AL T
I
V
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER
A
E
S
N
TER
EN
E
R
E
IN E
G S RVIC
E
Technical Report
TR-6027-OCN
by
20 November 2001
Prepared for:
Distribution is unlimited .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
If a moving ship passes a moored ship too close or too fast, then the
moored ship can be subjected to high forces and moments ( Wang, 1975,
Flory, 2001 and many other references). The resulting moored ship
response to the passing ship can cause serious accidents.
The approach taken in this report is to use the deepwater numerical results
of Wang (1975) to evaluate passing ship forces and moments on a moored
ship. Shallow water correction factors are then applied. The shallow water
correction factors are developed by empirically re-analyzing results from a
number of scale physical model studies. The resulting information can be
used in a number of engineering tools including:
STATIC ANALYSES. The peak forces and moments on the moored ship
computed by PASS-MOOR can be input into various static mooring
software packages (FIXMOOR, OPTIMOOR, AQWA LIBRIUM, etc.).
These programs can be used to estimate static tensions in various
mooring lines and static offset of the ship from a given position for passing
ship events.
Section Pg.
LIST OF APPENDICES........................................................................................ ii
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. NOTATION USED
B. PREVIOUS WORK
1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
As vessels move through the water they generate waves and other
phenomena that may influence moored vessels, contribute to coastal
erosion, etc.. Therefore, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFACENGCOM) Engineering Innovation and Criteria Office
tasked the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) to
develop criteria for ship-generated waves.
CASE NOTES
Two battleships (BB-62 These battleships were moored side-by-side
class) moored at the with over twenty legs of 2.5-inch chain and
Philadelphia Naval sinkers. The two battleships would surge 12
Shipyard drydock wharf to 15 feet as larger commercial ships passed
the site causing accelerated wear on
1990’s mooring hardware.
USNS REGULUS and Two MSC ships were moored side-by-side at
USNS POLLUS; Berth #5, Violet Dock Port at Violet, LA with
USNS REGULUS the inboard ship next to
13 June 1998 the pier. A woman and child visiting this U.S.
Navy ship were both seriously hurt when
they were run over by a rolling 3,000 pound
gangway. The gangway’s sudden motion
occurred when both of the moored ships
surged as large cargo ships passed nearby
in the Mississippi River.
Tanker U.S. JUPITER U.S JUPITER was moored and unloading
10,900 DWT Length 382 unleaded gasoline when BUFFALO (17,500
feet; DWT and 635 feet long) traveling at about
4.2 knots passed with a gap between the
vessels of 60 to 65 feet. JUPITER had
16 Sep 1990 mooring lines break, the discharge hose
broke and the resulting fire caused 1 death,
18 injuries, JUPITER was a total loss and the
pier was damaged.
QUEEN ELIZABETH II QUEEN ELIZABETH II passed
Length 963 feet, Width 105 approximately 1,600 feet from the Norfolk,
feet and Draft 32.6 feet; VA waterfront at an estimated speed of 15 to
and AFDM-7 20 knots. AFDM-7 parted three 3.5-inch
mooring chains; the ship in dock shifted on
7 Jan 1976 at 2 pm its blocks. All up and down the waterfront
numerous Navy ships broke mooring lines,
shore cables broke, utilities failed, brows
failed and pier pilings were broken.
M+
L1
FY+
Ship 1
Moored
In this report we take for simplicity the case of a ship moored on its
starboard in still water, as shown in Figure 1.4-1 (moored ship is on the
right). This moored ship can be described as moored in the ‘upstream
direction’.
The relative speed, VR, between the ship and current speed, VC, (if any)
is:
VR = V – VC Eq (1)
For the case shown in Figure 1.4-2 the ship and current speeds are the
same magnitude and direction (i.e. current is flood and the passing ship is
moving upstream). In this case the relative ship speed is zero, so the
passing ship effects will be minimal. In the case of the passing ship
traveling at the same speed and direction as the current, the passing ship
has little effect on the moored ship because the passing ship effectively
acts like a slug of water moving by the moored ship.
If on the other hand the passing ship is moving upstream and the current is
ebbing down stream in the opposite direction of the ship motion, as shown
in Figure 1.4-3, then the relative ship speed, VR, effects may be very
significant on the moored ship. In this case the relative ship speed through
the water is higher than the world ship speed, V.
