technical report ship hydrodynamics and ... report ship hydrodynamics and mooring analysis berth 6...

TECHNICAL REPORT SHIP HYDRODYNAMICS AND MOORING ANALYSIS BERTH 6 BULKHEAD EXTENSION PORT OF PORT ARTHUR, TX

Date 12/1/2014 12/12/14 12/30/14 01/08/15

Revision # Draft v0 Draft v1 Draft v2 Final

Author Scott W. Fenical,

P.E., D.CE.

Scott W. Fenical,

P.E., D.CE. Scott W. Fenical, P.E.,

D.CE. Scott W. Fenical, P.E.,

D.CE.

QC Checker Hugo E. Bermudez,

P.E., D.CE. Hugo E. Bermudez,



P.E., D.CE. CHE

Project# 345997 345997 345997 345997

D:\Projects\Port of Port Arthur Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension - 345997\Reporting\2015-01-08 FINAL Tech Rpt-PoPA Berth 6 Bulkhead Ext Mooring Analysis.docx

TECHNICAL REPORT SHIP HYDRODYNAMICS AND MOORING ANALYSIS BERTH 6 BULKHEAD EXTENSION PORT OF PORT ARTHUR, TX

This Technical Report presents the results of ship hydrodynamic and mooring

analysis performed as part of bulkhead and wharf extension, Berth 6, Port of Port

Arthur, Texas. The analysis focuses on evaluation of mooring safety for four berthed

vessels ranging from 607 to 1,204 feet in length at Berth 6. This analysis was

performed in support of design efforts to be conducted by others.

Prepared by:

Scott W. Fenical, P.E., D.CE.

Principal

3410 Far West Blvd, Suite 210

Austin, TX 78704

Phone: 512 342-9516

Fax: 512 342-9708

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. i

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Terminal Configuration ................................................................................................................. 1

3. Design Vessels ............................................................................................................................... 2

4. Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 2

5. Passing Vessel Hydrodynamic Modeling .................................................................................... 10

6. Mooring Analysis......................................................................................................................... 12

6.1. Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 12

6.2. Wind Loads ..................................................................................................................................... 13

6.3. Static Mooring Analysis Results - Winds ........................................................................................ 15

6.4. Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results – Passing Vessels .................................................................. 18

7. Berthing Analysis......................................................................................................................... 24

7.1. Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 24

7.2. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 25

8. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 25

9. References .................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix A – Data Request and Coordination Memorandum

Appendix B – Passing Vessel Forces and Moments

Appendix C – Passing Vessel Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results

Appendix D – Berthing Analysis Calculations

FIGURES

Figure ES-1. Comparison of Off-the-Dock Wind Loads and Passing Ship Loads ........................................... iv

Figure 1. Original Berth 6 Design Plan Dated September 12, 2014 .................................................................. 1

Figure 2. Containership Mooring Arrangement, Future Configuration ............................................................. 4

Figure 3. Ro/Ro Vessel Mooring Arrangement #1, Proposed B6 Configuration .............................................. 5



Figure 6. Break-bulk Carrier Mooring Arrangement, Proposed B6 Configuration ........................................... 8

Figure 7. Bulk Carrier Mooring Arrangement, Proposed B6 Configuration ..................................................... 9

Figure 8. Waterway Bathymetry in Hydrodynamic Modeling Domain for Future Configuration (left) and

Proposed B6 Configuration (right) ..................................................................................................... 11

Figure 9. Typical Vessel Hydrodynamic Results for Scenario 1, including distribution of Water Levels

(left) and Velocities (right) ................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 10. Hydrodynamic Force and Moment Definition Sketch .................................................................... 11

Figure 11. Comparison of Off-the-Dock Wind Loads and Passing Ship Loads .............................................. 14

Figure 12. Wind Limit Rose for Containership at Maximum Draft, Fully Loaded ......................................... 16

Technical Report Page ii Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis January 8, 2015 Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension, Port of Port Arthur, TX

Figure 13. Wind Limit Rose for Ro/Ro Vessel at Ballast Draft ...................................................................... 16

Figure 14. Wind Limit Rose for Break-bulk Carrier at Ballast Draft .............................................................. 17

Figure 15. Wind Limit Rose for Bulk Carrier at Ballast Draft ........................................................................ 18

TABLES

Table ES1. Wind Mooring Limits by Vessel ..................................................................................................... v

Table 1. Design Vessel Particulars1 ................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2. Mooring Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................................ 3

Table 3. Peak Loads and Yaw Moments .......................................................................................................... 12

Table 4. Wind Mooring Limits by Vessel ........................................................................................................ 18

Table 5. Summary of Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results for Containership Scenarios ................................ 19

Table 6. Summary of Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results for Ro/Ro Scenarios ............................................ 20

Table 7. Summary of Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results for Break-Bulk Carrier Scenarios ....................... 21

Table 8. Summary of Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results for Bulk Carrier Scenarios .................................. 21

Table 9. Summary of Minimum Fender Requirements ................................................................................... 25

Technical Report Page i Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis January 8, 2015 Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension, Port of Port Arthur, TX

Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension Port of Port Arthur, TX

Executive Summary

Ship hydrodynamic modeling and mooring analysis were performed by Coast & Harbor

Engineering, a Division of Hatch Mott MacDonald (CHE) upon request from Lockwood,

Andrews and Newnam (LAN) to provide an assessment of vessel mooring and operational

conditions at the proposed Berth 6, Port of Port Arthur, Texas. The present analysis included

evaluation of mooring feasibility for four different berthed vessels ranging in length overall from

607 to 1,204 feet subject to forces and moments generated by passing tankers, as well as

environmental forces. The berthed vessels included a containership, Roll-On/Roll-Off (Ro/Ro)

vessel, a break-bulk carrier and a bulk carrier.

The analysis utilized CHE’s proprietary hydrodynamic modeling tools to develop passing vessel

forces. Static and dynamic mooring analysis simulations were performed using the OPTIMOOR

program. Mooring analysis results were evaluated based on criteria for mooring line loads

provided by Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF 1978) and criteria for berthed

vessel motions provided by Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses

(PIANC 1995), both coordinated with LAN prior to the analysis.

CHE performed eight distinct passing vessel hydrodynamic modeling simulations to evaluate

forces and moments on the various berthed vessels generated by a 900-ft tanker passing at speeds

of 4 and 6 knots. Each hydrodynamic simulation was accompanied by a mooring analysis to

evaluate the corresponding loads on the mooring lines, fenders, bollards, and ship motions at

Berth 6. The passing ship hydrodynamic modeling simulations and dynamic mooring analysis

results suggest the following:

• Given conditions without passing vessels and with mild environmental conditions,

mooring of all four vessels appears feasible at the proposed berth. Feasibility of transit,

maneuvering and berthing of the larger vessels should be evaluated.

• The passing 900-ft tanker generates significant forces on all four berthed vessels even at

passing speed of 4 knots, with loads varying primarily based on berthed vessel size.

• Loads on the vessels when passed by the 900-ft tanker at 6 knots are similar in magnitude

to wind loads during strong wind events blowing off-the-dock.

• Forces and moments generated by inbound and outbound ships are similar.

Technical Report Page ii Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis January 8, 2015 Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension, Port of Port Arthur, TX

• Passing ship speed is critical. Increases in surge loads from 4- to 6-knot passing speeds

range between factors of 2.7 and 2.9. Increases in sway loads from 4- to 6-knot passing

speeds range between factors of 2.3 and 2.7.

• Mooring configurations:

o In the Proposed B6 Configuration, the break-bulk and bulk carriers can be moored

either port-side-to or starboard-side-to.

o In the Future Configuration with a continuous extension of the wharf nearly to the

MLK Bridge, the bulk, break-bulk or container vessels could be moored either

port-side-to or starboard-side-to.

o The RoRo vessel will always be moored starboard-side-to due to the stern ramp

configuration for the assumed prototype vessel.

• Containership:

o Forces on the moored 1,204-ft containership, in particular surge forces, are too

large to prevent dangerous motions and potential mooring hazards given the

elastic nature of the synthetic mooring lines present on most containerships.

o While line forces are within limits for passing speed 4 knots, motions are well

outside limits advised by PIANC.

o At a passing speed of 6 knots, nearly all mooring line capacities are exceeded, 10

of the 12 mooring winches pay out line, and ship motions are large enough to

potentially result in damage to the ship, wharf and serious injury.

• Ro/Ro Vessel:

o Forces on the moored 942-ft Ro/Ro vessel, in particular surge forces, are too large

to prevent dangerous motions and potential mooring hazards given the elastic

nature of the synthetic mooring lines.

o Line forces are within limits for passing speed 4 knots; however, motions are well

outside limits advised by PIANC and potentially damaging if they were to occur

during loading/offloading operations or when the stern ramp is deployed.

o Two bollards on the existing Berth 5 were required to be utilized in the mooring;

therefore, the capacities of those bollards should be evaluated in comparison with

the bollard loads provided here.

o For a passing speed of 6 knots, roughly half of the mooring line capacities are

exceeded, winches pay out line, and ship motions are large enough to potentially

result in damage to the ship, wharf, and/or serious injury.

• Bulk Carrier:

o Forces on the moored 771-ft bulk carrier, while significantly lower than those on

the containership and Ro/Ro vessel, are still quite large relative to mooring line

capacities and can create dangerous motions.

o At a passing speed of 4 knots, mooring line forces and ship motions are within

advised limits.

