LNG Ship Manoeuvring Simulation Study

LNG Ship Manoeuvring Simulation Study

Vasilikos FSRU Terminal



Vasilikos FSRU Terminal

CYnergy is co-financed by the European Union's Connecting Europe Facility.

The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Responsible Partner: Hellenic Lloyd’s S.A.

Document Code: G17063

Version: V1.0

Date of Submission: 13.03.2018


Document Details

Document History

Contributing Authors

Grant Agreement Number: INEA/CEF/SYN/A2016/1336268

Action Number: 2016-EU-SA-0009

Project Title: CYnergy

Activity: Technical and Operational Design for LNG Facility & Natural Gas System Development

Sub-activity: 2.2.: Ship-to-Facility (STF) Operations

Milestone:

11: Supporting Engineering Studies, Preliminary Engineering Design Studies, Final Construction Engineering Design for Floating LNG Facilities supporting infrastructure.

Version Date Authorized

V1.0 March 2018 Thanos Koliopulos

Lloyd’s Register EMEA

2

Table of Contents

1. TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................................................ ...3

2. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 5

2.1 General .............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Simulations Methodology ................................................................................ 5

2.3 Simulation Database and Electronic Chart .................................................... 6

2.4 Vessel Mathematical Models ........................................................................... 7

2.5 Metocean Environment .................................................................................... 8

2.6 Simulation Matrix .............................................................................................. 9

3. SIMULATION RESULTS .......................................................................................... 10

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 11

4.1 Conclusions from Simulations ...................................................................... 11

Appendix 1 Simulation Runs Report .......................................................................... 13

Appendix 2 Vessel Pilot Cards ................................................................................... 90

Appendix 3 Workshop Attendees List ....................................................................... 95

3

1. TERMS OF REFERENCE

Lloyd’s Register EMEA (LR) has been engaged by the CYnergy Partners Group to undertake the Risk Assessment scope of the Concept Definition Study of the site selection which will enable the issue of Site Permit by the Cyprus Government for the future development of an FSRU terminal able to export natural gas to the Cyprus grid.

It was required that real time ship manoeuvring simulations be undertaken to fully understand the risks associated with all LNG vessel movements and the interaction with port operations and navigation aids. Simulations were used by Lloyd’s Register on behalf of CYnergy Project to achieve the following objectives:

Verify the safe manoeuvre of FSRU vessel for entering Vasilikos Port and berthing at the nominated jetty in order to commence regasification operations;

Verify the maximum size of a trading LNG carrier (LNGC) for safe approach entering Vasilikos bay and berthing alongside the FSRU;

Verify the safe manoeuvre for the FSRU and the maximum size of a shuttle LNGC to enter the nominated emergency shelter of Vasilikos Port during adverse weather conditions;

Verify the number and size of tugs which may be required for transit and berthing operations;

Verify the ability to transfer bunker LNG from the terminal using LNG feeder/barge to the Port of Lemesos

Verify the safety of manoeuvre plans and identify appropriate abort/emergency procedures;

The simulations were conducted using the REMBRANDT ship handling and manoeuvring simulator, developed by BMT. This report describes the methodology adopted for this project and includes a summary of results, full simulation results (including track-plots) and appropriate recommendations.

The area of interest in Vasilikos Bay for manoeuvring simulations is shown on Figure 1.

4

Figure 1: CYnergy Project area development

5

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 General

The simulations were carried out on 22 and 23 December 2017 in Lloyd's Register’s office in Lemesos, Cyprus. The organisation of the relevant Workshop was as follows:

Participation included specialists (see Appendix 3) from Lloyd’s Register (risk and navigation specialists and CYnergy Project Manager), BMT specialists, Lemesos Port pilots, Cyprus Cost Guard representatives as well as key partners and relevant stakeholders like coast specialists Rogan Associates.

CYnergy Partners and Lloyd’s Register ensured that the manoeuvring simulations assessment was linked with all other relevant activities and deliverables of the project. Also integrated with other studies results, like Hazard Identification study (HAZID) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) as well as strategic goals of the project, for example, ensuring that the relevant designs for the feeder vessel and barge studied under Poseidon MED II project are acceptable in terms of navigational aspects.

REMBRANDT is a Windows based software application designed to run on any laptop or desktop computer of suitable specification that is using a Microsoft operating system. It can be configured in single or multiple screen modes with a variety of user control options.

