Ship Handling Challenges When Vessels are Outgrowing Ports

Marko Perkovic, Tanja Brcko, Blaz Luin, Peter Vidmar

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transport, Slovenia

Abstract:
Ships like container vessels, ro-ro carriers and product tankers are becoming ever
larger, yet still calling on ports where shallow approach channels ending with narrow
basin entrances provide a barely sufficient margin to conduct final berthing
manoeuvres alongside inadequately designed wharfs and jetties. Reconstruction and
extension of berthing facilities like the dredging activity which is usually required, is
one of the possibilities to solve this issue safely.
For this paper a ship handling simulation was used for port operation simulations
where highly precise bathymetry along with CAD drawing and geo-referenced imaging
were used for preparing enhanced sailing areas. This was in order to demonstrate the
pressures brought about by changes in ship size, and the choices a port is faced with
in order to keep pace with changes.
Key words: Ship handling, simulator, ports, piloting, towing, mooring, berth
reconstruction
1

INTRODUCTION

Rapid changes in shipborne transportation are most often related to the enlargement
of vessels that must be accommodated by ports, known as a Scale Enlargement
issue. (Generally one may say that vessels have evolved in three main aspects:
specialisation, size and environmental impact reduction [1]. Ports are also burdened
by the requirement to turn ships around as rapidly as possible. Container vessels are
the best example of ships that are built larger more rapidly than can ports adjust. As
the vessel sizes and amount of traffic increases, safe and efficient ship handling
becomes crucial. According to [2] limitations following the scale enlargement may be
described as:
Technical limitations related to the vessel:
Ship design and strength of the hull. Increase in length has a square effect while
increase in width has a linear effect.
Bending moments
Stability
Etc...
Limitations in maritime and port infrastructure
Fairways (width and depth)
Terminals (quay length and fenders)
Locks (width and depth)
Turning basin diameter (including depth)

Gantry crane size

Economic limitations
Economies of scale only relevant if all slots are being used
Limited trade lanes where ULCCs can be deployed
Connections to hinterland
P&I clubs and insurance
The harbour basin and approaching channel are not only defined by the geometry and
navigation marking but also by their operational conditions and by the need to use or
not to use tugs or other navigation aids [3].
2 SCALE ENLARGEMENT IN PORT OF KOPER
The port of Koper is a multi-purpose port that tranships different types of cargo, with
three basins and two piers around which the terminals are arranged [4, 5]. In recent
years (2010-2015) the cargo throughput in the port of Koper has averaged an annual
growth of 8% with container growth as much as 16% yearly without an increase in the
number of vessel calls (Figure 1). This growth was made possible by dredging
activities and pier extension, allowing for the reception of larger vessels. Five years
ago, the largest container vessel calling at the port of Koper was the Panamax size
vessel, 292 meters in length and 32.2 meters abeam with an 11.4 meter draft. Today
mother vessels are calling at Koper (Figure 2). The largest container vessels in 2015
were the MSC Luciana (363.57m x 45.6m or 131771 GT), which can carry 11,660
standard 20ft containers. The maximum permissible draft in the port of Koper is 14.5m
at 0.5 meter of under keel clearance (UKC). The average length of the container
vessels calling increased from 170m to 200m. During the last decade the development
of ship sizes of RoRo/RoPax vessels and the scale enlargement of product tankers
have also been evident in the port of Koper.

Figure 1. Time Series of cargo and container throughput versus vessel calls in the Port of Koper

Figure 2. Time series of the container vessel scale enlargement in the Port of Koper

3 CASE STUDIES
3.1 Approaching Chanel Design Criteria; Container Carrier Ship Handling Case
Dredging was the predominant activity leading to the ability of Koper to receive larger
vessels. However, due to the urgency and some logistical difficulties related to the
deposition of dredged material, limited deepening and widening was performed at
Koper, leaving a step in front of the basin that dangerously limited the maneuvering
area (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Layout and bathymetry of basin I

