi fluctuates even stronger, because of the exponential function. Figure 5.1-1 presents the fluctuation of ksi for Tpas/Tm = 1000 and KC = 2. The following Matlab lines are used: 10

0

drawings=100 HE10=0.27; sigmaHE10=0.11; H=HE10+randn(drawings,1)*sigmaHE10; meanZs=1.5*H; sigmaZs=0.16; Zs=meanZs+randn(drawings,1)*sigmaZs; m0=1/16*Zs.^2; ksi=1000*exp(-2^2./(2.*m0)); plot(ksi,'k*')

10

-50

10

-100

ksi

10

-150

10

-200

10

-250

10

-300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Drawing number

Npksi can be compared to the variable drawings in preceding Matlab lines. The expected number of bottom touches of a transit is then equal to the mean of ksi. Because of the exponential fluctuation, the mean ksi (when Npksi is small) can be estimated by:

E [ ] =

For instance the mean of 10-250, 10-50, 10-125, 10-10 is approximately 10-10/4. A set of input conditions determines the ksi value. A more unfavourable set of conditions gives a higher ksi. The probability that an unfavourable set is drawn during a transit depends on Npksi. For alternative 2 Npksi values of 100 or 1000 are relatively small. Therefore the preceding estimation rule counts.

a44

a5.2

Assume that the following values for ksi are calculated for 10 sets of conditions: ksi = [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100] The value 100 is obviously the maximum of the set. In this example a transit consists of drawing uniformly Npksi values from this set. The probability that the mean ksi is larger than 0 when Npksi = 1, is equal to 0.10. When Npksi = 10 this probability is 1 (1 0.1)10 = 0.65 . It is therefore very likely that the number of bottom touches for one transit with Npksi = 10 lager is than 0 and for Npksi = 1 not. However the probability that ksi is 100 is very small for Npksi = 10 and relatively large for Npksi = 1. When these transits are repeated ksimu times the mean ksi will be equal to the mean of Npksi ksimu ksis. The mean ksi will converge to a constant value by increasing ksimu values. With the following program this becomes clear: A=[0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100] Npksi=10 %or 1 ksimu=1000 d=0; for i=1:ksimu a=round(10*rand(Npksi,1)+0.5); 25 b=A(a); c=mean(b); d=d+c; 20 ksi(i)=d/i; end 15 plot(i,ksi)

ksi

10

0 0 10

10

10

10

Number of transits i

The shape of figure 5.2-1 looks like the shapes of figures 5.2-3 and 5.2-4 in subparagraph 5.2.2. From figure 5.2-1 could be assumed, like in figure 5.2-3, that for small Npksi and ksimu values, ksi will be relatively small. However now it is clear that this assumed relation is wrong. With a probability of 10% (for Npksi = 1) it is for instance possible that the first time the value 100 is drawn. Then this relation will be gone. With this example it also becomes clear that the results of alternative 2 and its variant will converge to the same value. In the example the variant can be seen as the lines Npksi = 1, because in the variant it does not matter if Npksi = 1 or ksimu = 1.

a45

a46

a6

Ship data

Variable Type (HARAP) Type (alternative 2) Unit Description

L pp C squat

Td

deterministic deterministic deterministic normal distributed deterministic normal distributed normal distributed normal distributed deterministic

deterministic deterministic deterministic normal distributed deterministic normal distributed normal distributed normal distributed deterministic

3

length between perpendiculars squat coefficient draught real draught given predicted draught water displacement sailing speed real sailing speed given predicted sailing speed significant ship motion given real saling speed and h/Td*

1

Td _ real

vs

v s _ real

Zs

Tm

Channel data

mean period ship motions given real saling speed and h/Td

l d

r

Astronomical data tidal cycle

emperical distributed uniform distributed normal distributed deterministic deterministic deterministic deterministic deterministic

tidal cycle water level given tidal cycle current given tidal cycle

wlreal c real

Dc real

Meteorological data

wl m

emperical distributed emperical distributed [m] normal distributed normal distributed [m]

wl m _ real

emperical distributed emperical distributed [m] normal distributed normal distributed [m]

H E10 _ real

1

a47

a48

a49

[1]