Technical Report Page iii Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis January 8, 2015 Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension, Port of Port Arthur, TX

o At a passing speed of 6 knots, almost half of the mooring line capacities are

exceeded, winches pay out line, and ship motions are large enough to result in

damage to the ship, wharf, and/or serious injury.

o Two bollards on the existing Berth 5 were required to be utilized in the mooring;

therefore the capacities of those bollards should be evaluated in comparison with

the bollard loads provided here.

• Break-Bulk Carrier:

o Forces on the moored 607-ft break-bulk carrier are significantly lower than those

imposed on the other berthed vessels.

o Line forces and ship motions are within advised limits for passing speeds of both

4 and 6 knots.

While currents were not included in the passing vessel simulations, for the purpose of providing

a general understanding of tidal/river current effects it can be roughly assumed that an opposing

current would effectively increase the passing vessel speed through the water and a following

current would effectively decrease the passing vessel speed through the water by an amount

similar to the current speed.

Static mooring analysis was also performed to evaluate mooring capability for each vessel under

strong wind conditions. Cursory review of data from NOAA CO OPS Station sn0701 at Port

Arthur indicates that in general, tidal currents in the channel have speeds less than 1-2 knots

most of the time and are not expected to be a significant factor in the environmental loads.

Loads on the berthed vessels from winds of various magnitudes are shown below in Figure ES-1.

In general, wind loads on the containership when fully loaded at maximum draft are the largest,

followed by the empty Ro/Ro, which has its maximum windage area when empty since it is fully

enclosed. Beam-on wind loads on the fully loaded containership are similar to the peak sway

load from the passing tanker at 6 knots (containership at maximum draft) when wind speeds

reach approximately 25 knots. The peak sway load on the Ro/Ro vessel for passing tanker at 6

knots (Ro/Ro at maximum draft) is greater than wind loads until wind speeds reach

approximately 27 knots.

Wind loads on the break-bulk and bulk carriers are significantly lower due to their relatively

small windage areas, even at ballast draft. Beam-on wind loads on the break-bulk carrier at

ballast draft are smaller than the peak surge load from the passing tanker at 6 knots (break-bulk

carrier at maximum draft) until wind speeds reach approximately 47 knots. Beam-on wind loads

on the bulk carrier at ballast draft are smaller than the peak loads from the passing tanker at 6

knots (bulk carrier at maximum draft) until wind speeds are greater than 52 knots.

The analysis of wind loads on the moored vessels indicates that the passing ship forces and

moments are a significant factor in mooring safety at the terminal, and can be greater in

magnitude than extreme wind forces. Wind limits were developed for each of the vessels to

determine operational limits governed by ship motions, and mooring limits governed by mooring

line forces. Bollard and fender forces do not govern the mooring limits in the results.

Technical Report Page iv Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis January 8, 2015 Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension, Port of Port Arthur, TX

Figure ES-1. Comparison of Off-the-Dock Wind Loads and Passing Ship Loads

Technical Report Page v Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis January 8, 2015 Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension, Port of Port Arthur, TX

Wind limits for both operations (per limits advised by PIANC) and mooring (per limits advised

by OCIMF) are provided in Table ES1 below. Relatively low wind limits for the Ro/Ro vessel

operations are a function of its mooring system and strict limits by PIANC and not the berth

configuration.

Table ES1. Wind Mooring Limits by Vessel

Ship Operational Wind Limit

[kts] Mooring Wind Limit

[kts]

Containership 20 27

Ro/Ro Vessel 10 28

Break-bulk Carrier 51 63

Bulk Carrier 56 42

Notes:

1. Wind speeds are 30-second averages at 10-meter elevation.

2. Operational and mooring limits may be governed by other practical concerns arising during operations

in strong wind conditions.

The results of the analysis and conclusions above are specific to the vessels, waterway

configuration, mooring equipment and mooring arrangement assumptions, and terminal

configuration used in the analysis.

Technical Report Page 1 Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis January 8, 2015 Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension, Port of Port Arthur, TX

Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension Port of Port Arthur, TX

1. Introduction




conditions at the proposed Berth 6, Port of Port Arthur, Texas. The analysis was performed to

evaluate feasibility of mooring a range of berthed vessel sizes and types, and to provide

loading in mooring system components to be used by LAN during design.

2. Terminal Configuration

The dimensions and layout of the proposed terminal, locations of the bollards and fenders,

along with their capacities, were obtained from a data request memorandum (Coast & Harbor

Engineering 2014), which is provided as Appendix A. Additional design details were

coordinated via teleconferences and overall structural plan and typical sections, dated

August 18, 2014 received via e-mail on September 12, 2014, and shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Original Berth 6 Design Plan Dated September 12, 2014


3. Design Vessels

Design vessel data were provided by LAN, including the vessel types and particulars. Table 1

provides the particulars of each design berthed and passing vessel, as well as mooring line

types and capacities, all coordinated with LAN prior to the analysis. The winch brakes on

each vessel were set to pay out at approximately 60% of Minimum Breaking Load (MBL)

during the dynamic simulations. Each vessel was assumed to utilize a 12-line arrangement

with pre-tension set to 10% of MBL. The winch and fairlead layouts were approximated

from prototype vessels similar to the design vessels, which were coordinated with LAN prior

to the analysis. The containership prototype vessel was COSCO Long Beach, the bulk and

break-bulk carrier prototype was CSL Acadian, and the RoRo prototype was Tonsberg.

Above-deck windage areas were scaled based on the differences in length and beam between

prototype and design vessels.

Table 1. Design Vessel Particulars

1

Particular 7,600 TEU

Containership Ro/Ro Vessel

Break-bulk

Carrier Bulk Carrier

Passing

Suezmax

Tanker

Length Overall [feet] 1,204 942 607 771 900

Breadth [feet] 138 106 106.0 141 164

Moulded Depth [feet]

66.4 109.0 66.3 66.3 -------

Maximum Draft [feet] 43.6 40.7 39.4 40 402

Normal Ballast Draft [feet]

28.0 24.0* 21.3* 21.3* -------

Mooring Line Type Nylon 8-Strand PP*3 PP* PP* PP*

Minimum Breaking Load [MBL, kips]

227 171 191 191 -------

Mooring Line Circumference [inch]

8.7 9.3 9.9 9.9 -------

Side Above-Deck Windage Area [feet]

205,0004 15,200

5 5,800 7,350 -------

End-On Above-Deck Windage Area [feet]

24,0004 2,000

5 4,500 6,000 -------

Notes:

1. * indicates estimated values

2. Maximum allowed in channel per Sabine Pilots May 2014.

3. PP = polypropylene.

4. Fully loaded containership windage area estimated from photographs.

5. Upper deck level used in windage area definition.

4. Analysis Scenarios

Dynamic mooring analysis was conducted to evaluate mooring safety for passing vessel

forces at maximum allowable drafts. Static simulations were performed to evaluate wind

loads on the vessels and general wind mooring capability at normal ballast drafts. Dynamic

simulations assumed Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW, +0.22 feet NAVD) tidal elevation

and static simulations assumed Mean Higher High Water (MHHW, +1.27 feet NAVD), both

of which are conservative. All information regarding tidal and fixed plane datum elevations

were provided by LAN. Dynamic passing vessel simulations neglected winds and currents.


Static simulations included only winds. Inbound and outbound tankers were found to

generate very similar forces; therefore all simulations were performed with inbound tankers.

Two berth configurations were evaluated:

1. Proposed B6 Configuration: The proposed configuration consists of the Berth 6

Bulkhead Extension as presently designed.

2. Future Configuration: The “future” configuration is a lengthened, continuous wharf

required for mooring the containership which is too large to be moored in the proposed

Berth 6 configuration dredging scheme.

Table 2 lists the details of the scenarios evaluated in the mooring analysis. Figure 2 shows

the assumed mooring arrangement for the containership at the Future wharf. Figures 3-5

show three different assumed mooring arrangements at the Proposed B6 wharf for the Ro/Ro

vessel. Figures 6 and 7 show the assumed mooring arrangement for the break-bulk and bulk

carriers, respectively, at the Proposed B6 wharf.

Table 2. Mooring Analysis Scenarios

Scenario Berth Layout Berthed Ship Passing Speed [kts]

1 Future 7,600 TEU Containership 4

2 Proposed Ro/Ro Vessel 4

3 Proposed Break-bulk Carrier 4

4 Proposed Bulk Carrier 4

5 Future 7,600 TEU Containership 6

6 Proposed Ro/Ro Vessel 6

7 Proposed Break-bulk Carrier 6

8 Proposed Bulk Carrier 6

Notes:

1. All scenarios have 900-ft tanker passing inbound along channel centerline. 2. No winds or currents.

AST & H A R BORNG EE NG

FEN69821

Text Box

FIGURES INTENDED TO DEMONSTRATE ASSUMED MOORING ARRANGEMENTS ONLY. NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN.


While currents were not included in the passing vessel simulations, for the purpose of

providing a general understanding of tidal/river current effects it can be roughly assumed that

an opposing current would effectively increase the passing vessel speed through the water

and a following current would effectively decrease the passing vessel speed through the

water by an amount similar to the current speed. Cursory review of data from NOAA

CO-OPS Station sn0701 at Port Arthur indicates that in general, tidal currents in the channel

have speeds less than 1-2 knots most of the time. These current data are readily available

online if further analysis of tidal current effects is desired.