While the vessel is approaching, the pilot is usually standing at the left wing having
only a visual positioning system. Some pilots use their own low cost GPS systems,
which have questionable positioning awareness. This already tenuous situation
becomes much more complicated when berthing must be carried out in, for instance,
high wind conditions (container vessels, of course, are notoriously predisposed to drift,
or worse, in wind), through a narrow and bending channel where at the end the vessel
must be safely positioned alongside inadequate (under-designed) fenders, and, to
make matters worse, with STS cranes perilously close to the approaching ship.
Figure 4 illustrates just such a situation. A pilot boarded the vessel without having a
real notion of the wind condition at sea. The gusty NE wind called the burja (bora)
was ranging from Beaufort 6 to 7. To maintain direction and position in the channel,
the vessel entered at high speed, but due to the size of the area exposed to the wind,
the vessel was continuously pushed down and finally entered the basin dangerously
low too close to the shallow area, the step, constituting a near-incident or accident.

Figure 4. CMA CGM Berlioz entering basin I

3.1.1 Deterministic analyses of the approaching / entry channel

The fundamental criterion for defining and dimensioning elements forming a navigation
channel or a harbour basin is safety in manoeuvring and operations carried out within
them [5]. The criteria for the geometric layout definition of the following navigation
channels and harbour basins: fairways, harbour entrances, manoeuvring areas,
anchorages, mooring areas, buoy systems, basins and quays is based on knowing the
spaces occupied by vessels, which depends on: a) the vessel and the factors affecting
its movements; b) the water level and factors affecting its variability. The main
references for defining those factors are ROM 3.1-99 The Recommendations for the
Design of the Maritime Configuration of Ports, Approach Channels and Harbour
Basins [6] and PIANC Permanent International Association of Navigation
Congresses [3]. The key parameters in approach channel design according to PIANC
and ROM are alignment, traffic flow, depth, and width. They are all interrelated to a
certain extent, especially depth and width. Factors included in determination of the
channel width include: vessel manoeuvrability (oo), ship speed (a), prevailing cross
wind (b) [7], prevailing cross current (c), prevailing longitudinal current (d), significant
wave height (e), aids to navigation (f), bottom surface (g), depth of waterway (h), cargo
hazard level (i), and width for bank clearance (j). The minimum channel width designed
for the analysed container vessel turned out to be 159.6 meters (Table 1) for wind
conditions 4-7 according to the Beaufort scale (Table 2). As a particular (gusty)
katabatic wind is present in that area - manoeuvres should not be allowed at wind
stronger than 5 according to the Beaufort scale. That limit was confirmed by the

simulation (semi-probabilistic) method described in the next paragraph. The

effectiveness of such simulations depends on the simulator capabilities to properly
represent manoeuvring characteristics and factors influencing ship behaviour [8].
Table
1. PIANC approach factors determining minimum channel width
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Basic manoeuvring lane width
Factors for multiplying
and
additional widths
vessel beam (B=45.6m)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
00
vessel manoeuvrability (poor slow speed)
1.8
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Additional Widths for Straight
PIANC, 1997
PIANC, 2014
Channel Sections
wind <40Bf wind 4-70Bf
wind <40Bf
wind
4-70Bf
_________________________________________________________________________________________
a
b
c

ship speed (slow, less than 5 knots)

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
prevailing cross wind
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.6
prevailing cross current
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
(low, 0.2 0.5 knots)
d
prevailing longitudinal current (low)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
e
significant wave height
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
f
aids to navigation (excellent)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
g
bottom surface
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
(smooth and soft, < 1.5T)
h
depth of waterway, (h/T) < 1.15
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
i
cargo hazard level (low to medium)
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
j_________________________________________________________________________________________
width for bank clearance (1x)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Sum
3.1
3.6
3.2
3.5
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The bottom width of the waterway (channel)
141.36m
164.16m
145.92m
159.6m

3.1.2 Semi-probabilistic analyses of the approaching channel and port basin

Channel geometric design in this procedure is mainly based on statistically analysing
the areas swept by vessels in the various manoeuvres considered, which, should a
sufficient number of manoeuvre repetitions be available, enables the resulting design
to be applicable to the risk present in each case [9]. This method was applied on the
basis of real simulator studies [10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. The simulations were performed in
different meteorological conditions. Under every type of condition enough trials were
executed by professional human navigators. After the simulations, each trial was
processed statistically in order to obtain the probability density function of ships'
maximum distances from the centre of the waterway and the accident probability
calculation in the given conditions. Finally, a safe water area was plotted with
consideration of a previously set up admissible risk level. The navigational risk R is
defined as:
R P C
where: P - probability of accident, C consequences. The vessel can safely navigate
only in such an area where each point satisfies the depth requirement. If such a case
exists, the area is referred to as the safe navigable area. The vessel carrying out a
manoeuvre in a navigable area sweeps a certain area determined by the subsequent
positions of the vessel. The parameters of that area have a random character and
depend on a number of factors presented in [15].
To start with simulations, it was necessary to build the planned, enlarged port area
based on precise bathymetry. The sailing area was created using Transas application