The special case of the passing ship moving upstream at a slower speed
than a flooding current (i.e. the ship has reverse thrust, but still moving
upstream) is not covered in this report, since this case is not likely to be a
problem.
For other cases, such as the moored ship with its port side to the pier, the
passing ship moving in the downstream direction, etc., the engineer can
use methods in this report and change signs and coordinate systems to
meet his particular situation.
Note that the ship speed, V, relative to the world fixed coordinate system is
the velocity that determines how quickly the passing ship encounters the
moored ship.
η
Ship 2 Ship 1
Moving Moored
Vc = current
Ship 2 Ship 1
Moving Moored
Vc = current
Ship 2 Ship 1
Moving Moored
20
60
55
15 50
45
40
35
10
30
25
5 DEPTH (ft)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY (%)
Deepwater: For the deepwater case (i.e. T/d is small for both the passing
and the moored ship) forces and moments applied to the moored ship by
the passing ship are computed using the method of Wang (1975).
Physical model tests show a pattern very similar to that of Figure 2.1-1.
Also, physical model and other numerical model simulation methods give
results similar to Wang (1975) for cases of small T/d, so Wang (1975) is
used for deepwater.
In this report Ship 1 is taken as the moored ship and Ship 2 is taken as the
passing ship (see Appendix A for notation used).
0.5 M
DIMENSIONLESS FORCE / MOMENT
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
X- = ship backward
-0.7 after Wang (1975) Y- = ship to starboard
-0.8 Fig. 2 M- = ship clockwise
-0.9
-1.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
x/L
Note that distance, x , between the passing and moored ships can also be
expressed in terms of time, t , since the passing ship has a velocity, V,
relative to the world fixed coordinate system.
L1
Ship 1
Moored
x
< - 2.0
L
L2 Ship 2
Moving
M-
FY+
x
Ship 2
Moving F X-
x
= -0.35
L
FY+
Ship 2
Moving
x
= 0.0
L
Ship 1
Moored
Pier or
Wharf
x FX+
M+
FY-
Ship 2
Moving
x
= 0.35
L
Figures 2.1-6, -7, –8 and Eq (2) are used to find peak forces and moments
on moored ships due to passing ships in deepwater for the case of no
current. The computed peak values are then applied to the curves shown
in Figure 2.1-1 to calculate time histories of forces and moments acting on
a moored ship due to a passing ship.
8 1.6
After WANG (1975) Fig. 3 Left
7
6 1.2
Fx/Q
5
1.0
4 0.9
0.8
3
0.7
2 0.6
0.5
1
L2/L1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
η/L1
25 1.0
pass-wang.xls
0.9
20
Fy/Q
15 0.8
10 0.7
0.6
5 0.5
L2/L1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
η/L1
8 1.6
pass-wang.xls
1.2
6
1.0
M/(L1*Q)
0.9
5
0.8
4 0.7
3
0.6
2 0.5
1
L2/L1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
η/L1
End View
The shallow water correction factor is defined in a similar manner for the
force in the Y-direction and moment, M, in the yaw direction.
Figure 2.2-2, for example, shows the shallow water correction factor for the
force in the sway direction. Laboratory data is shown as points. A curve
has been fit through the data showing that the ratio of ship draft to water
depth (T/d ) has a strong influence on passing ship peak sway force. Note
that the curve fit to the data was selected to have a value of 1.0 at (T/d ) =
0.0, so the peak sway force approaches the deep water value as (T/d )
becomes small.