2.2 Simulations Methodology

All simulations were supervised by Captain Chris Bordas a LNG carrier master pilot with experience of over 500 port entries and departures. In addition simulations were also contacted by local pilots from Port of Lemesos operating teams. The pilots controlled the vessel directly (i.e. without issuing orders) and manoeuvred the tugs using the external function display. The pilots had the following information available in real-time:

The electronic chart view (ECDIS) showing the position of the vessel on the chart and other information such as the dredged channel, under keel clearance (UKC), turning circles and exclusion zones;

An out-of-the-window 3D view from the ship’s bridge (switched to the bridge wings when required);

Run information such as the vessel speed over the ground (ahead/astern and lateral), rate of turn, heading and course over the ground. Also, depth profile and engine/rudder values (actual and demanded);

Position and percentage of power usage for each assisting tug.

The run information screen which is available to the pilots during the simulation is shown in Figure 2 below:

6

Figure 2: Simulator Screen

Each run was set up with the met-ocean conditions and the ship’s initial position, speed and course. At the end of each run, a run report form was completed. The run report forms are included in Appendix 1. They include a qualitative grading matrix (refer to Figure 3) which has been introduced in order to establish the level of difficulty in performing each manoeuvre as a means of comparison for the study. The contents of the report forms and the grading were completed upon the conclusion of each manoeuvre. Each grading matrix sheet carries the name of the pilot undertaking the manoeuvre.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Easy Straight-forward

Comfortable Not

demanding Not

easy Challenging Difficult Impossible

Figure 3: Grading Matrix

The vessels used for the simulations were modelled based on information received from the vessel designers and are established in REMBRANT’s own data library. The vessels main dimensions are given in Section 2.3.

2.3 Simulation Database and Electronic Chart

The official Greek Hydrographic Office S-57 electronic chart was used for the simulations and the planned jetty was added as is typically shown in Figure 4, plan view and Figure 5, 3D view.

7

Figure 4: Vasilikos ENC

Figure 5: Qflex Approach

2.4 Vessel Mathematical Models

Two typical sizes of shuttle LNG ships were used for the simulation study. The two vessels were a steam turbine driven Moss Ship and a more modern Qflex vessel. In addition operations in support of LNG bunkering activities at Port of Lemesos were simulated via the use of a feeder vessel and bunker barge expected to operate at the port under Poseidon MED II project. The vessels particulars are presented in Table 1.

8

Vessel ID LOA [m]

B [m]

Loading Condition

T Stern [m]

T Bow [m]

Control Devices

150k LNGC 283 43.4 Ballast

Fully-Loaded

9.5

11.5

9.5

11.5 1 X FPP

Qflex LNGC 315 50.1 Ballast

Fully-Loaded

9.5

12.0

9.5

12.0 2 X FPP

LNG Bunker Barge 74.5 15.6 Ballast

Fully-Loaded

3.6

4.4

3.6

4.4 1 X FPP

LNG Feeder Tanker 121.8 18.5 Ballast

Fully-Loaded

4.0

5.5

5.0

5.5 1 x FPP

Table 1: Vessel Particulars

2.5 Metocean Environment

Wind, wave and current data was based on input from Lloyd’s Register and the port’s pilot representatives.

A west to east flowing current is the most commonly experienced flow and 1 knot was used for all runs.

Various wind directions were investigated with speeds up to 30 knots used. All runs were carried out with gusting wind. In REMBRANDT the gust speed is randomly varied by 25% to 31% of the base wind speed. The wind speed is then either increased or decreased (50/50) by the gust speed. Furthermore, the direction is randomly adjusted between -9° and 9°. This occurs every 10 to 25 seconds. (refer to Fig.6)

Figure 6: Vasilikos Wind Rose

Corresponding wave conditions were used with mean significant heights up to 2.7 meters.

9

2.6 Simulation Matrix

The final simulation matrix as agreed with CYnergy Partners and Lloyd’s Register was made up of 13 runs.

Table 2 below shows the simulation matrix details. The matrix is also presented along with the key results in Section 4.