Literatuurlijst Blaauw H.G., T. Schilperoort en J. Strating, Optimalization of depths of channels. Delft: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, 1982. CUR190, Probability in Civil Engineering, Part 1: The theory of probabilistic design. Gouda: Stichting CUR, 1997. Doorn, J.T.M. van, Probabilistische berekeningen voor de Selected Route. Delft: Waterloopkundig laboratorium, 1990. Doorn, J.T.M. van, Harap, specificatie rapport. Delft: Waterloopkundig laboratorium, 1992. Harap, Functioneel Ontwerp. Rotterdam: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1994a. Harap, Ontwerphandleiding. Rotterdam: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1994b. Harap, Gebruikershandleiding. Rotterdam: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1994c. Hoek, A. van der, Pilot Berge Stahl Fase 1. Rotterdam: Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, 1999. Holthuijsen, L.H., Wind waves, collegedictaat ct 5316. Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft, 2005. Informatie voor de vaart met geulgebonden schepen naar de haven van Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Rijkswaterstaat, e.a., 1995. Kerncijfers Goederenvervoer. Internetsite www.rws-avv.nl: Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, 2004. PIANC-IAPH Working Group II-30 in cooperation with IMPA and IALA, Approach Channels, A guide for Design. Brussels: PIANC, 1997. Principles of Naval Architecture. United States of America: The Society of Navel Architects and Marine Engineers, 1974. Rice, S.O., Mathematical analysis of random noise. In: N. Wax, e.a., Selected Papers on Noise and Stochastic Processes. New York: Dover Pub. Inc., 1954, p.184-195. Savenije, A.C., Probabilistic admittance policy deep draught vessels. PIANC bulletin, 91 (1996), p.25-36. Savenije, A.C., Safety Criteria for Approach Channels. Rotterdam: AVV Transport Research Centre, 1998. Vrijling, J.K., and P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder, Probabilistic design in hydraulic engineering, college dictaat ct5310. Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft, 2002.

[2]

[3]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

a50

[18] [19]

Vrijling, J.K., Audit HARAP. Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft, 2004. Wijnstra, R., Meerjarig veiligheidscriterium Euro-maas geul, Notitie. Rotterdam: Rijkswaterstaat, 1993. Wust, J.C., Invoer randvoorwaarden, Evaluatie 74-voets geul. Rijswijk: 1994. Wust, J.C., Doorvaart naar volgend getij, Notitie. Rijswijk: 1995. Websites: http://mathworld.wolfram.com http://www.shipmotions.nl

[20] [21]

[22] [23]

a51

- Note to the Teacher _ This Lesson Plan Works Especially Well fUploaded byGretchen Pertos
- US_Canada_Joint+AGM+Industry+Notice+2016Uploaded byFahreza Mawlana
- Oil tanker operation manualUploaded byNikNik001
- Artificial Floating Islands- Cities of the Future.pdfUploaded byPuput Wiyono
- Fundamentals of Naval Weapons SystemsUploaded byMoltKee
- 0417_s11_qp_22.pdfUploaded byedward nodzo
- Ripples and Smooth Areas on WaterUploaded byelpadrinoleo
- 01. VISION IAS Geography (CSM) 2016 Test 1 Answer (2)Uploaded bytarak
- 313-1107-1-SMUploaded byHérRú FernanDó
- Time ModelingUploaded byDewaYoga
- Ship RulesUploaded byEric Peters
- Clash_double-sided_cheatsheet.pdfUploaded byClaudio
- Passage PlanningUploaded byRathinavel Dass
- Analysis and Correction of Sea TrialsUploaded byMARIO HUAMAN
- Standing Waves LabUploaded byjamesyu
- المحاضرة الاولى في مادة الصوتيات لثانية عمارةUploaded byAdnan Esmail
- In Pursuit of the Mind MastersUploaded byplotulus96
- Ship Energy Efficiency Management PlanUploaded byjohn
- L. List of Certificates and Documents Required to Be Carried on Board Ships Rev18Uploaded byncharala
- Earth TideUploaded byJeremy Belpois
- 7th Wad 2008 FinalUploaded bydmatthews
- Physics IB2009Uploaded byDk Seven
- Sonometer Report ReflectionUploaded byDan
- Vibro Replacement Columns for Shipyard Infrastructure at Pipavav - IsGI 2009Uploaded bysuvra
- Military ChemtrailsUploaded byMartin Hume
- Project Design ConsiderationsUploaded byHRNERR
- SIS_PHY_9_75Uploaded byAkhlak Hossain
- OPTIMOOR Key CommandsUploaded byPeyman Mzn
- Year 9 Science RevisonUploaded byJoaquin
- APO-QUESTIONS.docxUploaded byanon_728532472

