40
1 Predicting and Mitigating Passing Ship Surge Effects in Harbors Facilities Engineering Committee
1
Predicting and Mitigating Passing Ship Surge Effects in Harbors
Facilities Engineering Committee
2
+0.75
Special ThanksBill Crowe, Canaveral Port Authority
Thanh Vuong/Edwin Draper, Port of Oakland
David Krams, Port Corpus Christi
3
Outline
▪ Surge effects overview
▪ Development and validation of predictive tools
▪ Prediction and mitigation of surge effects
o Larger vessel accommodation
o Harbor development and improvement
(dredging, mooring, ship-to-ship transfer)
o Recreational/mixed use development
▪ Mitigations summary
▪ Conclusions-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5/12/14 10:55 5/12/14 10:59 5/12/14 11:03 5/12/14 11:08 5/12/14 11:12
Wate
r Leve
l [f
t]
4
Surge Effects
April 10, 1912 at Southamptonhttp://www.lostliners.com/content/flagships/Titanic/maiden.html
5
Surge Effects
Development and Validation
of Predictive Tools
6
▪ 1970s - laboratory research published. Limited datasets, not
applicable to real-world problems.
▪ 1980s to 1990s - analytical models developed with many
idealizations, difficult to apply to real-world problems.
▪ 1990s to 2000s - empirical load calculation methods developed
based on laboratory data, only for open water.
▪ 2000s – numerical models utilized (linear and nonlinear shallow water
equations, Boussinesq equations, other)
▪ Mid-2000s to present – successful validations with laboratory and
field measurements, more numerical tools being developed
Development and Validation
of Predictive Tools
▪ Coastal processes modeling system
used as foundation for surge model
development
▪ Fully nonlinear, finite volume shallow
water 2D model developed
▪ Structured/unstructured versions
▪ Typically 1-2m resolution
▪ Expanded to include real-world
conditions and complexities
▪ Efficiency allows harbor-wide studies.
7
8
Development
and Validation of
Predictive Tools
Remery 1974
Lab Tests at NSMB
-300
-150
0
150
300
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (seconds)
Lon
gitu
din
al L
oa
d (
me
tric
to
ns) Remery Average
VH-LU Model
Measured Data
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (seconds)
Late
ral Load (
metr
ic t
ons)
Remery Average
VH-LU Model
Measured Data
-40,000
-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (seconds)
Mo
men
t (m
etr
ic t
on-m
ete
rs)
Remery Average
VH-LU Model
Measured Data
• 60:1 scale tankers
• Open water, parallel-passing only
• Tankers 30, 110, 160 MDWT
• Passing distances 30, 60, 120 m
• Passing speeds 4.0, 5.5 and 7.0 knots
SURGE FORCE SWAY FORCE
YAW MOMENT
~150 mt~600 mt
9
Development
and Validation of
Predictive Tools
van Wijhe et al. 2008
Lab Tests at MARIN
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Time (sec)
Su
rge
Fo
rce
(kN
)
Measured Surge
VH-LU Surge
Measured Sway
VH-LU Sway
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
850 950 1050 1150 1250
Time (sec)
Yaw
Mom
ent
(kN
-m)
Measured Yaw
VH-LU Yaw
• 38:1 scale containerships
• Vertical quay
• Parallel-passing only
• Passing Ship Speed: 5.5 knots
• Passing Ship Distances: 75 m
~220
~500
10
Development
and Validation of
Predictive Tools
van Wijhe et al. 2008
Lab Tests at MARIN
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350
Time (sec)
Wate
r S
urf
ace E
levation (
m)
Measured
VH-LU Model
• 38:1 scale containerships
• Vertical quay
• Parallel-passing only
• Passing Ship Speed: 5.5 knots
• Passing Ship Distances: 75 m
11
Development
and Validation of
Predictive Tools
Lataire et al. 2009
Lab Tests at Flanders
Hydraulics
12
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
WS
EL (
m)
Measured
Predicted
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
WS
EL
(m
)
Measured
Predicted1
2
Flanders Hydraulics
12
Development
and Validation of
Predictive Tools
USACE
Measured Water
Levels and Velocities
MS River Gulf Outlet
13
Development
and Validation of
Predictive Tools
Measured Water
Levels
Port Canaveral, FL
14
2016-05-08 0
SPEED: 10.3 k
COG: 277.0 d
HEAD: 278.0
2016-05-08 08:57
SPEED: 7.4 knots
COG: 270.0 deg
HEAD: 270.0 deg
2016-05-08 09:01
SPEED: 6.2 knots
COG: 269.0 deg
HEAD: 270.0 deg
2016-05-08 09:05