5. Passing Vessel Hydrodynamic Modeling

Passing vessel hydrodynamic forces were calculated using the Vessel Hydrodynamics

Longwave Unsteady (VH-LU) model (Fenical et al., 2006). The VH-LU model predicts

water level and velocity fluctuations surrounding the passing ships and the resulting

hydrodynamic loads on the berthed vessels. The results of the hydrodynamic analysis include

time histories of surge force, sway force, and yaw moment for each of the 8 hydrodynamic

modeling scenarios.

The bathymetry used in the VH-LU model was single-beam hydrographic survey data

provided by LAN, design berth cross-sections, and channel boundary information from the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since the single-beam data did not provide complete

waterway coverage, some idealization was performed to complete the modeling domain. For

each simulation, the assumed tidal elevation was equal to MLLW (+0.22 feet NAVD), which

represents a conservative low-water condition. No waves, winds, or currents were included.

Figure 8 shows the bathymetry within the hydrodynamic modeling domain for the Future

(left) and Proposed B6 (right) Configurations. Figure 9 shows an example vessel

hydrodynamic modeling result with the 900-ft tanker passing the containership at 4 knots

inbound along the channel centerline (Scenario 1) including the distribution of water levels

(left) and velocities (right). Figure 10 provides a force/moment definition sketch to be used

for interpretation of passing vessel loads and moments. Surge loads are defined as positive to

stern, sway loads are defined as positive to port, and yaw moments are positive

counter-clockwise looking down.


Figure 8. Waterway Bathymetry in Hydrodynamic Modeling Domain for Future Configuration (left) and Proposed B6 Configuration (right)

Figure 9. Typical Vessel Hydrodynamic Results for Scenario 1, including distribution of Water Levels (left) and Velocities (right)

Figure 10. Hydrodynamic Force and Moment Definition Sketch


Appendix B shows the time histories of loads and moments for all 8 hydrodynamic modeling

scenarios, including an additional Scenario 2 condition with the Ro/Ro shifted along the

dock. In general, the surge and sway loads are similar in magnitude. For the containership

and Ro/Ro vessel, sway loads are larger than surge loads, whereas for the break-bulk carrier

and bulk carrier, the surge loads are larger. In all cases however, the surge loads are much

more problematic since generally there are only 2 mooring lines resisting the surge load in

either direction, whereas 8 lines participate in resisting the sway load.

As in all confined channels, passing ship speed strongly affects both surge and sway loads.

Peak surge loads are between 2.7 and 2.9 times larger at passing speed 6 knots than at 4

knots. Peak sway loads are between 2.3 and 2.7 times larger at passing speed 6 knots than at

4 knots. Peak minimum and maximum loads and moments are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Peak Loads and Yaw Moments

Scenario Aft Surge

[kips]

Fwd Surge

[kips]

Port Sway

[kips]

Stbd Sway

[kips]

Max Yaw

Moment [kip-ft]

Min Yaw

Moment [kip-ft]

1 154 -141 141 -294 45,000 -49,200

2 91 -100 126 -67 14,400 -15,800

3 80 -74 46 -70 5,900 -6,000

4 130 -124 85 -149 15,300 -15,500

5 451 -345 384 -681 119,000 -129,000

6 225 -266 334 -171 38,000 -39,000

7 226 -191 120 -176 14,400 -15,100

8 382 -315 213 -373 37,200 -36,400

Notes: 1. Loads on Ro/Ro vessel reported here are for ship position shown in mooring arrangement #1.

6. Mooring Analysis

6.1. Methodology

Both the dynamic and static mooring analyses were performed using the OPTIMOOR

6.2.9 package with seakeeping capabilities. Inputs to OPTIMOOR included all

relevant terminal data and the vessel characteristics detailed in Section 3 and Table 1.

For all berthed vessels, pre-tensioning was assumed to be approximately 10% of

Minimum Breaking Load (MBL), with winch brakes set to pay out line at

approximately 60% of Minimum Breaking Load (MBL).

For the purposes of the analysis, the largest fender that was required for any of the

four design vessels was used, and assumed to be model MCN 1400 Grade G3.4 cone

fenders with maximum reaction 475 kips at 70% compression (Maritime International

2014). A detailed berthing analysis resulting in minimum fender performance (energy

absorption) recommendations for each of the berthed vessels is included in

Appendix D.

The containership, bulk carrier and break-bulk carrier were all simulated with a single

mooring arrangement, as the relative mooring arrangement is not significantly altered


when these ships berth in different locations along the wharf. The RoRo ship was

simulated with 3 different mooring arrangements due to more complex mooring

equipment and flat-side hull limitations presented by the vessel. Mooring and

operational safety were evaluated according to the following criteria:

• Ship motions (PIANC 1995):

o Containership = +/- 3.3ft surge, 3.9ft sway (50% efficiency)

o Ro/Ro Vessel = +/- 2.0ft surge, 2.0ft sway

o Break-Bulk Carrier = +/- 3.3ft surge, 3.3ft sway

o Bulk Carrier = +/- 3.3ft surge, 3.3ft sway

• Synthetic mooring line forces (OCIMF): less than 50% of MBL

• Winch brake limits for initiation of payout (OCIMF): 60% of MBL

• Fender loads and compression: within rated capacities

Static mooring analyses were performed to evaluate mooring capability in strong

winds. The water level during each static mooring scenario was equal to MHHW

(+1.27 feet NAVD), with currents, waves, and passing vessel forces assumed to be

negligible, and all vessels at normal ballast draft except the containership, which was

evaluated at maximum draft since it would be fully loaded. No analysis of extreme

wind speeds or return periods was performed. All wind speeds noted here are 30-

second averages at 10-meter elevation.

The dynamic mooring analyses listed in Table 2 were performed utilizing the passing

vessel hydrodynamic forces and moments described in Section 5, Table 3, and

Appendix B in order to evaluate loads on mooring structures, loads on the mooring

lines, the safety of the proposed mooring systems, and potential impacts to terminal

operations. For each dynamic simulation, the assumed tidal elevation in OPTIMOOR

was equal to MLLW (+0.22 feet NAVD). Winds, wind-generated waves, and tidal

currents were neglected in the dynamic passing vessel mooring analysis.

6.2. Wind Loads

Winds were not explicitly included in the passing ship dynamic mooring analysis

simulations. In general the wind loads on the ships are lower than passing vessel

forces during most conditions, in particular for the smaller vessels. In order to provide

an indication of the relative load magnitudes during wind events, wind loads were

calculated within OPTIMOOR for all four vessels with winds blowing off the dock at

speeds between 15 and 52 knots. The 52-knot wind speed was provided by LAN and

described as the wind speed at which vessels would depart the dock.

Figure 11 shows a comparison of the off-the-dock wind loads and peak surge and

sway load magnitudes for each of the four vessels, including the containership (top),

Ro/Ro vessel (middle top), break-bulk carrier (middle bottom) and bulk carrier

(bottom). All wind speeds are 30-second duration at 10-meter elevation. The surge

load shown is the larger of the two peak surge loads, and the peak sway loads are

those directed towards the passing vessel.


Figure 11. Comparison of Off-the-Dock Wind Loads and Passing Ship Loads


In general, wind loads on the containership when fully loaded at maximum draft are

the largest, followed by the empty Ro/Ro, which has its maximum windage area

when empty since it is fully enclosed. Beam-on wind loads on the fully loaded

containership are similar to the peak sway load from the passing tanker at 6 knots

(containership at maximum draft) when wind speeds reach approximately 25 knots.

The peak sway load on the Ro/Ro vessel for passing tanker at 6 knots (Ro/Ro at

maximum draft) is greater than wind loads until wind speeds reach approximately

27 knots.

Wind loads on the break-bulk and bulk carriers are significantly lower due to their

relatively small windage areas, even at ballast draft. Beam-on wind loads on the

break-bulk carrier at ballast draft are smaller than the peak surge load from the

passing tanker at 6 knots (break-bulk carrier at maximum draft) until wind speeds

reach approximately 47 knots. Beam-on wind loads on the bulk carrier at ballast draft

are smaller than the peak loads from the passing tanker at 6 knots (bulk carrier at

maximum draft) until wind speeds are greater than 52 knots.

The analysis of wind loads on the moored vessels indicates that the passing ship

forces and moments are a significant factor in mooring safety at the terminal, and can

be greater in magnitude than extreme wind forces.

6.3. Static Mooring Analysis Results - Winds

Mooring capability evaluation for strong wind conditions was performed through

development of wind limit roses. Each of the wind limit roses provides an overview

of the wind speed and direction combinations that induce violation of a safe mooring

criterion, such as motions, or forces in mooring lines, bollards and fenders.

Figure 12 shows a wind mooring limit rose for the containership fully laden, with

maximum windage area. Analysis indicates that allowable motions for 50%

operational efficiency are violated at wind speeds greater than 20 knots blowing off

the dock. Bollard and mooring line limits are violated at wind speeds greater than

roughly 27 knots blowing off the dock.