35
PASS.XLS
30
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Remery (1974), Muga and Fang (1975) &
25 Cohen (1983)
with:
G/B = 1.5
20 T/B = 0.4
CFY
15
CFY = 1 + 30 * (T/d)4
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
T/d
20
18
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
16 Remery (1974), Muga and Fang (1975)
14
12
CFX
10 REMERY
MUGA
8
2
PASS.XLS
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
T/d
18
PASS.XLS
CFX=1 + 16 * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.5)2)
16
T/d =
14 1.0
0.9
0.8
12 0.7
0.6
0.5
10 0.4
0.3
CFX
0.2
0.1
8
0.0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
G/B
45
-0.35 4
CFY= CFM = 1 + 25 * (T/B) * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.3)2)
40
T/B = 0.4
35
T/d =
1.0
30 0.9
0.8
0.7
CFY and CFM
25 0.6
0.5
0.0
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
G/B
7.5 -0.35 4 2
CFY= CFM = 1 + 25 * (T/B) * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.3) )
7.0
T/B = 0.4
6.5
6.0
T/d =
5.5 0.6
0.5
5.0 0.4
CFY and CFM
4.5 0.3
0.2
4.0 0.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
G/B
The peak forces and moments in Item (4) can be used with various
software packages (FIXMOOR, OPTIMOOR, AQWA LIBRIUM, etc.) to
perform static mooring analyses. These static programs can be used to
estimate line tensions and moored ship offsets from initial position.
The force and moment time histories applied to the moored ship, Item (6),
can be used as input to dynamic simulation software packages (AQWA
DRIFT, etc.) to calculate dynamic response of a moored ship to a passing
ship.
EXAMPLE
The use of this spread sheet is illustrated with the example shown in
Figure 3.1-1.
INPUT
Figure 3.1-2 shows the input screen. Cells in yellow are for input. Cells in
green are output. Totally black cells are blank.
Note that the methods described in this report were developed for a
specific range of conditions. If a user inputs a value that results in a case
outside the valid range, then the message ‘Error !!!’ is displayed in the
“Error Flag” column E. For example, if the length of Ship 1 is input as a
Ship 1
V = 7 knots Moored
L=843'
B=121'
T=52'
d=59'
Ship 2
Passing
L=991'
B=153'
T=52'.5 223'
d=59'
The user should not proceed if any of the ‘Error !!!’ flags are turned on,
because output results will be incorrect.
The quick ‘mooring efficiency’ analysis for this example, Figure 3.1-5,
suggests that on the order of 16 parts of breasting line and 6 parts of
spring line would be required for this case to maintain a factor of safety of
2 on mooring lines.
The PASS-MOOR spread sheet also provides plots of force and moment
time histories, as illustrated in Figure 3.1-6. In this spread sheet time ‘0’ is
the point where the passing ship just starts to have an influence on the
moored ship (i.e. at x/L = -2).
For this example the moored ship is pushed onto the pier with maximum
forces (negative) at times of 100 and 210 seconds. The highest force
pulling the ship off the pier occurs at 155 seconds. The maximum force
pulling the moored ship in the aft direction occurs at 130 seconds and the
maximum force pushing the moored ship in the forward direction occurs at
180 seconds. The highest moments also occur at times of 130 and 180
seconds.
SHIP VELOCITY
Figure 3.2-1 shows that as the passing ship velocity increases, the peak
sway force dramatically increases for the example.
WATER DEPTH
Figure 3.2-2 shows that a small decrease in the water depth causes a
large increase in peak sway force for the example.
1000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
TIME (sec)
-500
-1000
250000
200000
APPLIED MOMENT TO THE MOORED SHIP (foot * kips)
150000
100000
M (ft*kips)
50000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-50000
TIME (sec)
-100000
-150000
-200000
-250000
1200
800
600
400
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PASSING SHIP VELOCITY (knots)
2000
1800
1600
PEAK SWAY FORCE (thousands pounds)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
PASS.XLS
0
50 55 60 65 70 75
WATER DEPTH (ft)
Figure 3.2-3 shows that an ebb current opposing a passing ship causes a
dramatic increase in peak sway force on the moored ship. A flood current,
on the other hand, causes the peak sway force on the moored ship to
decrease.
Figure 3.2-4 shows that the peak sway force increases as the passing ship
gets closer to the moored ship.
A passing ship may have a major influence on a nearby moored ship due
to a combination of wave, pressure, Bernoulli and other effects. The
moored ship may be pushed in the fore and aft directions, pushed into the
pier, pulled off the pier and forced to yaw in response to the passing ship.
In this report forces and moments on the moored ship due to the passing
ship are estimated by:
(a) Using the method of Wang (1975) to estimate values for the deepwater
case.
(b) Correcting for realistic finite depth effects using correction factors
developed from re-analyses of scale model laboratory data.