Run Vessel Arrival/ Departure

Tugs (Max BP used)

Wind (kts)(gusting)

Waves (Hs, T, Dir)

Current (kts) Comments

1 150k FSRU (Ballast) Arr 4 x 90T 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090°

2 150k LNGC (Loaded) Arr 4 x 90T 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090°

3 Qflex (Loaded) Arr 4 x 90T 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090°

4 Qflex (Loaded) Arr 4 x 90T 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Local Pilot

5 Qflex (Loaded) Arr 4 x 90T 28 / 225° 2.5 / 7.0 / 225° 1.0 / 090°

6 Qflex (Loaded) Arr 4 x 90T 28 / 225° 2.5 / 7.0 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Tug failure

7 Qflex (Ballast) Dep 1 x 90T 28 / 135° 2.5 / 7.0 / 135° 1.0 / 090°

8 Qflex (Ballast) Dep 2 x 90T 16 / 225° 0.9 / 4.6 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Emergency Departure

9 Qflex (Ballast) Dep 4 x 90T 16 / 225° 0.9 / 4.6 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Emergency Departure

10 150k LNGC (Ballast) Dep 4 x 90T 16 / 225° 0.9 / 4.6 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Emergency Departure

11 150k LNGC (Ballast) Dep 4 x 90T 16 / 225° 0.9 / 4.6 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Tug failure

12 25K LNG Carrier (Loaded) Transit - 30 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090°

13 Bunker Barge (Ballast) Transit - 30 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090°

Table 2: Simulation Run Matrix

The summarised simulation results are presented in Section 3, Table 3.

10

3. SIMULATION RESULTS

The run report forms for each run from the workshop are presented in Appendix 1

Run Vessel Arrival/

DepartureTugs (Max BP

used)

Wind (kts)

(gusting)

Waves (Hs, T, Dir)

Current (kts)

Comments Rating

1 150k FSRU (Ballast) Arr 4 x 90T 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Comfortable

2 150k LNGC (Loaded) Arr 4 x 90T 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Local Pilot Comfortable

3 Qflex (Loaded) Arr 4 x 90T 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Comfortable

4 Qflex (Loaded) Arr 4 x 90T 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Local Pilot Comfortable

5 Qflex (Loaded) Arr 4 x 90T 28 / 225° 2.5 / 7.0 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Not Easy

6 Qflex (Loaded) Arr 4 x 90T 28 / 225° 2.5 / 7.0 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Tug failure Challenging

7 Qflex (Ballast) Dep 1 x 90T 28 / 135° 2.5 / 7.0 / 135° 1.0 / 090° Stand-by Tug Not Easy

8 Qflex (Ballast) Dep 2 x 90T 16 / 225° 0.9 / 4.6 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Emergency Departure Challenging

9 Qflex (Ballast) Dep 4 x 90T 16 / 225° 0.9 / 4.6 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Emergency Departure Not Easy

10 150k LNGC (Ballast) Dep 4 x 90T 16 / 225° 0.9 / 4.6 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Emergency Departure Challenging

11 150k LNGC (Ballast) Dep 4 x 90T 16 / 225° 0.9 / 4.6 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Emergency D -Tug failure Difficult

12 25K LNG Carrier(Loaded) Transit - 30 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Straightforward

13 Bunker Barge (Ballast) Transit - 30 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225° 1.0 / 090° Straightforward

11

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions from Simulations

The following vessels were modelled for the simulations. Pilot cards for the modelled vessels are provided in Appendix 2 of this report:

Vessel ID LOA [m] B [m]

150k LNGC 283 43.4

Qflex LNGC 315 50.1

LNG Bunker Barge 74.5 15.6

LNG Feeder Tanker 121.8 18.5

The difficulty level assigned to each manoeuvre was based on pilot experience and observations carried out during the actual simulation runs. It should be noted that the pilots operated a LNG carrier in Vasilikos Bay area for the first time. Hence, all the assigned difficulty levels are considered to be conservative. Based on the real time simulation scenarios performed the following apply:

Run difficulty up to and including “Not Demanding” is suggested as being standard operation in real navigation to/from the terminal.

Runs rated as “Not Easy” and higher would require additional analysis and preparation from the pilots performing the manoeuvre during similar weather conditions.

In general based on the current operational experience in the area the manoeuvres graded as “Difficult” should be avoided or additional pilot training provided in order to ensure a level of LNG carrier piloting experience is acquired.