Figure 13 shows a wind mooring limit rose for the Ro/Ro ship at ballast draft, with

maximum windage area. Analysis indicates that allowable sway motions are violated

at very low wind speeds due to the two-foot sway limit. The motion limit is exceeded

at approximately 10 knots blowing off the dock, primarily due to the long stern

mooring lines which provide little breasting capacity due to the presence of the stern

ramp. Mooring line limits are violated at wind speeds greater than roughly 28 knots,

and bollard limits are violated at approximately 45 knots.


Figure 12. Wind Limit Rose for Containership at Maximum Draft, Fully Loaded

Figure 13. Wind Limit Rose for Ro/Ro Vessel at Ballast Draft


Figure 14 shows a wind mooring limit rose for the break-bulk carrier at ballast draft,

with maximum windage area. Analysis indicates that allowable sway motions are not

violated until relatively high wind speeds. The motion limit is exceeded at

approximately 51 knots blowing off the dock. Mooring line limits are violated at wind

speeds greater than roughly 63 knots, and no bollard limits were reached in the

analysis.

Figure 15 shows a wind mooring limit rose for the bulk carrier at ballast draft, with

maximum windage area. Analysis indicates that allowable sway motions are not

violated until relatively high wind speeds. The motion limit is exceeded at

approximately 42 knots blowing off the dock. Mooring line limits are violated at wind

speeds greater than roughly 56 knots, and bollard limits are violated only at wind

speeds greater than 90 knots.

The wind operational and mooring wind limits for each vessel are summarized in

Table 4.

Figure 14. Wind Limit Rose for Break-bulk Carrier at Ballast Draft


Figure 15. Wind Limit Rose for Bulk Carrier at Ballast Draft

Table 4. Wind Mooring Limits by Vessel

Ship Operational Wind Limit [kts] Mooring Wind Limit [kts]

Containership 20 27

Ro/Ro Vessel 10 28

Break-bulk Carrier 51 63

Bulk Carrier 56 42

Notes:

1. Wind speeds are 30-second averages at 10-meter elevation.

2. No analysis of wind data or return periods of these wind speeds was performed.

6.4. Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results – Passing Vessels

The results of the dynamic mooring analysis are presented in Appendix C and

Table 4. Appendix C provides mooring analysis results figures including peak line

forces, manifold motions, peak fender forces, and peak bollard forces that occurred at

any time in each dynamic simulation. Tables 5-8 show a summary of mooring

analysis results with greater detail including peak forces in individual mooring lines,

peak ship motions, and peak forces in bollards and fenders.


Table 5. Summary of Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results for Containership Scenarios

Allowed 4 knot 6 knot

Max. Surge (feet) 3.3 8.07 30.0

Max. Sway (feet) 3.9 2.83 11.8

Max. Yaw (deg.) N/A 0.38 1.32

Max. Total Force on Bollard A (kips) 275 104.3 273.7

Max. Total Force on Bollard B (kips) 275 111.8 274.0

Max. Total Force on Bollard C (kips) 275 110.2 274.0

Max. Total Force on Bollard D (kips) 275 178.1 274.0

Max. Total Force on Bollard E (kips) 275 122.9 273.5

Max. Total Force on Bollard F (kips) 275 82.0 214.2

Max. Reaction at Fender cc (kips) 475 209.7 299.9

Max. Reaction at Fender dd (kips) 475 153.3 472.9

Max. Reaction at Fender ee (kips) 475 122.4 459.0

Max. Reaction at Fender ff (kips) 475 92.7 382.8

Max. Reaction at Fender gg (kips) 475 61.8 328.3

Max. Reaction at Fender hh (kips) 475 56.8 254.2

Max. Reaction at Fender ii (kips) 475 55.0 180.2

Max. Reaction at Fender jj (kips) 475 56.6 90.3

Max. Reaction at Fender kk (kips) 475 58.3 47.0

Max. Reaction at Fender ll (kips) 475 59.9 36.7

Max. Reaction at Fender mm (kips) 475 61.6 32.8

Max. Reaction at Fender nn (kips) 475 63.2 37.9

Max. Reaction at Fender oo (kips) 475 68.4 50.8

Max. Reaction at Fender pp (kips) 475 76.0 85.6

Max. Reaction at Fender qq (kips) 475 84.6 139.9

Max. Reaction at Fender rr (kips) 475 93.2 175.7

Max. Reaction at Fender ss (kips) 475 101.9 211.6

Max. Reaction at Fender tt (kips) 475 110.5 244.8

Max. Reaction at Fender uu (kips) 475 119.2 278

Max. Reaction at Fender vv (kips) 475 123.1 311.2

Max. Reaction at Fender ww (kips) 475 127.0 344.3

Max. Reaction at Fender xx (kips) 475 130.9 381.1

Max. Load on Line 1 (kips) 113.5 46.2 137.0












Notes:

1. Bold red values indicate motions or loads outside advised limits.


Table 6. Summary of Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results for Ro/Ro Scenarios

Allowed 4knot

(Original Design)

4 knot (ship shifted)

4 knot (ship and bollards

shifted)

6 knot (Original Design)

6 knot (ship shifted)

6 knot (ship and bollards

shifted)

Max. Surge (feet) 2.0 4.9 3.1 4.1 30.5 10.9 18.7

Max. Sway (feet) 2.0 5.5 7.6 6.3 12.3 17.3 15.5

Max. Yaw (deg.) 0.9 0.7 0.9 3.8 1.5 2.4

Max. Total Force on Bollard A (kips) 275 56.3 58.9 57.0 117.3 169.9 165.9

Max. Total Force on Bollard B (kips) 275 63.3 63.1 59.7 190.9 175.1 204.3

Max. Total Force on Bollard C (kips) 275 48.9 ------- ------- 186.6 ------- -------

Max. Total Force on Bollard D (kips) 275 ------- 80.0 59.9 ------- 206.1 197.2

Max. Total Force on Bollard N (kips) 275 167.6 ------- ------- 206.0 ------- -------

Max. Total Force on Bollard P (kips) 275 ------- 124.1 152.9 ------- 206.041 206.0

Max. Total Force on Bollard V (kips) Unknown 55.4 ------- ------- 115.8 ------- -------

Max. Total Force on Bollard W (kips) Unknown 44.7 ------- ------- 89.1 ------- -------

Max. Total Force on Bollard X (kips) Unknown ------- 76.5 68.9 ------- 205.9 205.4

Max. Total Force on Bollard Y (kips) Unknown ------- 60.7 54.9 ------- 163.8 155.5

Max. Reaction at Fender bb (kips) 475 365.4 387.9 346.3 596.7 509.7 410.2

Max. Reaction at Fender cc (kips) 475 281.8 323.9 224.8 473.0 471.2 632.4

Max. Reaction at Fender dd (kips) 475 192.4 235.2 123.5 76.6 474.1 473.9

Max. Reaction at Fender ee (kips) 475 134.1 160.7 92.4 62.7 447.8 446.7

Max. Reaction at Fender ff (kips) 475 59.6 137.7 56.1 58.9 344.0 29.2

Max. Reaction at Fender gg (kips) 475 32.4 112.3 20.9 55.2 142.7 28.4

Max. Reaction at Fender hh (kips) 475 29.6 70.5 13.2 90.1 125.6 27.6

Max. Reaction at Fender ii (kips) 475 30.2 71.6 12.8 169.0 125.6 26.9

Max. Reaction at Fender jj (kips) 475 30.9 75.1 13.9 230.4 125.6 26.4

Max. Reaction at Fender kk (kips) 475 31.6 80.3 32.3 288.6 126.0 30.4

Max. Reaction at Fender ll (kips) 475 40.2 85.5 106.2 346.8 161.7 190.1

Max. Reaction at Fender mm (kips) 475 56.2 120.3 146.6 383.8 208.7 307.4

Max. Reaction at Fender nn (kips) 475 ------- 176.4 185.4 ------- 252.4 392.5

Max. Reaction at Fender oo (kips) 475 ------- 232.5 225 ------- 295.9 445.4

Max. Load on Line 1 (kips) 85.5 27.8 29.6 28.9 59.4 86.0 83.4












Notes:



Table 7. Summary of Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results for Break-Bulk Carrier Scenarios


Max. Surge (feet) 3.3 0.7 2.2

Max. Sway (feet) 3.3 0.2 3.7

Max. Yaw (deg.) N/A 0.1 0.7

Max. Total Force on Bollard A (kips) 275.0 50.5 113.0

Max. Total Force on Bollard B (kips) 275.0 53.8 139.6

Max. Total Force on Bollard C (kips) 275.0 59.0 118.8

Max. Total Force on Bollard D (kips) 275.0 63.3 111.9

Max. Total Force on Bollard E (kips) 275.0 52.8 94.6

Max. Total Force on Bollard F (kips) 275.0 44.4 157.9

Max. Reaction at Fender aa (kips) 475.0 68.3 317.6

Max. Reaction at Fender bb (kips) 475.0 50.4 273.6

Max. Reaction at Fender cc (kips) 475.0 42.2 229.7

Max. Reaction at Fender dd (kips) 475.0 36.5 187.5

Max. Reaction at Fender ee (kips) 475.0 37.2 149.8

Max. Reaction at Fender ff (kips) 475.0 37.9 110.4

Max. Reaction at Fender gg (kips) 475.0 38.6 119.5

Max. Reaction at Fender hh (kips) 475.0 39.7 153.1













Notes:


Table 8. Summary of Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results for Bulk Carrier Scenarios


Max. Surge (feet) 3.3 1.7 5.2

Max. Sway (feet) 3.3 2.1 8.9

Max. Yaw (deg.) N/A 0.3 1.1

Max. Total Force on Bollard A (kips) 275.0 65.4 134.3

Max. Total Force on Bollard B (kips) 275.0 74.0 168.4

Max. Total Force on Bollard G (kips) 275.0 80.1 226.2

Max. Total Force on Bollard M (kips) 275.0 102.8 227.9

Max. Total Force on Bollard R (kips) Unknown 71.7 189.0

Max. Total Force on Bollard S (kips) Unknown 90.0 228.0

Max. Reaction at Fender aa (kips) 475.0 195.0 448.4

Max. Reaction at Fender bb (kips) 475.0 149.9 345.7

Max. Reaction at Fender cc (kips) 475.0 123.7 147.0

Max. Reaction at Fender dd (kips) 475.0 88.4 157.7

Max. Reaction at Fender ee (kips) 475.0 54.8 177.4

Max. Reaction at Fender ff (kips) 475.0 70.8 200.3

Max. Reaction at Fender gg (kips) 475.0 87.2 223.4

Max. Reaction at Fender hh (kips) 475.0 106.0 245.5

Max. Reaction at Fender ii (kips) 475.0 122.2 269.8

Max. Reaction at Fender jj (kips) 475.0 131.1 318.5

Max. Reaction at Fender kk (kips) 475.0 140.0 362.2













Notes:



Dynamic passing vessel mooring analyses for all berthed vessels indicate the

following:

• The moored ships are subject to large passing ship forces and moments

due to the restricted width of the waterway, large passing vessels, and

relatively large berthed vessels. The passing ship forces are comparable in

magnitude to those generated by strong winds blowing off the dock, and

for the smaller vessels, winds occurring during tropical storms/hurricanes.

• Berthed vessel size is the primary factor in determining the hydrodynamic

forces and moments, and mostly governs the resulting ship motions and

mooring line loads.

• Synthetic low-modulus mooring lines, assumed to be present on all four

berthed vessels, allow relatively large motions.

• It is likely that the continuous wharf area, including a portion of Berth 5,

will be utilized for mooring convenience. Therefore an evaluation of

bollard and fender capacities on Berth 5 should be completed to ensure

adequate capacity.

• Mooring analysis results for larger vessels are to be taken with a grain of

salt, as the transit, maneuvering and berthing of the larger ships may not

be feasible.

The following sub-sections include a more thorough evaluation of the mooring

analysis results on a ship-by-ship basis.

6.4.1. Containership, Future Wharf Configuration

The 1,204-ft containership is a very large vessel to be moored along this waterway.

The feasibility of navigating to the Port and berthing at the terminal should be

evaluated. However, for the purposes of the analysis the mooring capability of the

containership was evaluated within dynamic simulations using passing tanker speeds

4 and 6 knots at the Future terminal. Results indicate that even at passing speed 4

knots, the surge loads in either direction on the containership generate elongations in

the ship’s relatively elastic mooring lines which are sufficient to cause surge motions

well outside the limits advised by PIANC that can result in accidents, gangway

damage and other incidents. For 4-knot passing speed, while motions are excessive,

the mooring line loads, fender loads and bollard loads are within limits.

However, the tanker passing at 6 knots results in a very dangerous situation for the

moored containership. Ten (10) out of the 12 mooring winches pay out line, creating

very large motions (including upwards of 30 feet of surge motion, and 13 feet of sway

motion) that are likely to result in serious injury and damage to the wharf, fenders,

gangway and loading equipment. Fender compression reaches limits and bollard

loads are at maximum capacity. Bollard loads would likely exceed capacities if in

reality the winches do not pay out line at loads 60% of MBL as prescribed in this

analysis. The containership cannot be moored safely when subject to forces from the

tanker passing at 6 knots. Tankers are likely to pass Berth 6 at speeds in the range of

6 knots, and at perhaps even higher speeds through the water if sailing on an opposing

current.


6.4.2. Ro/Ro Vessel, Proposed B6 Configuration

The Ro/Ro vessel is also very large to be moored in this location along the waterway.

While loads and moments from the passing tanker are smaller than those imposed on

the containership, the Ro/Ro vessel was also assumed to utilize relatively elastic

mooring lines which results in large motions. The Ro/Ro vessel was evaluated in

three different mooring configurations which vary slightly and only at the bow.

Generally speaking, the Ro/Ro vessel has relatively poor mooring capability due to

the presence of its stern starboard ramp, which reduces breasting capacity available in

its stern lines. Results indicate that even at passing speed 4 knots, Ro/Ro ship

motions are well outside limits advised by PIANC. Surge and sway motions reach up

to approximately 4 and 7 feet, respectively, which may cause impacts to

roll-on/roll-off operations and may cause damage to the stern loading ramp if

deployed on the wharf at the time. For 4-knot passing speed, while motions are

excessive, the mooring line loads, fender loads and bollard loads are within limits.

However, the tanker passing at 6 knots also results in a very dangerous situation for

the moored Ro/Ro vessel. Five (5) out of the 12 mooring winches pay out line,

creating very large motions (including upwards of 17 feet of surge motion, and

17 feet of sway motion) that may result in serious injury and damage to the wharf,

fenders, gangway and loading equipment. Fender compression reaches limits,

however bollards loads remain within capacities. The Ro/Ro vessel cannot be moored

safely when subject to forces from the tanker passing at 6 knots. Tankers are likely to

pass Berth 6 at speeds in the range of 6 knots, and at perhaps even higher speeds

through the water if sailing on an opposing current.

6.4.3. Break-bulk Carrier, Proposed B6 Configuration

The 607-ft break-bulk carrier has a size typical to those moored at other berths at the

Port in the past and similar to the vessels found in the Port’s 2014 Sailing Schedule

(Port of Port Arthur 2014). In general, bulk carriers have relatively good mooring

layouts, with relatively high mooring line capacities compared to the size of the ship.

Dynamic mooring analysis results indicate that even when the break-bulk carrier is

fully loaded, the mooring system is able to accommodate the passing ship forces and

moments. For 4-knot passing speed, the ship’s motions, line forces, fender loads and

bollard loads are well within limits. At passing speed 6 knots, the forces on the ship

increase measurably and hence so do the motions and loads in the mooring system.

However, even at passing speed 6 knots, the berthed vessel motions just reach the

limits advised by PIANC. Even under this situation, the mooring line forces, fender

loads and bollard loads are within limits. These results indicate that with good

mooring practice, the break-bulk carrier can be safely moored at the proposed

Berth 6.

6.4.4. Bulk Carrier, Proposed B6 Configuration

The 771-ft bulk carrier has significantly more displacement than the break-bulk

carrier (16% longer with 40% larger beam), and therefore is subjected to much higher

forces and moments from passing ships. At passing speed 4 knots, the bulk carrier’s

motions are within limits advised by PIANC, mooring line forces are within limits


advised by OCIMF, and bollard and fender loads are within rated capacities.

Mooring capacity is greater than for the containership and Ro/Ro vessel.

However at passing speed 6 knots, the sharp increase in passing ship loads results in

an unsafe mooring situation for the bulk carrier. Five (5) of the 12 mooring winches

pay out line, resulting in large motions (5 feet of surge and 10 feet of sway) that may

result in gangway damage and potential injury. Also, since the bulk carrier utilized

two bollards on Berth 5, the bollard loads provided here should be reviewed to ensure

capacity is available. Fender loads are within limits but undergo large compression at

the southeast end of the wharf.

Overall, the results indicate that mooring this size of bulk carrier may be feasible but

should be performed with heavy precaution and care taken to ensure that the ships are

not at maximum draft during these events and that mooring line pre-tension and

overall good line tending are maintained. In addition, if further investigation

regarding mooring feasibility is desired, other measures such as active tensioning

devices with high-modulus lines could be investigated.

7. Berthing Analysis

Berthing analysis was performed to assist LAN in development of minimum fender energy

absorption requirements and general fender size recommendations. The more refined

berthing analysis performed here was completed in parallel with the mooring analysis, and

results in slightly smaller fender size requirements than the preliminary analysis performed to

inform the ongoing mooring analysis efforts.

Berthing configuration, fender spacing, fender reaction impacts on the wharf or vessels, and

fender geometry were not considered in the selection of minimum fender performance

recommendations. It is assumed that these other parameters have been evaluated as part of

design by LAN. Final selection of fender make, model and panel type may depend on other

factors and is to be performed by LAN.

7.1. Methodology

The deterministic method is the most commonly used method for fender design. The

method has been adopted from PIANC (1994). The method’s approach is to calculate

the kinetic energy demand by the design vessel during berthing maneuvers, which has

to be absorbed (resisted) by the fender. The PIANC equation considers other

important factors in the energy calculations such as: virtual mass, softness, berth

configuration, etc.

Ship displacements were calculated using ship dimensions and assumed block

coefficients. The approach velocity (v) is the most influential variable in the

calculation of the berthing energy and is influenced by a large number of factors such

as: physical conditions, ease of navigation, method of berthing, type of vessel, use of

tugs, frequency of berthing, size of vessel, human factor, etc. The velocity for the

design is derived from the recommended approach velocities in Figure 4.2.1 of

PIANC (1994) which depend on ship displacement. For the purposes of the analysis,

it is assumed that the berthing energy is absorbed entirely through elastic deflection

of the fender. Deflections of the wharf and/or the vessel’s hull were neglected.