- Modelos Consecuencias GroundingUploaded byram131313
- 1976 PhD VanOortmerssenUploaded bysleepyhead1984
- TesisDoctoral_AlvarezCampana_08198901Uploaded byram131313
- AQWA User ManualUploaded bySooraj Suresh
- Ship Grounding Damage Estimation Using Statistical ModelsUploaded byram131313
- UKC_Final_TCS_Report.pdfUploaded byram131313
- 4th MASHCONUploaded byram131313
- Waves, Tides and Shallow-Water Processes (2nd Edition).pdfUploaded byram131313
- PIANC20_Simulators.pdfUploaded byram131313
- TFM Reporte Final ArriagaUploaded byram131313
- ActiveX-VBA Developers GuideUploaded byChristian Parra Ortega
- Briggs.comparisonofm.2013.TRANSUploaded byram131313
- APPROACH CHANNEL Risk Simulation Based DesignUploaded byram131313
- CALCULO DE FORMULAS PARA DUQUE DE ALBAUploaded byValentina Sierra
- Guide Good Practice Port MarineUploaded byAlonso Olaya Ruiz
- Clase02_Peraltamiento_oleajeUploaded byram131313
- Sim u Laci on Man Iob Rascal Mayol AsUploaded byram131313
- Presentacion III CursoUploaded byram131313
- 5. Ship Behavior in Shallow WaterUploaded byTomas Grigolius
- Maneuvering of Two Interacting Ships in Calm WaterUploaded byram131313
- 16-2005Uploaded byRyan Smith
- PIANC_121_2014.pdfUploaded byram131313
- PIANC20_Simulators.pdfUploaded byram131313
- Formal Safety Assessment Circular IMO 2007Uploaded byram131313
- Validation of Shiphandling Simulation ModelsUploaded byram131313
- Clase02 Teoria Determinista OleajeUploaded byram131313
- Format Safety Assessment Tanker Mepc 58-17-2Uploaded byram131313
- Clase02 Teoria Determinista Oleaje IIUploaded byram131313
- Statistical DistributionsUploaded byMahidhara Davangere
- Design of Ship RuddersUploaded byGerard Sarg

- ComsolUploaded bykasmss
- Wave Propagation and Diffraction Mathematical Methods and ApplicationsUploaded byGiculPiticul
- AcousticsUploaded byKanika Maheshwari
- able unit plan waves 1Uploaded byapi-243289431
- Bsc Hs Physics Semester i to IV CbcegsUploaded byHrithik Goyal
- JEE Advanced 2019 Syllabus.pdfUploaded byvipul mankotia
- CLS Aipmt 16 17 XII Phy Study Package 6 SET 1 Chapter 8Uploaded byKareena Gupta
- PawlowiczBeardsleyLentz-TidalAnalysisMATLAB-T_Tide-CompGeosci2002.pdfUploaded bysendy brammadi
- science standards 2009Uploaded byapi-248004880
- 222 spring 2009.pdfUploaded bycombatps1
- Wavelength Frequency and Enegy Problems KEYUploaded byCHARINA SATO
- PracticalUploaded byAdria Moya Ortiz
- EM WavesUploaded byjoejoe4321joe
- Physics Formula SheetUploaded byonewing949
- Mock Test-1 CBSEUploaded byAmandeep Singh
- enemy (1)Uploaded byTushar Raj
- Shock TubeUploaded byDeepak Jay
- 12 Physics Notes Ch15 Communication SystemsUploaded byMayank Saini
- RadarUploaded byArash Mazandarani
- QUIZ_3_2007Uploaded byMark Anthony Layosa
- Iscrimination Between Planner and Volumetric DefectsUploaded byJayesh
- EmtUploaded byOzlem Ozgun
- lowfreqnoiseUploaded bycharlesgoober
- The Beginner's Guide to SynthsUploaded byAnda
- Michelson InterferometerUploaded byRico Mahrezi
- DLL_Science 10_Quarter 1_Week 6.docxUploaded byVaronessa Mintal
- SAW Tech PresentationUploaded byWilliam Lu
- 1 List of Physics TermsUploaded byazlinabdullah
- Electron DiffractionUploaded bySaroj Kumar Mishra
- IFEM.Ch32Uploaded byvsbalint