Based on the simulation results the following critical observations are made:

For conditions of 20 knots winds, 2250 direction (south easterly), Hs 1.7 m, maneuvering of the vessels in and around the planned berth did not pose any significant problems. Compatibility issues with bridge interference between vessels will be addressed during shuttle LNGC contract phase. (Runs 1,2,3 and 4)

During conditions of 28 knots winds, 2250 and 2350 direction (south easterly), Hs 2.5 m, the approach maneuver for berthing varied from “Not Easy” (Run 5) with 4 tugs supporting, to “Challenging” with 3 tugs eventually supporting, resulting in failure (maneuver aborted Run 6).

During conditions of 28 knots winds, 2250 and 2350 direction (south easterly), Hs 2.5 m, departure maneuver for the QFlex simulating emergency departure ( e.g. due to loss of mooring lines) during STS with the stand-by tug supporting resulted in “Not Easy” but remarked as non-feasible by the master pilot.(Run 7)

During conditions of 28 knots winds, 2250and 2350 direction (south easterly), Hs 2.5 m, significant difficulties were experienced for both vessels 150k LNGC/FSRU and Qflex during the turning and approach maneuver to the proposed new port development to the north east of the berth. A number of significant changes were proposed here by the attending pilots including straightening the planned dredged area and widening the planned swinging circle. (Runs 8, 9 and 10). The use of 4 tugs proved important in entering shelter port. (Run 11)

12

It should be noted that regulations at the Vasilikos Berth require that all visiting vessels employ the use of a tug irrespective of the environmental conditions. The existing tug suite will need to be reviewed to ensure sufficient power is available for all investigated meteorological conditions. The simulations used 4 x 90 ton bollard pull tugs and this provided sufficient power in the conditions and emergency scenarios tested.

During conditions of 30 knots wind (severe), both the transit of 122m LNG feeder from the Vasilikos berth down to the Lemesos Port and the return journey back to Vasilikos by the smaller LNG barge were performed without difficulty and termed “Straightforward” (Runs 12 and 13)

13

Appendix 1 Simulation Runs Report

14

1 RUN 1:

Project: Ship Simulations for Lloyd’s Register Job No.: G17063 Captain/Pilot: Bordas

Subject: Vasilikos LNG Manoeuvring Simulation Study

Date: December 2017 Site: Vasilikos Bay , Cyprus

Run No.

Vessel Access Condition Environmental Conditions

Ship Type Tugs Current (Speed/Dir)

Wind (Speed/Dir) Waves (Hs, T, Dir)

1 150k FSRU (Ballast)

Arrival

4 x 90T 1.0 / 090° 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225°

The first run was conducted with the 150k Moss tanker representing the FSRU approaching the berth in moderate south westerly conditions. The tugs were used up to 50% power (around 45 tonnes bollard pull). This run was quite straight forward for the pilot.

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Easy

Straight-forward Comfortable Not demanding Not easy Challenging Difficult Impossible

15

- Tug 2 - Tug 4 - Tug 1

- Tug 3

Vessel Track With Tugs

Vessel: LNG Carrier 005 (B)Harbour: WorldCreated: 21/12/2017 08:53

Wind: 20.00 kts 225 °Current: 1.00 kts 90 °Depth: Chart Datum

16

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder

Vessel: LNG Carrier 005 (B) (+Tugs)Harbour: WorldCreated: 21/12/2017 08:53

- Rudder Rud (°) - Heading


17

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities


- Fwd. Velocity, u - Lat. Velocity, v - Rate of Turn, r


Speeds through water (kts)

18

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

7000.0

6000.0

5000.0

4000.0

3000.0

2000.0

1000.0

0.0

-1000.0

-2000.0

-3000.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

-25.0

-50.0

PowerkW

RPM Engine Power and RPM


- Propeller (Fixed pitch) Eng Power - Propeller (Fixed pitch) Eng RPM


19

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0Time (Minutes)

54.0

48.0

42.0

36.0

30.0

24.0

18.0

12.0

6.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull


- Tug 2 Total Force (% bollard) - Tug 4 Total Force (% bollard) - Tug 1 Total Force (% bollard)

- Tug 3 Total Force (% bollard)Wind: 20.00 kts 225 °Current: 1.00 kts 90 °Depth: Chart Datum

20

2 RUN 2:




Run No.