2500
1500
1000
500
2500
PASS.XLS
2000
PEAK SWAY FORCE (thousands pounds)
1500
1000
500
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
DISTANCE BETWEEN SHIP CENTERLINES (ft)
• The reader can perform his own inspection of previous model test
results summarized in Appendix B, Figures 2.2-2 and -3, etc.
De-bo, Huang and Yunbo, Li, “Ship Wave Resistance Based on Noblesse’s
Slender Ship Theory and Wave-Steepness Restriction”, Ship Technology
Research, Vol. 44, pp. 198-202, 1977.
Flory, J., “A Method for Estimating Passing Ship Forces”, ASCE, Proceedings
Ports 2001, 2001.
Grollius, W., Muller, E., Lochte-Holtgreven, H., and Guesnet, Th., “Results of
Model Tests with Fast Unconventional Ships in Shallow Water”, Proceedings, 3rd
Int. Conf. On Fast Sea Transport, FAST ’95, Vol. 2, Schiffbautechnische
Gesellschaft (STG), Berlin, 1995.
Husig, A., Linke, T. and Zimmermann, C., “Effects from Supercritical Ship
Operation on Inland Canals”, ASCE, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and
Ocean Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 3, May/June 2000, pp. 130-135.
Kurata, K. and Oda, K., “Ship Waves in Shallow Water and Their Effects on
Moored Small Vessel”, Proceedings Coastal Engineering Conference, pp. 3258-
3273, 1984.
Lean, G.H., and Price, W.A., "The Effect of Passing Vessels on a Moored Ship",
The Dock and Harbour Authority, Nov. 1977.
Muga, B. and Fang S.,”Passing Ship Effects from Theory and Experiment”,
Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. 2368, 1975.
Remery, G.F.M., “Mooring Forces Induced by Passing Ships”, OTC 2066, 1974.
Seelig, W., “‘EMOOR’ - A Quick and Easy Method of Evaluating Ship Mooring at
Piers and Wharves”, NFESC Report TR-6005-OCN, Rev B May 1998.
Spencer, J., McBride, M., Beresford, P. and Goldberg, D., “Modeling the Effects
of Passing Ships”, Proceedings, International Colloquium on Computer
Applications in Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Kuala Lumpa, June 1993.
UNITS:
- = dimensionless
L = length
T = time
ANG = ang
F = force
REMERY (1974)
The moored ship was initially held rigidly and forces/moments on the
moored ship were measured. Then linear mooring systems with various
amounts of stiffness were installed on the moored ship and experiments
re-run.
Muga and Fang (1975) performed 47 laboratory tests with identical moored
and passing ships (250 000 DWT tankers). Tests were conducted over a
range of conditions with and without a current. Most of the data from this
research appear to be lost. Some data can be taken from figures in this
paper. However, it appears the data was plotted with an error of 2 or the
y-axes of the figures were mis-labeled. Corrected data is used in this
report.
Lean and Price (1977)
Lean and Price (1977) performed 135 laboratory tests. Only a fraction of
the data are reported. These authors concluded that pressure gradients
associated with the passing ship are important because the observed
waves had small height at low ship speed and the length of the observed
surface waves were short in comparison with the size of the moored ship.
The authors conclude that slack lines are to be avoided and that some
relief in maximum line loads can be achieved by increasing the line
pretension.
King (1977)
Kizakkevariath, S. (1989)
Flory, J. (2001)
Table B-1 summarizes the previous model tests reanalyzed in this report.