Model Wizard [16]. Highly precise bathymetry (spatial resolution 1m x 1m) was
inserted and the projected manoeuvring area was quickly created.
46 approaching and departing real time simulations were performed handling
various vessels in a variety of wind conditions resulting with entry criteria and NAV
AIDS implementation such as Synthetic and Virtual AIS AtoNs were positioned, sector
lights mounted, and the recommended approaching was accepted. Figure 5 at the top
presents an ECDIS [17] screen with high resolution of bathymetry data overlay where the dark area actually presents shallow water for approaching vessels. AtoNs
are marked with a green diamond symbol. The middle frame shows a VTS screen of
an approaching vessel and wind and laser distance measurments, while the picture
below presents a modified navigational chart where AIS AtoNs are marked with purple
circles. The resulting safe waterway area at a 0.95% confidence level is presented in
figure 6 (the green and red sector shows the minimum required width based on
statistical analyses and at various metocean conditions, the green line presenting the
sweep margin for handling Post Panamax Container Vessel Class, while the red
margin is obtained handling EEE class container vessels. The pink area is related to
the minimum required dredging and the grey area is the recommended dredging area).
Such a confidence level is used most frequently for the design of waterways. In more
critical solutions a level of 99% could be considered. In port basins, however, the ship's
speed is slow enough to significantly reduce the consequences of accidents, which
explains the tolerance of 0.95% as a starting point for more serious considerations
and risk analyses.

Figure 5. ECDIS, Laser ranging system and corrected paper chart

Figure 6. Final layout the green and red sector shows the minimum required width based on statistical analyses
and a 95% confidence level at various metocean conditions, the green line presenting the sweep margin for Post
Panamax Container Vessel Class, while the red margin is obtained handling EEE class container vessels. Pink is
the minimum required dredging and grey area is the recommended dredging area.

3.2 Harbour basin Design Criteria; Tanker and Pure Car Carrier Ship Handling
Spacing of vessels in the basin is an additional issue compounded by the wave of
larger ships changing the maritime industry. The size of these vessels is such that
approaching channels and basins are simply too small or not adequately prepared.
There are no regulations related to the spacing of vessels, so quite good seamanship
must be applied. Tanker scale enlargement began after the closure of the Suez Canal
(1973) (Of course, there were no limitations as the Suez Canal was closed.) At that
time ULCCs larger than 500,000 dwt were built, and plans existed for tankers up to
1,000,000 dwt. Currently tanker scale enlargement is present in the field of product
tankers. The US started to export product tankers and Europe became a large importer
of them so larger tankers are now asea.
3.2.1 Deterministic analyses of vessel spacing in the basin
To perform safe towing through basins a sufficient manoeuvring width is requested.
Following figure 7 (left), a safe width for a standard cargo vessel of the Panamax size
will generally be 4 to 5 times the width of the vessel + 100 meters or 228 to 260 meters
[18].

According to [6], commercial basins with quays at both sides, where the docks
longitudinal dimensions allow for 2 berths per quay in the longitudinal direction, the
basin width must allow a vessel to go astern (taking into account poor vessel
manoeuvrability), the minimum width of the basin (Bnd) must be the greatest of the
following values
Bnd=3*Bmax + Lr+20 m
Bnd=5*Bmax+Lr
For the vessel with a 32 m beam (Bmax) and displacement above 60,000 tons, towing
length (Lr=sum of the overall length of the tug boat [LOA] and the horizontal projection
of the towing line) will be from 71 85 meters. So minimum basin width will be 187m
201m following the first equation or 231m 245m applying the second criteria;
according to the design criteria 231m is the minimum width to be considered for the
described condition.