Ship Type

Tugs Current (Speed/Dir)


2 150k FSRU (Loaded)

Arrival 4 x 90T 1.0 / 090° 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225°

Run 2 repeated the conditions of Run 1 but simulated the arrival of a second (loaded) Moss tanker assuming the FSRU was in place. The run was uneventful apart from noticing that the bridge wings of the two vessels interfered. This is something that will need consideration when selecting a modifying the FSRU vessel.

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Easy

Straight-forward

Comfortable Not demanding Not easy Challenging Difficult Impossible

21

- Tug 2 - Tug 4 - Tug 1

- Tug 3


Vessel: LNG Carrier 005 (L)Harbour: WorldCreated: 21/12/2017 09:55


22

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder

Vessel: LNG Carrier 005 (L) (+Tugs, Moorings)Harbour: WorldCreated: 21/12/2017 09:55



23

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0

-3.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities


- Fwd. Velocity OG, u - Lat. Velocity OG, v - Rate of Turn, r


Speeds over ground (kts)

24

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

4000.0

3000.0

2000.0

1000.0

0.0

-1000.0

-2000.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

-25.0

-50.0

PowerkW





25

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0Time (Minutes)

60.0

54.0

48.0

42.0

36.0

30.0

24.0

18.0

12.0

6.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull




26

3 RUN 3:

Project: Ship Simulations for Lloyd’s Register Job No.: G17063 Captain/Pilot:

Bordas



Run No.


Ship Type



3 Qflex (Loaded) Arrival 4 x 90T

1.0 / 090° 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225°

For run 3 the same conditions were again used, however this time the approach was made with a loaded Q-Flex tanker. Although the Q-Flex is larger than the previous ship, it has increased manoeuvrability due to the twin rudder and engine. This resulted in a run that was still comfortable.

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Easy Straight-forward Comfortable Not demanding Not easy Challenging Difficult Impossible

27

- Tug 2 - Tug 4 - Tug 1

- Tug




28

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0Time (Minutes)

24.0

21.0

18.0

15.0

12.0

9.0

6.0

3.0

0.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder

Vessel: LNG Carrier 004 (L) (+Tugs)Harbour: WorldCreated: 21/12/2017 10:47

- Port Rudder Rud (°) - Stbd Rudder Rud (°) - Heading


29

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0

-3.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

-10.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





30

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

1250.0

1000.0

750.0

500.0

250.0

0.0

-250.0

-500.0

-750.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

PowerkW



- Port Propeller Eng Power - Stbd Propeller Eng Power - Port Propeller Eng RPM

- Stbd Propeller Eng RPMWind: 20.00 kts 225 °Current: 1.00 kts 90 °Depth: Chart Datum

31

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0Time (Minutes)

72.0

63.0

54.0

45.0

36.0

27.0

18.0

9.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull



- Tug Total Force (% bollard)Wind: 20.00 kts 225 °Current: 1.00 kts 90 °Depth: Chart Datum

32

4 RUN 4:

Project: Ship Simulations for Lloyd’s Register

Job No.: G17063 Captain/Pilot:

Mousouliotis



Run No.




4 Qflex (Loaded) Arrival 4 x 90T 1.0 / 090° 20 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225°

Run 4 was a repeat of Run 3 but with a local pilot carrying out the approach.

Ratings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


33

- Tug 2 - Tug 4 - Tug 1

- Tug 3




34

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder




35

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





36

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

1250.0

1000.0

750.0

500.0

250.0

0.0

-250.0

-500.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

PowerkW




- Stbd Propeller Eng RPMWind: 20.00 kts 225 °Current: 1.00 kts 90 °Depth: Chart Datum

37

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0Time (Minutes)

120.0

108.0

96.0

84.0

72.0

60.0

48.0

36.0

24.0

12.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull




38

5 RUN 5:

Project: Ship Simulations for Lloyd’s Register Job No.: G17063 Captain/Pilot: Stylianos


Date: December 2017 Site: Vasilikos Bay, Cyprus

Run No.


Ship Type Tugs Current(Speed/Dir)



Run 5 increased the conditions to 28 knots from the south west and a 2.5m swell from the same direction. This increased the difficulty of the run to Not Easy. The run was carried out by Capt. Stylianos.