SPEED: 5.9 knots
COG: 272.0 deg
HEAD: 273.0 deg
2016-05-08 09:09
SPEED: 5.8 knots
COG: 269.0 deg
HEAD: 270.0 deg
2016-05-08 09:13
SPEED: 5.2 knots
COG: 288.0 deg
HEAD: 289.0 deg
2016-05-08 09:18
SPEED: 2.3 knots
COG: 341.0 deg
HEAD: 317.0 deg
INBOUND TRANSIT
DISNEY MAGIC
Development
and Validation of
Predictive Tools
Measured Water
Levels
Port Canaveral, FL
15
Development
and Validation of
Predictive Tools
Measured Water
Levels
Port Canaveral, FL
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5/12/14 10:54 5/12/14 10:56 5/12/14 10:59 5/12/14 11:02 5/12/14 11:05 5/12/14 11:08 5/12/14 11:11
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5/12/14 21:36 5/12/14 21:38 5/12/14 21:41 5/12/14 21:44 5/12/14 21:47 5/12/14 21:50 5/12/14 21:53 5/12/14 21:56 5/12/14 21:59
Water
Level (ft)
Water
Level (ft)
16
Development
and Validation of
Predictive Tools
Comparison between
VH-LU model and
Commercial CFD
Programs
Moored floating
caissons over a slope
with passing tanker
Results are the same
for practical purposes,
effort/cost is much
different.
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Loads [
kip
s]
Time [sec]
Flow3D Surge
Flow3D Sway
VH-LU Surge
VH-LU Sway
Development
and Validation of
Predictive Tools
17
▪ Many predictive tools now in use, with varying capability. Validations are
critical to ensure tools are being applied to appropriate conditions.
▪ Developments slowing, as vast majority of real-world cases now accurately
addressed in cost-effective manner.
▪ Commercial CFD rarely required for passing ship effects, but in unique
cases can provide additional capability (albeit at much higher cost).
18
Harbor Development
and Improvement
Larger Vessel
Accommodation:
CMA CGM Ben Franklin
Port of Oakland, CA
Comprehensive vessel
accommodation study,
included maneuvering, surge
effects, berthing and mooring.
Particular CMA CGM Ben Franklin
Length Overall (ft) 1309
Breadth (ft) 177
Moulded Depth (ft) 99
Draft (ft) 52.5
19
Harbor Development
and Improvement
Larger Vessel
Accommodation:
CMA CGM Ben Franklin
Port of Oakland, CA
Maneuvering simulations help
define suitable environmental
conditions, and generate
input data for surge analysis.
Simulations performed at CA Maritime Academy
20
Harbor Development
and Improvement
Larger Vessel
Accommodation:
CMA CGM Ben Franklin
Port of Oakland, CA
Surge modeling showed
variability in loading due to
drift, speed and location.
Surge modeling results used
as input to dynamic mooring
analysis.
21
Harbor Development
and Improvement
Larger Vessel
Accommodation:
CMA CGM Ben Franklin
Port of Oakland, CA
Simulations helped define
safe navigation practice from
a surge perspective
Limiting surge effects is a
critical element of safe
navigation.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
Pa
ssin
g S
pe
ed
[kts
]
Clear Distance Between Hulls at Midships [ft]
Safe Mooring
Use Caution
Potentially Unsafe
22
Harbor Development
and Improvement
Tanker Dock Mooring Studies:
Frequent Findings in Confined
Channels
Terminals and vessels are
designed to resist wind forces
(OCIMF, etc.)
In confined channels,
forward/aft (surge) loads are
most important.
Most vessels have insufficient
surge (forward/aft) restraint.
Passing ships are often more
important than winds.
23
Harbor Development
and Improvement
Barge Fleet Mooring Studies:
Port of Corpus Christi, TX
Analysis performed to
evaluate forces, define
dredging schemes, and design
mooring systems.
Loads are individual barges
are very small, however loads
on the fleet can quickly grow
with fleet size.
5x5 Barge Pack
5x6 Barge Pack
Water level fluctuations, tanker
moving outbound at 5 knots
24
Harbor Development
and Improvement
Barge Fleet Mooring Studies:
Port of Corpus Christi, TX
Both spud barge and
shoreside mooring systems
evaluated.
Surge forces larger than sway
forces.
Eastern site selected and
developed, successfully in
operation.
5x5 Barge Pack
5x6 Barge Pack
Current velocities, tanker
moving outbound at 5 knots
25
Harbor Development
and Improvement
FSRU Mooring Studies:
Confidential
Analysis includes loading on
both vessels, and STS
dynamic mooring simulations
FSRU lines control mooring
safety in most instances.