7.2. Results

The energy demand findings are summarized in Table 9 below. The required energy

absorption of 1,020 ft-kips for the containership controls fender size selection for the

Future Configuration (extended wharf). For vessels proposed to be moored at the

Proposed B6 Configuration, the break-bulk carrier controls fender size selection, with

required energy absorption of 936 ft-kips. It should be noted that some fender

manufacturers may recommend a type of fender other than a cone fender, such as a

cell fender, for reasons other than their energy absorption performance.

Table 9. Summary of Minimum Fender Requirements

Note:

1. E = Energy Absorption Capacity.

2. FS = Factor of Safety.

3. v = Approach Velocity. Approach velocities used in the Berthing Energy calculations are based on “easy

berthing conditions, exposed” per PIANC guidelines as a function of DWT calculated in the vessel

particulars. Vessel particulars necessary for the Berthing Energy analysis were calculated based on known

vessel particulars.

8. Conclusions




conditions at the proposed Berth 6, Port of Port Arthur, Texas. The present analysis included

four different berthed vessels ranging in length overall from 607 to 1,204 feet subject to

forces and moments generated by passing tankers, as well as environmental forces. The

berthed vessels included a containership, Roll-On/Roll-Off (Ro/Ro) vessel, a break-bulk

carrier and a bulk carrier.

The analysis utilized CHE’s proprietary hydrodynamic modeling tools to develop passing

vessel forces and moments. Static and dynamic mooring analysis simulations were performed

using the OPTIMOOR program. Mooring analysis results were evaluated based on criteria

for mooring line loads provided by Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF

1978) and criteria for berthed vessel motions provided by Permanent International

Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC 1995), both coordinated with LAN prior to

the analysis.

7,600 TEU

Containership Ro/Ro Vessel

Break-Bulk Carrier

Bulk Carrier

Berthing Energy 1/3 Point Berth

E: 1020 ft-kips

FS: 1.50

v: 0.32 ft/s

E: 866 ft-kips

FS: 1.50

v: 0.39 ft/s

E: 936 ft-kips

FS: 1.50

v: 0.52 ft/s

E: 798 ft-kips

FS: 1.50

v: 0.39 ft/s

Fender Size (Maritime Int’l.)

MCN 1400 G2.8

E: 1020 ft-kips

R: 415 kips

MCN 1400 G1.9

E: 867 ft-kips

R:339 kips

MCN 1400 G2.3

E: 936 ft-kips

R: 372 kips

MCN 1300 G2.7

E: 803 ft-kips

R: 350 kips


Analysis results indicate that the moored ships are subject to large passing ship forces and

moments due to the restricted width of the waterway, large passing vessels, and relatively

large berthed vessels. The passing ship forces are comparable in magnitude to those

generated by strong winds blowing off the dock, and for the smaller vessels, winds occurring

during tropical storms/hurricanes.

Transit, maneuvering and berthing of the two larger ships (containership and Ro/Ro vessel)

in this location may not be feasible and should be evaluated. Given the dangerous passing

vessel conditions for the larger berthed vessels, it is not recommended to moor the

containership or Ro/Ro vessel at Berth 6, or possibly at any location in this section of the

waterway. The 771-ft bulk carrier has marginal mooring safety in this location. The

break-bulk carrier appears to be small enough to withstand loads from passing tankers and

for motions and loads in the mooring system to be kept under control.

The results of the analysis and conclusions above are specific to the vessels, waterway

configuration, mooring assumptions, and terminal configuration used in the analysis.

9. References

Coast & Harbor Engineering, 2014. Data Request - Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension

Mooring/Berthing Analysis, Port of Port Arthur, TX. Final Technical Memo dated

November 25, 2014.

Fenical, S., Kolomiets, P., Kivva, S., and M. Zheleznyak. 2006. Numerical Modeling of the

Impacts on Berthed Vessels and Shorelines. International Conference on Coastal

Engineering.

Maritime International. 2014. 2014 Fender Manual.

Oil Companies Marine Forum (OCIMF). 1978. Guidelines and Recommendations for the

Safe Mooring of Large Ships at Piers and Sea Islands. OCIMF 1978.

Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC). 1995. Criteria for

Movement of Moored Ships in Harbours: A Practical Guide. Working Group 24,

Supplement to Bulletin #88. PIANC 1995.

Port of Port Arthur. 2014. 2014 Sailing Schedule.

http://portofportarthur.com/terminal/sailing-schedule/

APPENDIX A

Data Request and Coordination Memorandum

FINAL Technical Memorandum v5 Page 1 Data Request November 25, 2014 Port of Port Arthur Berth 6 Bulkhead Expansion Port Arthur, TX

Final (Version 5)

Data Request Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension Mooring/Berthing Analysis Port of Port Arthur, TX

Coast & Harbor Engineering (CHE), a division of Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM), is under

contract with Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam (LAN) to provide analysis support services for

the Port of Port Arthur Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension Project. The following technical

memorandum describes the data required for mooring analysis under coastal conditions, dynamic

analysis under passing vessel forces, and berthing analysis. Table 1 provides a list of required

data, suggested parameters if no information is available, as well as brief commentary in some

cases as to the level of importance of each parameter within the analysis.

This memorandum is intended to be a working document that will be updated first by LAN to

provide any available data and either confirm or correct assumptions already made by CHE.

Table 2 provides a location for vessel parameters that may be known to LAN at this time.

Following initial review/revision by LAN, CHE will revise the document to include changes in

appropriate details, any new assumptions, and perhaps (if appropriate at that time) a set of

proposed dynamic mooring analysis Scenarios in Table 3. The document will be considered

final when LAN and CHE have concurrence on the dynamic mooring analysis Scenarios in Table

3, and a final technical memorandum will be sent to LAN.

Table 1. Data Required for Mooring Analysis (LAN, CHE)

Item Parameter Value/Assumption/Source LAN Input

1 Objectives

• Evaluate design loading conditions for berth design subject to passing vessel forces.

• Evaluate potential impacts to loading/unloading operations in terms of berthed vessel movements to within industry recognized limits for surge and sway.

2 Berth drawings (30% Design)

Drawings to be provided by LAN in digital AutoCAD format with known horizontal datum. They need to show horizontal and vertical locations of proposed mooring points, fenders, and dredging depths.

Digital AutoCAD format files provided. Files S-101 and S-150 are for Layout and Typical Section, respectively. (See attachments)

Confirmed, and questions addressed via email.


3 Fender make and model

Per 30% design plans, the fenders are cell fenders with UHMW polyethylene panels. CHE to measure dimensions on design drawings and assume a make and model with performance data from Trelleborg Marine Systems (http://www.trelleborg.com/en/Marine-Systems/)

Assume either of the following:

• Bridgestone Hypercell

• Maritime International

Cone

Confirmed. Maritime International Cone fender to be assumed.

4 Bollard capacities

LAN to provide allowable horizontal load in bollards if known at this time. If unknown, peak bollard loads will be provided. The assumed bollard capacity does not affect the analysis results.

Provide peak bollard loads

Confirmed

Bollard capacities 250 kips assumed for Berth 6.

In keeping with LAN Design Criteria, use 275 kips. 11/03/2014

5 Waterway bathymetry

LAN to provide waterway bathymetry data in XYZ format and in a known horizontal and vertical datum.

Digital AutoCAD 2-D file (V-XC_TOPO), USACE Plan and Cross-Section at Site and bathymetry data in XYZ format (POPA 09242012.xyz) provided. (See attachments)

Confirmed, and questions addressed via email.

6 Passing vessel speeds and distances

This is an important factor and should be coordinated with Sabine Pilots. In the absence of this coordination, Speeds 4 and 6 knots could be used, traveling along channel centerline in worst-case direction with opposing current. Worst-case direction to be determined during initial testing.

Use speeds of 4 and 6 knots

Confirmed.

7 Moored vessels

• Initially four (4) design vessels have been specified for berthing at the terminal:

1. 7,600 TEU Containership 2. Bulk Carrier 3. Break-Bulk Carrier 4. Ro/Ro Vessel

• For each of these vessels, LAN to provide at a minimum Length Overall (or Length Between Perpendiculars), Beam and Draft.

• Two (2) values of draft should be developed for each vessel: 1) ballast draft for coastal conditions mooring and 2) maximum allowable draft for passing ship mooring.

• See Table 2 for location to fill in this information. If no vessel size details are

See Table 2. Ballasted draft not available at this time.

Confirmed. Passing ship mooring analysis may commence but ballast draft values are required for coastal conditions mooring analysis, which include only wind forces and will be performed at ballast draft and high tide.


available, a sample real vessel name can be provided to CHE.

• Hull forms will be estimated by CHE and extracted from CHE database. It is assumed that only three (3) vessels will be evaluated in the mooring analysis, so CHE will provide recommendations as to which three (3) are most appropriate.

Please provide ballast drafts as soon as possible, or CHE can make an estimate.

Also, shall the containership be evaluated fully loaded for larger windage area?

Use CHE estimated values for ballast drafts.

Evaluate containership as fully loaded

8

Mooring equipment, or assumed real ship equivalent

To be determined following delivery of detailed ship size data from Item #8 above.