Ratings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


39

- Tug 3 - Tug 5 - Tug 2

- Tug 4 - Tug 1



Wind: 28.00 kts 225 ° (Gusting)Current: 1.00 kts 90 °Depth: Chart Datum

40

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

Time (Minutes)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder




41

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

Time (Minutes)

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

-10.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





42

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0

Time (Minutes)

1250.0

1000.0

750.0

500.0

250.0

0.0

-250.0

30.0

24.0

18.0

12.0

6.0

0.0

PowerkW




- Stbd Propeller Eng RPMWind: 28.00 kts 225 ° (Gusting)Current: 1.00 kts 90 °Depth: Chart Datum

43

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0Time (Minutes)

120.0

108.0

96.0

84.0

72.0

60.0

48.0

36.0

24.0

12.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull



- Tug 4 Total Force (% bollard) - Tug 1 Total Force (% bollard)


44

6 RUN 6:




Run No.


Ship Type Tugs Current (Speed/Dir) Wind (Speed/Dir) Waves (Hs, T, Dir)


Run 6 was the first failure run. 19 minutes into the run the aft tug suffered a simulated failure. The vessel was brought alongside but the

pilot struggled to maintain control.

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


45

- Tug 3 - Tug 5 - Tug 2

- Tug 4 - Tug 1




46

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0

Time (Minutes)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder




47

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0

Time (Minutes)

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0

-3.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





48

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0

Time (Minutes)

1250.0

1000.0

750.0

500.0

250.0

0.0

-250.0

-500.0

-750.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

PowerkW





49

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0Time (Minutes)

120.0

108.0

96.0

84.0

72.0

60.0

48.0

36.0

24.0

12.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull



- Tug 4 Total Force (% bollard) - Tug 1 Total Force (% bollard)


50

7 RUN 7:




Run No.




7 Qflex (Ballast) Departure 1 x 90T 1.0 / 090° 28 / 135° 2.5 / 7.0 / 135°

Run 7 tested a departure in severe south easterly conditions. A single tug was used to lift the ship from the berth but it was noted that this would not be attempted in reality.

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


51

- Tug 1




52

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Time (Minutes)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder




53

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Time (Minutes)

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

-10.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





54

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Time (Minutes)

17500.0

15000.0

12500.0

10000.0

7500.0

5000.0

2500.0

0.0

-2500.0

-5000.0

-7500.0

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

-25.0

-50.0

PowerkW





55

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0Time (Minutes)

72.0

63.0

54.0

45.0

36.0

27.0

18.0

9.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull


- Tug 1 Total Force (% bollard)Wind: 28.00 kts 135 ° (Gusting)Current: 1.00 kts 90 °Depth: Chart Datum

56

8 RUN 8:

Project: Ship Simulations for Lloyd’s Register Job No.: G17063 Captain/Pilot: Stylianos



Run No.





Run 8 simulated an emergency departure from the planned berth to the planned new port development. A significant number of changes were requested for the preliminary port design including straightening the approach channel and increasing the size of the turning circle.

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


57

- Tug 1 - Tug 3 - Tug 2

- Tug 4




58

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Time (Minutes)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder




59

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Time (Minutes)

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

-10.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

-25.0

-50.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





60

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Time (Minutes)

17500.0

15000.0

12500.0

10000.0

7500.0

5000.0

2500.0

0.0

-2500.0

-5000.0

-7500.0

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

-25.0

-50.0

PowerkW





61

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0Time (Minutes)

96.0

84.0

72.0

60.0

48.0

36.0

24.0

12.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull




62

9 RUN 9:



Date: December 2017 Site:

Vasilikos Bay, Cyprus

Run No.


Ship Type


Wind

(Speed/Dir)

Waves (Hs, T, Dir)


Run 9 was a repeat of Run 8 but with the addition of 2 extra tugs (4 in total). The run was carried out by Capt. Bordas.

Ratings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


63

- Tug 1 - Tug 3 - Tug 2

- Tug 4




64

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Time (Minutes)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder




65

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Time (Minutes)

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

-10.0

-12.5

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

-50.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





66

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Time (Minutes)

17500.0

15000.0

12500.0

10000.0

7500.0

5000.0

2500.0

0.0

-2500.0

-5000.0

-7500.0

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

-25.0

-50.0

PowerkW





67

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Time (Minutes)

72.0

63.0

54.0

45.0

36.0

27.0

18.0

9.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull




68

10 RUN 10:

Project: Ship Simulations for Lloyd’s Register

Job No.: G17063 Captain/Pilot:

Bordas



Run No.