Table B-1. SHALLOW WATER CORRECTION FACTORS DETERMINED
FROM LABORATORY SCALE MODEL STUDIES OF PASSING SHIP
EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS
Data Pt # d/L L2/L1 eta/L1 T/d CFX CFY CFM GAP/B1 T/B Source
1 0.07 0.712 0.239 0.870 8.027 10.675 9.308 0.815 0.402 REMERY (1974)
2 0.07 0.712 0.356 0.870 10.274 14.694 14.762 1.630 0.402 REMERY (1974)
3 0.07 0.712 0.589 0.870 12.75 20.345 23.220 3.261 0.402 REMERY (1974)
4 0.07 0.973 0.267 0.870 8.871 12.075 10.261 0.815 0.374 REMERY (1974)
5 0.07 0.973 0.384 0.870 11.348 15.469 10.787 1.630 0.374 REMERY (1974)
6 0.07 0.973 0.617 0.870 13.190 9.584 3.261 0.374 REMERY (1974)
7 0.07 0.973 0.928 0.870 9.699 10.355 7.604 5.435 0.374 REMERY (1974)
8 0.07 1.175 0.279 0.870 9.636 11.910 11.899 0.815 0.344 REMERY (1974)
9 0.07 1.175 0.396 0.870 15.530 15.386 1.630 0.344 REMERY (1974)
10 0.07 1.175 0.629 0.870 11.146 16.306 14.550 3.261 0.344 REMERY (1974)
11 0.07 1.175 0.94 0.870 9.308 10.908 9.592 5.435 0.344 REMERY (1974)
12 0.068 1.000 0.292 0.909 10.9245 18.865 11.580 0.900 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
13 0.068 1.000 0.385 0.909 13.623 24.364 15.248 1.500 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
14 0.068 1.000 0.477 0.909 17.4565 24.737 18.278 2.100 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
15 0.08 1.000 0.385 0.769 9.9455 11.666 21.046 1.500 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
16 0.068 1.000 0.385 0.909 13.623 24.364 15.248 1.500 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
17 0.066 1.000 0.385 0.943 15.009 27.707 33.184 1.500 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
18 0.066 1.000 0.292 0.943 11.831 20.608 25.158 0.900 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
19 0.062 1.000 0.292 1.000 10.179 29.903 32.067 0.900 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
20 0.075 1.000 0.167 0.833 6.736 6.415 0.336 0.500 COHEN (1983)
21 0.075 1.000 0.229 0.833 8.157 8.879 0.832 0.500 COHEN (1983)
22 0.075 1.000 0.292 0.833 10.595 8.618 1.336 0.500 COHEN (1983)
23 0.075 1.000 0.354 0.833 12.450 10.114 1.832 0.500 COHEN (1983)
24 0.05 1.000 0.167 0.833 8.412 9.661 0.336 0.333 COHEN (1983)
25 0.05 1.000 0.229 0.833 11.057 11.303 0.832 0.333 COHEN (1983)
26 0.05 1.000 0.292 0.833 15.666 11.350 1.336 0.333 COHEN (1983)
27 0.05 1.000 0.354 0.833 16.357 13.663 1.832 0.333 COHEN (1983)
28 0.094 1.000 0.167 0.667 4.272 4.311 0.336 0.500 COHEN (1983)
29 0.094 1.000 0.229 0.667 5.220 5.223 0.832 0.500 COHEN (1983)
30 0.094 1.000 0.292 0.667 6.248 6.601 1.336 0.500 COHEN (1983)
31 0.094 1.000 0.354 0.667 6.874 6.616 1.832 0.500 COHEN (1983)
32 0.063 1.000 0.167 0.667 4.663 4.402 0.336 0.333 COHEN (1983)
33 0.063 1.000 0.229 0.667 5.928 5.911 0.832 0.333 COHEN (1983)
34 0.063 1.000 0.292 0.667 7.478 6.674 1.336 0.333 COHEN (1983)
35 0.063 1.000 0.354 0.667 8.950 8.831 1.832 0.333 COHEN (1983)
36 0.1 2.000 0.625 1.000 10.246 1.500 0.400 KING (1977)
37 0.1 1.333 0.417 1.000 14.408 1.500 0.600 KING (1977)
38 0.1 1.000 0.313 1.000 16.176 7.687 1.500 0.800 KING (1977)
39 0.1 0.667 0.208 1.000 18.038 1.500 1.200 KING (1977)
40 0.1 0.500 0.156 1.000 25.098 1.500 1.600 KING (1977)
* AUTHOR MADE AN ERROR OF 2.0 WHEN PLOTTING
18
16
14
12
.
PREDICTED CFX
10
2
PASS.XLS
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
MEASURED CFX
35
30
-0.35 4
CFY= 1 + 25 * (T/B) * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.3)2)
25
.
PREDICTED CFY
20
15
10
5
PASS.XLS
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MEASURED CFY
-0.35 4
CFM= 1 + 25 * (T/B) * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.3)2)
30
25
.
PREDICTED CFM
20
15
10
5
PASS.XLS
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MEASURED CFM