Figure 7. Nominal width of the dock basin measured between planes of the outside fender faces of
thelongitudinal quays.

According to the latest edition of the Port Designers Handbook [19], for very long
single-berth piers (Figure 8 left) the clear water area between the two piers should be
2 times the beam of the largest ship plus 50 meters. For the Panamax vessel the
minimum width of the basin will only be 114 metres (2*32m+50m). This result is a
significantly different from that derived from the previous calculations. Related to Basin
2 of the port of Koper, where the clear water width is only 171 metres: the north
mooring area is occupied by an oil tanker, jet tanker and finally a pure car carrier; at
the south there is a chemical carrier, a bulk carrier and finally a berth for livestock
carriers. So the challenge is to safely berth a pure car carrier passing through a narrow
entry of only 95 meters between two tankers and then between a tanker and bulk
carrier (Figure 8 right). Following the deterministic models in figure 7, the minimal
basin width for standard vessels (not tankers) should be 4 times 44m plus 100m =
276m and 5 times 44m + 71 m = 291m, respectively, for the second model, while the
other model (Figure 8 left) requires only 138m (2*44m+50m).

Figure 8. Layout of berths

3.2.2 Semi-probabilistic analyses of the approaching channel and port basin

A real time full mission simulation approach [20] was applied in the similar way as was
described in section 3.1.2. A large product tanker of the LR2 class approached and
moored in basin two without problems (Figure 9). More than 20 entries with a pure
carrier were simulated in various wind conditions (Figure 10). We found that the car
carrier can safely pass between tankers in wind up to 3Bf or in 30 seconds wind gusts
up to 10 knots using two tugs, while for stronger cross winds an additional tug boat
and second pilot is required along with a precise Pilot Navigation System.

Figure 9. LR2 Tanker Berthing

Figure 10. Narrow passage Pure Car carrier

CONCLUSION

Full mission simulations are now widely used in a number of ways when planning for
new terminals and for upgrading existing port facilities. The real time simulation
method is highly applicable when the effectiveness of safety improvement planning of
port and harbour facilities must be assessed. Further, when the large ships need to be
taken into existing harbours originally designed for much smaller ships full mission
real time simulator boarded with experienced pilots and tug musters along with the
port engineers becomes a minimal necessity. According to the latest PIANC term of
references there has been one common element in discussions, analyses and reports
on harbour and channel design: the ever increasing size of the ships and the
concomitant increasing variety of different types with very different manoeuvring
capacities and behaviours. Today, a situation has been reached where it is not
uncommon to optimize and practice a turning manoeuvre in a harbour basin after a
new, larger vessel is announced for arrival and accommodation but before
construction commences. The tool of choice to validate a harbour layout or a channel
design as well as to optimize a manoeuvre with an unfamiliar ship size or to access
limiting operating conditions is the Shiphandling Simulation. Providing a virtual reality,
this approach combines the advantages of full scale experiments with availability in
advance, before the situation to be examined becomes real. This tool is of further value
in that it operates without risk is of comparatively low cost.
Yet a close read of the above elicits a variety of reservations, the most obvious of
which is that while there seems to be little restraint necessitated by open sea
conditions on the growth of vessels, the same cannot be said of ports. To make this
point by combining the logical and absurd, naturally wed in paradox, take a look at the
south end of basin one of the port of Koper. As this port is the only commercial port of
consequence in Slovenia, for Slovenia to remain a maritime country of consequence,
eventually the south end of basin one apparently will have to be expanded: the sea
must eat into the land, displacing number of residences and changing the face of an
historical town that is anyway shrinking within the requirements of a port city (the port
territory is far larger now than that of the old island town). That would suffice for a few
decades and then a new situation must needs arise, perhaps turning the Gulf of Koper
into a single basin. That would suffice for half a century or more. Naturally, this reads
as satire, but equally naturally it reads as the logical end of the predominating process
that is saving money at one end of the maritime commerce spectrum while costing a
great deal at another.