Wind(Speed/Dir) Waves (Hs, T, Dir)

10 150k LNGC (Ballast)

Departure 4 x 90T 1.0 / 090° 16 / 225° 0.9 / 4.6 / 225°

A repeat of the conditions from the preceding run, but with the 150k Moss tanker instead of the Qflex. It was noted that in the southerly conditions it was essential to stay to the south of the channel and that the channel width was barely sufficient for these conditions.

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


69

- Tug 4 - Tug 1 - Tug 3

- Tug 2




70

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

-50.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder




71

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

-10.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





72

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0

Time (Minutes)

7000.0

6000.0

5000.0

4000.0

3000.0

2000.0

1000.0

0.0

-1000.0

-2000.0

-3000.0

-4000.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

-25.0

-50.0

PowerkW





73

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0Time (Minutes)

72.0

63.0

54.0

45.0

36.0

27.0

18.0

9.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull




74

11 RUN 11:




Run No.




11 150k LNGC (Ballast)

Departure 4 x 90T 1.0 / 090° 16 / 225° 0.9 / 4.6 / 225°

A repeat of Run 10 but with a stern tug failure as the vessel was approaching the breakwater. The ship was controlled successfully but this run was rated as Difficult and would never be attempted in reality.

Ratings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


75

- Tug 4 - Tug 1 - Tug 3

- Tug 2




76

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0

Time (Minutes)

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

-50.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder




77

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0

Time (Minutes)

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





78

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0

Time (Minutes)

7500.0

5000.0

2500.0

0.0

-2500.0

-5000.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

-25.0

-50.0

PowerkW





79

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0Time (Minutes)

81.0

72.0

63.0

54.0

45.0

36.0

27.0

18.0

9.0

0.0

Pull(%)

Tug Bollard Pull




80

12 RUN 12:



Date: December 2017 Site: Vasilikos Bay & Lemesos Port, Cyprus

Run No.



Wind(Speed/Dir) Waves (Hs, T, Dir)

12 Feeder Tanker (Loaded)

Transit - 1.0 / 090° 30 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225°

Run 12 was used to test the feasibility of taking the 122m feeder tanker from the Vasilikos berth down to the main Limassol port in severe conditions (30 knot wind). This was done without difficulty.

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


81

Vessel Track

Vessel: Amaltheia7 (L)Harbour: WorldCreated: 22/12/2017 12:18


82

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Time (Minutes)

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder




83

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Time (Minutes)

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





84

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0Time (Minutes)

4200.0

3600.0

3000.0

2400.0

1800.0

1200.0

600.0

0.0

210.0

180.0

150.0

120.0

90.0

60.0

30.0

0.0

PowerkW



- Propeller Eng Power - Propeller Eng RPM


85

13 RUN 13:



Date: December 2017 Site:

Vasilikos Bay & Lemesos Port, Cyprus

Run No.


Ship Type


Wind

(Speed/Dir)

Waves (Hs, T, Dir)

13 LNG Barge (Ballast)

Transit - 1.0 / 090° 30 / 225° 1.7 / 6.3 / 225°

Run 13 was the reverse of the previous run with the transit made from Limassol to Vasilikos. This time however the run was made with the LNG bunker barge. Again the run was straightforward.

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


86

Vessel Track

Vessel: Amaltheia1 (B)Harbour: WorldCreated: 22/12/2017 12:35


87

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Time (Minutes)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

360.0

300.0

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

0.0

Heading and Rudder




88

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Time (Minutes)

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

-10.0

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

-25.0

-50.0

-75.0

-100.0

u, v(kts)

r (°/min)

Velocities





89

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Time (Minutes)

4000.0

3000.0

2000.0

1000.0

0.0

-1000.0

-2000.0

300.0

250.0

200.0

150.0

100.0

50.0

0.0

-50.0

-100.0

-150.0

PowerkW



- Propeller Eng Power - Propeller Eng RPM


90

Appendix 2 Vessel Pilot Cards

91

92

93

94

95

Appendix 3 Workshop Attendees List

Date post:	20-Nov-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	19 times
Download:	1 times

LNG Ship Manoeuvring Simulation Study

Documents