Shoreline at 0.0m CD
www.marinelink.com
26
Harbor Development
and Improvement
LNG Bunker Barge Mooring
Studies:
Cruise Terminal 3, others
LNG bunker barges are
relatively small, hence passing
ship surge forces are typically
manageable
Largest surge-related
challenges seem to be spatial
conflicts, and development of
geometrically suitable mooring
arrangements. https://www.portcanaveral.com/getattachment/About/LNG-at-Port-Canaveral/LNG-Bunkering-
Info.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US
27
Harbor Development
and Improvement
Harbor Improvements:
Canaveral Harbor
Deepening/Widening
28
Harbor Development
and Improvement
Harbor Improvements:
Canaveral Harbor
Deepening/Widening
Completed 2016
West
BasinMiddle
Basin
Trident
Basin
29
Harbor Development
and Improvement
Harbor Improvements:
Canaveral Harbor
Deepening/Widening
Completed 2016
Surge effects significantly
reduced harbor-wide
Loads on berthed vessels
reduced, reductions depend
on location.
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5/12/14 10:59 5/12/14 11:01 5/12/14 11:03 5/12/14 11:06
Wate
r Leve
l [f
t] Surge Wave Height
30
Recreational and
Mixed-Use
Development
Recreational Facilities:
CT4 Boat Ramp
Port Canaveral, FL
Public boat ramp removed
due to construction of Cruise
Terminal 1
CPA developed a new public
boat ramp near former CT4
Initial concept consisted of a
long basin offset from the
main channel.
Initial Concept
Previous Public Boat Ramp New Public Boat Ramp
420
feet
31
Recreational and
Mixed-Use
Development
Recreational Facilities:
CT4 Boat Ramp
Port Canaveral, FL
Location of the new boat
ramp is energetic in terms of
surge, due to higher speeds
and basin interactions.
Proposed Location
of CT4 Boat Ramp
420
feet
32
Recreational and
Mixed-Use
Development
Recreational Facilities:
CT4 Boat Ramp
Port Canaveral, FL
33
Recreational and
Mixed-Use
Development
Recreational Facilities:
CT4 Boat Ramp
Port Canaveral, FL
Water level oscillations
greater than 6 feet, entrance
velocities ~ 8 ft/sec
Surge effects would have
been significant and likely
hazardous to users
Design changes
recommended.
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5/12/14 10:59 5/12/14 11:01 5/12/14 11:03 5/12/14 11:06
Wate
r Leve
l [f
t] Surge Wave Height
34
Recreational and
Mixed-Use
Development
Recreational Facilities:
CT4 Boat Ramp
Port Canaveral, FL
Recommended design
immediately adjacent to
deep water
New design concept
showed negligible surge
amplification, no significant
nearshore currents.
Constructed 2014, and
surge effects are minimal at
the boat ramp as predicted.
Olsen Associates (2013)
35
Recreational and Mixed-
Use Development
Mixed Use:
The Cove
Port Canaveral, FL
Bermello Ajamil & Partners
36
Recreational and Mixed-
Use Development
Mixed Use:
The Cove
Port Canaveral, FL
Flows are generated in the entrance,
but conditions are relatively mild due
to low passing speeds.
Water level fluctuations were also
relatively mild.
Recreational and Mixed-
Use Development
Mixed Use:
The Cove
Port Canaveral, FL
Basin size/shape and entrance
modifications were successful in
minimizing the effects of surge.
Original Scenario Wider Entrance Wider/Symmetrical Entrance
37
Mitigations
38
▪ Simulation allows testing/development of surge effect mitigations such as:
o Site modifications – over-dredging, setback, slope changes, structures
o Targeted channel improvements – maneuverability reduces speed/surge
o Terminal mooring system improvements
o Vessel mooring equipment improvements
o Operational guidelines – navigation, mooring procedures, draft at berth
Conclusions
39
+0.75
▪ Surge effects can disrupt many types of activities in active harbors/channels.
▪ Development activities in past 20 years have provided accurate modeling of most types of
surge effects.
▪ Surge effect mitigation is site-specific, and depends on the source of the surge and
character of the surge at the site of interest.
▪ Surge evaluations belong at feasibility-level design.
40
Predicting and Mitigating Passing Ship Surge Effects in Harbors
Scott W. Fenical, PE, D.CE, D.PE
Coastal Practice Leader
T +1 (415) 773 2164 C +1 (415) 341 4669
Questions?