The other reservations are those related to the human and the human with his
machine. How is it possible for there to be so much variance in determined safe
manoeuvring spaces? And where there is a difference, is it better to choose the lesser
space because it is cheaper or the larger space to more likely prevent accidents (once
the lesser space is chosen, one waits for a costly accident and then confidently adopts
the greater parameter).
And finally we have the quite vivid description of the pilot with his inexpensive pocket
GPS tool, whom we can imagine flung from the vessel upon collision.
So, we have come a long way technologically, or we could say that we have run
alongside ship-owners a long time and pretty well kept up thankfully simulators allow
inexpensive testing for port design. Currently we appear to be safely operating or
capable of doing so within our ports, despite the demands of perpetually increasing
vessel sizes. But models based on perpetual expansion always implode. Before that
happens catastrophically, perhaps some means can be applied to begin to put a brake
on the process. Where vessel size increases profits, perhaps a mathematically sound
model may be construed wherein the profits are equably distributed to all stakeholders
involved in enabling the process to continue. For of course sooner or later the absurd
will overtake the logical and paradox become catastrophe.

Acknowledgements:
Special thanks to Lucjan Gucma of the Maritime University of Szczecin and Rick
Harsch.

References
1. PIANC. Masterplans for the development of existing ports. MarCom Working Group
158, Pianc Report n158, Brussels, 2014
2. Vuylsteke A. Scale Enlargement in the Flemish Port Area. Vlaanderen, 2016
3. PIANC. Harbour Approach Channels - Design Guidelines, MarCom Working Group
121, Pianc Report, Brussels, 2014
4. Perkovic M., Twrdy E., Batista M., Gucma L. Container Transport Capacity at the Port
of Koper, In Weintrit, A & Neumann, T. (Ed.). Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation: Maritime Transport & Shipping, CRC Press, pp.207-213, 2013
5. Perkovic M., Luin B., Brcko T., Gucma M. Docking system based on laser
measurements - Port of Koper case study, 5th Mediterranean Conference on
Embedded Computing, 2016
6. ROM 3.1-99. Puertos del Estado (Ed.). Recommendations for the Design of the
Maritime Configuration of Ports, Channels and Harbour Basins, 2007
7. PIANC. Use of Hydro/Meteo Information for Port Access and Operations, Report 117,
Brussels, 2012
8. Kobylinski L.K. Capabilities of Ship Handling Simulators to Simulate Shallow Water,
Bank and Canal Effects. TransNav - International Journal on Marine Navigation and
Safety of Sea Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 2: 247-252, 2011
9. Briggsa M.J., Borgmanb, L.E., Brattelandc, E. Probability assessment for deep-draft
navigation channel design, Coastal Engineering 48: 2950. 2003
10. Capability of Ship Manoeuvring Simulation Models for Approach Channels and
Fairways in Harbours, Supplement to Bulletin N77, of 1992.

11. Ship Handling Simulation Dedicated to Channel and Harbour Design, MarCom WG
171 Terms of Reference, PIANC, 2013
12. The Use of Simulation as a Tool for Waterway Design and AtoN Planning, Edition 2,
IALA, June 2011
13. Inoue K., Kawase M. Innovative Probabilistic Prediction of Accident Occurrence.
TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 19-22, 2007
14. Eloot K. J. Verwilligen and M. Vantorre, Synergy Between Theory and Practice for Ultra
Large Container Ships, PIANC MMX Congress Liverpool UK 2010, pp.1-13
15. Gucma L. (Ed.) LNG terminals design and operation. Navigational safety aspects.
Marine Traffic Engineering. Szczecin: 1-268, 2013
16. Transas. Model Wizard technical manual, Transas ltd, 2011
http://www.transas.com/products/simulators/sim_products/navigational/components/t
ools/
17. Transas. NTPro 5000 5.35 technical manual, Transas ltd, 2015
18. Ligterngen H., Velsink H. Port and Terminals, VSSD, 2012
19. Thorsen C. A. Port Designers Handbook. ICE Publishing, 2014
Additional readings
20. Agerschou H. et al, Planning and Design of Ports and Marine Terminals, Thomas
Telford Books, 2004
21. Webster, W. C. Ship-handling Simulation: Application to Waterway Design, National
Academy of Sciences. 1992
22. Simulator Application in Harbor and Waterway Design, Webster W.C., (Ed.),
Committee on Assessment of Shiphandling Simulation Marine Board Commission on
Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, 1992