CHE will assume ship mooring equipment information based on similar vessels.

Containership – data for COSCO Long Beach used, and scaled to match new dimensions.

RoRo Vessel – data for Tonsberg used, and scaled to match new dimensions.

Breakbulk Carrier – data for CSL Acadian used, and scaled to match new dimensions.

Agreed

9 Passing vessel

This is an important factor and should be coordinated with Sabine Pilots. In the absence of this coordination, in this area we have used a Suezmax Tanker, 900x164x40. 40-ft draft was reported to be largest draft allowed on the upper Sabine reaches (near Beaumont) in May 2013 meeting with Sabine Pilots.

Use CHE recommended passing vessel

Confirmed.

10 Mooring lines types and capacities

To be determined following delivery of detailed ship size data from Item #8 above.

CHE will assume ship mooring equipment information based on similar vessels.

Containership – data for COSCO Long Beach used.

RoRo Vessel – data for Tonsberg used.

Breakbulk Carrier – data


for CSL Acadian used.

Agreed

Bulk Carrier – data for CSL Acadian used.

Agreed on 11/03/2014

11 Mooring line pre-tension

10% of the mooring line minimum breaking load (MBL) per recommendation by OCIMF (2008)

Agreed

Confirmed.

12 Winch brake limit

60% of the mooring line minimum breaking load (MBL) per recommendation by OCIMF (2008)

Agreed

Confirmed.

13 Wind-waves None Agreed

Confirmed.

14 Wind

• Per the CHE Scope of Work, no wind

analysis or extreme wind prediction is

included.

• Static mooring analysis will determine

mooring capability under strong winds;

however the results will not correlate to

return periods for specific wind speeds.

• A steady wind speed and direction may be

included in the dynamic passing ship

simulations if desired.

• LAN to specify steady wind speed and

direction to be included in passing ship

dynamic mooring analysis.

Use an assumed maximum wind speed of 60 mph and wind directions to generate worst line load effects.

Suggest eliminating winds for now. Loads will be a challenge already and winds are uncertain.

Agreed, pending results of initial evaluations

15 Tidal/river current

This is an important factor and should be coordinated with Sabine Pilots. In the absence of this coordination, LAN to provide a typical flood/ebb current speed in the center of the channel to include.

Note: Passing ships will be assumed to run opposite to the current direction, which will effectively increase the passing ship speed through the water.

Use flood/ebb current speed of 2-3 knots.

Suggest eliminating currents for now. Loads will be a challenge already and currents uncertain

Agreed, pending results of initial evaluations

16 Drift Likely to be a minor factor here. It is suggested that we neglect drift angle (crabbing) in the simulation.

Agreed

Confirmed.

17 Tides Passing ship events are assumed to occur at Mean Lower Low Water tidal elevation (slightly conservative). LAN to provide vertical datum

See attached file: Datum Table


table to allow conversions between elevation data for the terminal, bathymetry, and tides.

Confirmed.

18

Sources of mooring analysis criteria

• Ship motion criteria shall be derived from

PIANC (Criteria for Movement of Moored

Ships in Harbours: A Practical Guide, 1995).

• Peak mooring line force criteria shall be

derived from OCIMF(Mooring Equipment

Guidelines - 3rd Edition, 2008)

Agreed

Confirmed.

19

Guidelines from above references to be used in the analysis

• Ship motions for Safe Working Conditions (PIANC 1995) will be prescribed based on Surge, Sway (feet):

o 7600 TEU containership (50% efficiency) = +/-3.3, 3.9

o Bulk Carrier (general cargo) = +/-3.3, 3.3

o Break-Bulk Carrier (general cargo) = +/-3.3, 3.3

o Ro/Ro Vessel (side ramp/rollers) = +/-2.0, 2.0

• Mooring line forces for steel wire (if any is used here, OCIMF): less than 55% of MBL.

• Mooring line forces for synthetic lines (polypropylene /polyethylene), OCIMF: less than 50% of MBL.

• Assumed mooring winch brake limits for initiation of payout (OCIMF): 60% of MBL.

• Fender loads and compression: from Trelleborg (2014) Maritime International (2014).

Agreed

It is recommended to eliminate the larger bulk carrier as we are scoped to evaluate only 3 vessels.

No ships will have steel wire, all use synthetic lines.

Fender data will be taken from Maritime International.

Bulk carrier added back into analysis 11/3/14, fixed sway limit on break-bulk.

Agreed on 11/03/2014

Table 2. Design Vessel Particulars

Particular Moored Vessel 1

Moored Vessel 2

Moored Vessel 3

Moored Vessel 4

1

Passing Vessel 1

7,600 TEU Containership

Bulk Carrier Break-bulk Carrier

Ro/Ro Vessel

Suezmax Tanker

Length Overall [feet] 1204 771 607 942 900

Beam [feet] 138 141 106 106 164

Maximum Allowable Draft [feet]

43.6 40 39.4 40.7 40.02

Ballast Draft [feet]

Notes:

1. Only 3 moored vessels included in the Scope of Work. Moored vessel 2 was removed as its size fits

between other vessels and its mooring would be very similar to moored vessel 3. Moored vessel 2

determined to be useful addition, added back into analysis upon agreement from CHE on

11/3/14. Agreed on 11/03/2014

2. Maximum draft in the channel per Sabine Pilots meeting May 2013.


Table 3. Dynamic Mooring Analysis Scenarios

Notes:

1. Parameters in passing ship simulations are for example only, and are subject to change.

2. Passing ship hydrodynamic simulations are limited to six (6) scenarios in original scope of work. A total

of 7 passing ship simulations agreed upon by CHE on 11/3/14. Agreed on 11/03/2014

3. Ships pass moving inbound along channel centerline.

• Scenarios to be mutually agreed by LAN and CHE

• AGREED

• Scenarios 1-3 suggested as initial testing, to be reviewed and coordinated for follow-on

scenarios.

• Agreed, pending results of initial evaluations.

• Scenarios 4-7 proposed by CHE on 11/3/14. Agreed on 11/03/2014

Mooring Layouts

1. Containership

a. 1200-ft containership to fit entirely within a future elongated Berth 6.

b. Moored port side to.

c. Bow located 100 feet from end of Berth 6 so that all lines use new Berth 6 bollards.

d. Berth 5 assumes same depth and slopes (48.78’ NAVD88). Assumption ok for now

e. Dredge prism developed using 30-ft offset from stern of ship

f. All same slopes as in LAN 30% design

g. Continuous wharf assumed all the way to station 3+50, same cross-section as proposed at

Berth 6, mooring/breasting structure removed.

Scenario Berthing Location

Berthed Ship Passing Ship Speed [kts]

Tidal Current

1 Figure 1 Containership 900-ft tanker 4 none

2 Figure 2 RoRo Vessel 900-ft tanker 4 none

3 Figure 3 Breakbulk Carrier 900-ft tanker 4 none

4 Figure 1 Containership 900-ft tanker 6 none

5 Figure 2 RoRo Vessel 900-ft tanker 6 none

6 Figure 3 Breakbulk Carrier 900-ft tanker 6 none

7 Figure 1 Bulk Carrier 900-ft tanker 6 none

8

9

10


Figure 1. Moored containership

2. Ro-Ro Vessel

a. 942-ft RoRo ship sits at Berth 6 and overlaps onto Berth 5.

b. Stern lines moor to bollards on Berth 5.

c. Berth 5 assumes same depth and slopes (48.78’ NAVD88).

d. Moored starboard side to, to allow stern ramps to offload onto wharf.

e. Bow located at soutwest turn in dredge cut (no modification to the 30% design dredge

prism provided by LAN).

f. All same slopes as in LAN 30% design.

Figure 2. Moored RoRo vessel

3. Breakbulk Carrier

a. 607-ft Breakbulk carrier sits within Berth 6

b. Stern lines moor to mooring/breasting dolphins.

c. Berth 5 assumes same depth and slopes (48.78’ NAVD88).

d. Moored port side to.

e. Stern located in conventient position to allow use of the mooring/breasting dolphin by its

stern lines, as it cannot fit entirely within the bulkhead area.

f. No modification to the 30% design dredge prism provided by LAN.

g. All same slopes as in LAN 30% design.


h. Bow lines moor to bollards on Berth 6.

Figure 3. Moored Breakbulk carrier

References

Oil Companies Marine Forum (OCIMF). 2008. Mooring Equipment Guidelines - 3rd Edition,

2008.

Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC). 1995. Criteria for

Movement of Moored Ships in Harbours: A Practical Guide. Working Group 24,

Supplement to Bulletin #88. Permanent International Association of Navigation

Congresses, 1995.

Trelleborg Marine Systems. 2013. Trelleborg Fender Systems Make Certain (Catalog)

APPENDIX B

Passing Vessel Forces and Moments Scenarios 1-8

Technical Report Appendix B-1 Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis January 8, 2015 Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension, Port of Port Arthur, TX

Figure B1. Scenario 1 – Containership, Passing Speed 4 knots

Figure B2. Scenario 2 - Ro/Ro Vessel, Passing Speed 4 knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-100

0

100S

urg

e (

kip

s)

Model Time (seconds)

Loads on Moored Container from Passing Tanker at 4 Knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-200

-100

0

100

Sw

ay (

kip

s)


Passing Tanker Vessel Length Overall = 900 feet, Breadth = 164 feet, Draft = 40 feet

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 -45000 -30000 -15000

0 15000 30000 45000

Ya

w (

kip

s-f

ee

t)


Moored Container Vessel Length Overall = 1204 feet, Breadth = 138 feet, Draft = 43.6 feet

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660-100

-50

0

50

Surg

e (

kip

s)


Loads on Moored RoRo from Passing Tanker at 4 Knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-50

0

50

100

Sw

ay (

kip

s)



0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 -15000 -10000 -5000

0 5000 10000

Ya

w (

kip

s-f

ee

t)


Moored RoRo Vessel Length Overall = 942 feet, Breadth = 106 feet, Draft = 40.7 feet


Figure B3. Scenario 2 - Ro/Ro Vessel Shifted 85 feet, Passing Speed 4 knots

Figure B4. Scenario 3 – Break-bulk Carrier, Passing Speed 4 knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-50

0

50S

urg

e (

kip

s)


Loads on Moored RoRo-Shifted from Passing Tanker at 4 Knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-50

0

50

100

Sw

ay (

kip

s)



0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-10000 -5000

0 5000 10000

Ya

w (

kip

s-f

ee

t)


Moored RoRo-Shifted Vessel Length Overall = 942 feet, Breadth = 106 feet, Draft = 40.7 feet

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-50

0

50

Surg

e (

kip

s)


Loads on Moored Breakbulk from Passing Tanker at 4 Knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-50

0

Sw

ay (

kip

s)



0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-5000

0

5000

Ya

w (

kip

s-f

ee

t)


Moored Breakbulk Vessel Length Overall = 607 feet, Breadth = 106 feet, Draft = 39.4 feet


Figure B5. Scenario 4 – Bulk Carrier, Passing Speed 4 knots

Figure B6. Scenario 5 – Containership, Passing Speed 6 knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-100

-50

0

50

100S

urg

e (

kip

s)


Loads on Moored Bulk from Passing Tanker at 4 Knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-100

-50

0

50

Sw

ay (

kip

s)



0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-10000

0

10000

Ya

w (

kip

s-f

ee

t)


Moored Bulk Vessel Length Overall = 771 feet, Breadth = 141 feet, Draft = 40 feet

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-200

0

200

400

Surg

e (

kip

s)


Loads on Moored Container from Passing Tanker at 6 Knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-600

-400

-200

0

200

Sw

ay (

kip

s)



0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-100000

-50000

0

50000

100000

Ya

w (

kip

s-f

ee

t)


Moored Container Vessel Length Overall = 1204 feet, Breadth = 138 feet, Draft = 43.6 feet


Figure B7. Scenario 6 – Ro/Ro Vessel, Passing Speed 6 knots

Figure B8. Scenario 6 – Ro/Ro Vessel Shifted 85 feet, Passing Speed 6 knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-200

-100

0

100

200S

urg

e (

kip

s)


Loads on Moored RoRo from Passing Tanker at 6 Knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-100

0

100

200

300

Sw

ay (

kip

s)



0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-30000 -20000 -10000

0 10000 20000 30000

Ya

w (

kip

s-f

ee

t)


Moored RoRo Vessel Length Overall = 942 feet, Breadth = 106 feet, Draft = 40.7 feet

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-200

-100

0

100

200

Surg

e (

kip

s)


Loads on Moored RoRo-Shifted from Passing Tanker at 6 Knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-100

0

100

200

300

Sw

ay (

kip

s)



0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-30000 -20000 -10000

0 10000 20000 30000

Ya

w (

kip

s-f

ee

t)


Moored RoRo-Shifted Vessel Length Overall = 942 feet, Breadth = 106 feet, Draft = 40.7 feet


Figure B9. Scenario 7 – Break-bulk Carrier, Passing Speed 6 knots

Figure B20. Scenario 8 – Bulk Carrier, Passing Speed 6 knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-100

0

100

200S

urg

e (

kip

s)


Loads on Moored Breakbulk from Passing Tanker at 6 Knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-100

0

100

Sw

ay (

kip

s)



0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 -15000 -10000 -5000

0 5000 10000

Ya

w (

kip

s-f

ee

t)


Moored Breakbulk Vessel Length Overall = 607 feet, Breadth = 106 feet, Draft = 39.4 feet

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660-300-200-100

0 100 200 300

Surg

e (

kip

s)


Loads on Moored Bulk from Passing Tanker at 6 Knots

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-300-200-100

0 100 200

Sw

ay (

kip

s)



0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660

-30000 -20000 -10000

0 10000 20000 30000

Ya

w (

kip

s-f

ee

t)


Moored Bulk Vessel Length Overall = 771 feet, Breadth = 141 feet, Draft = 40 feet

APPENDIX C

Passing Vessel Dynamic Mooring Analysis Results

Technical Report Appendix C-1 Ship Hydrodynamics and Mooring Analysis January 8, 2015 Berth 6 Bulkhead Extension, Port of Port Arthur, TX

Figure C1. Scenario 1 – Containership, Passing Speed 4 knots

cc dd ee ff gg hh ii jj kk ll mm nn oo pp qq rr ss tt uu vv ww xx0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B C D E F 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

50

100

150

200

250

50% MBL = 113.5 kips

100 % MBL = 227 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

Surge (feet), "+" Astern

Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C2. Scenario 2 - Ro/Ro Vessel, Passing Speed 4 knots

bb cc dd ee ff gg hh ii jj kk ll mm0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B C N V W 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

50% MBL = 85.5 kips

100 % MBL = 171 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C3. Scenario 2 - Ro/Ro Vessel Shifted 85 feet, Passing Speed 4 knots

bb cc dd ee ff gg hh ii jj kk ll mm nn oo0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B D P X Y 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

50% MBL = 85.5 kips

100 % MBL = 171 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C4. Scenario 2 - Ro/Ro Vessel Shifted 85 feet, Dolphins Shifted 42 feet, Passing Speed 4 knots


100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B D P X Y 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

50% MBL = 85.5 kips

100 % MBL = 171 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C5. Scenario 3 – Break-bulk Carrier, Passing Speed 4 knots

aa bb cc dd ee ff gg hh0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B C D E F 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

50% MBL = 95.5 kips

100 % MBL = 191 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C6. Scenario 4 – Bulk Carrier, Passing Speed 4 knots

aa bb cc dd ee ff gg hh ii jj kk0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B G M R S 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

50% MBL = 95.5 kips

100 % MBL = 191 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C7. Scenario 5 – Containership, Passing Speed 6 knots

cc dd ee ff gg hh ii jj kk ll mm nn oo pp qq rr ss tt uu vv ww xx0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B C D E F 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

50

100

150

200

250

50% MBL = 113.5 kips

100 % MBL = 227 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C8. Scenario 6 – Ro/Ro Vessel, Passing Speed 6 knots

bb cc dd ee ff gg hh ii jj kk ll mm0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B C N V W 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

50% MBL = 85.5 kips

100 % MBL = 171 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C9. Scenario 6 – Ro/Ro Vessel Shifted 85 feet, Passing Speed 6 knots


100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B D P X Y 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

50% MBL = 85.5 kips

100 % MBL = 171 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C10. Scenario 6 – Ro/Ro Vessel Shifted 85 feet, Dolphins Shifted 42 feet, Passing Speed 6 knots


100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B D P X Y 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

50% MBL = 85.5 kips

100 % MBL = 171 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C11. Scenario 7 – Break-bulk Carrier, Passing Speed 6 knots

aa bb cc dd ee ff gg hh0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B C D E F 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

50% MBL = 95.5 kips

100 % MBL = 191 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits


Figure C12. Scenario 8 – Bulk Carrier, Passing Speed 6 knots

aa bb cc dd ee ff gg hh ii jj kk0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fender

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

A B G M R S 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bollard

Forc

e (

kip

s)

Force

Capacity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

50% MBL = 95.5 kips

100 % MBL = 191 kips

Mooring Line

Forc

e (

kip

s)

-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15-15

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

15


Sw

ay (

fee

t), "+

" to

Stb

d

Initial Position

Acceptable Limits

APPENDIX D

Berthing Analysis Results

Engineer: A. Reza Date: 12/1/2014 File No:

Checked By: Date: Page:

Client: Project: Port Arthur Berth

Notes: Berthing Study

Berthing Energy Summary – F.S 1.5 for all Vessels

Vessel

Berthing velocity:

.10 m/s

Abnormal Impact

Energy

KN-m

Berthing velocity:

.12 m/s

Abnormal Impact

Energy

KN-m

Berthing velocity:

.16 m/s

Abnormal Impact

Energy

KN-m

Container Ship

(Vessel 1)

FS= 1.50

1383 KN-m

(1020 ft-kip)

Ro/Ro

(Vessel 2)

FS = 1.50

1174 KN-m

(866 ft-kip)

Break-Bulk Carrier

(Vessel 3)

1.50

1269 KN-m

(936 ft-kip)

Bulk Carrier

(Vessel 4)

FS: 1.50

1082 KN-m

(798 ft-kip)

REZ71395

Line

REZ71395

Text Box

Approximately

technical report ship hydrodynamics and ... report ship hydrodynamics and mooring analysis berth 6...

Documents