UNCLASSIFIED

414357AD __

DEFENSE DOCUMENTATION CENTERFOR

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CAMERON STATION. ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

UNCLASSIFIED

NOTICE: Wen goverment or other drawings, speci-fications or other data are used for any purposeother than in connection with a definitely relatedgovernment procurement operation, the U. S.Government thereby incurs no responsibility, nor anyobligsation whatsoever; and the fact that the Govern-ment may have formlated., furnished, or in any vaysupplied the said drawings, specifications., or otherdata is not to be regarded by implication or other-wise as in any manner licensing the holder or anyother person or corporation, or conveying any rightsor permission to manufacture, use or sell anypatented invention that my in any vay be relatedthereto.

Technical Note N-515

EVALUATION OF A HYDRO-PNEUMATIC FLOATING FENDER OR CAMEL

IJ

S-cc

June 1963

4

'U. S. NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORYPort Hueneme, California

EVALUATION OF A HYDRO-PNEUMATIC FLOATING FENDER OR CAMEL

Task No. Y-FOl5-10-303

Type C

by

T. T. Lee

ABSTRACT

This work is part of an effort to develop a family of camels(floating fenders) which will be lower in combined first cost andmaintenance costs than existing fendeisand will reduce damage toship-hulls or to pier fender systems. The performance inPort Hueneme (California) Harbor of a pair of 50-foot-long hydro-pneumatic camels has been studied over a four-month period. Thistype of camel employs a floating bulkhead, fronted by two each40" x 60" pneumatic- and hydro-rubber ship-fenders. The hydro-fenders exert their greatest resistance during high-rise-time impactloads while the pneumatic fenders are capable of absorbing moreenergy when the impact is of small magnitude and long duration. Therubber cushion units of each camel have a total minimum energyabsorbing capacity of 20 foot-tons with a maximum a 86 ft-tons.The capacity depends on the initial air pressure (from 6 to 24 psig)in the pneumatic fenders and the impact characteristics of the shipfor the hydro-fenders.

Since the launching of these camels on 8 March 1963, a total offifteen ships (8000 to 20,000 tons) have been served. The camel isconsidered to have been satisfactory, except for the creation ofcargo-handling problems (the camel holds ships too far off dock forservice by on-board booms). The ship captains interviewed generallyshowed enthusiasm. Impact loading induced by the ships is relativelylight and only 4.2 to 24.6 long-tons were measured. The kineticenergy absorbed was 1.5 to 17 ft-tons which is only 2% to 20% of themaximum designed capacity (or 8% to 84% of the minimum designedcapacity). Ship velocity as measured varied from 0.1 to 0.75 footper second. There were no marine-biological hazards on the camelafter four months of immersion in the water. Evaluation will becontinued in FY-64.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ABSTRACT i

LIST OF FIGURES iii

LIST OF TABLES iv

I NTRODUCTI ON 1

DESCRIPTION OF CAMEL 1

EXPERIMENTAL EQU I PMENT 3

PROCEDURE 4

RESULTS 5

FINDINGS 8

CONCLUSIONS 9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11

REFERENCES 12

APPENDICES

A. WATER-ABSORPTION CHARACTERISTICS OF

POLYURETHANE FOAM 49

B. CREOSOTING TREATMENT OF CAMEL 50

C. COST ESTIMATES OF CAMELS 51

D. INSPECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE TO RUBBER

FENDERS AND FLOATING WOODEN BULKHEAD 52

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title

I Hydro-Pneumatic Energy Absorbing Camel

2 Energy-absorbing Characteristics of PneumaticRubber Ship-Fender

3 Energy-absorbing Characteristics of Hydro-RubberShip-Fender

4 A Ship-Velocity Measuring Device

5 Testing Facilities Used for Calibrating BothHydro and Pneumatic Rubber Ship-fenders (1)

6 Testing Facilities Used for Calibrating BothHydro and Pneumatic Rubber Ship-fenders (2)

7 A Sample Field Inspection Worksheet - "SS ALASKA BEAR"

8 Installation and Operation of a Hydro-PneumaticCamel (1)

9 Installation and Operation of a Hydro-PneumaticCamel (2)

10 General Plan and Profile of the Test Site - WharfNo. 3, Port Hueneme Harbor, California

11 A Typical Pattern of Measured Ship Velocities After

Contact with Camel

12 Corrosion and Marine Growth Characteristics ofHydro-pneumatic Camel (1)

13 Corrosion and Marine Growth Characteristics ofHydro-pneumatic Camel (2)

14 A Sample Spectral Analysis of Measured Pressures ofa Pneumatic Fender

15 Summary of Results of Load Measurement and

Inspection Program

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title

I Naval Architectural Characteristics of aHydro-pneumatic Camel

II Summary of Results of Load Measurementand Inspection Program

III Water-Absorption Characteristics ofPolyurethane Foam (Lockfoam G-504)

IV Full-Cell Pressure Treatment to Refusalof Pacific Coast Douglas Fir for Use inCoastal Waters

V Estimated Costsof Camels of DifferentTypes for Berthing Ships of 20,000 TonsDisplacement

iv

I NTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Yards and Docks (BUDOCKS) assigned the U. S. NavalCivil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) the task of developing a familyof camels to serve as floating separators between ships and fendersystems of berthing structures. Replies by thirty-three NavalShore Establishments to a NCEL questionnaire, on such subjects astraffic, berthing procedures, environment, use of camels, anddamages are discussed by Green (1962)1. Two camels of respectivelythe hydraulic and torsional type as proposed by NCEL are describedby Leendertse (1962)2. They provide an energy-absorbing capacityof 25 foot-tons each. However, BUDOCKS decided thalt they Were too com-plicated and costly for normal use at Naval activities and subse-quently designed one whose test operation is reported on herein.The BUDOCKS design employs a floating bulkhead, fronted by eitherfour standard 40" x 60" pneumatic rubber ship-fenders or two eachpneumatic and hydro rubber ship-fenders. The hydro fenders providesufficient protection to the pier fenders during impact of the shipat a relatively high-rise-time but are deficient for low-rise-timeimpact loads. The pneumatic fenders have the opposite characteris-tics. Thus a combination of the two types provide protection toboth pibr and ship over the complete range of ship-impact loads.

DESCRIPTION OF CAMEL

The basic element in the BUDOCKS-designed NCEL-tested camel isa 50-foot long, 1'8" wide, 11'6" high floating bulkhead (Figure 1).The bulkhead is protected by two 40" x 60" pneumatic rubber ship-fenders with a minimum 6.6 psig or higher, up to 24 psig, initialair pressure, and two similar fenders filled with water. Theserubber cushion units have a total minimum energy-absorbing capacityof 20 foot-tons and a maximum of 86 ft-tons. However, in practice,only a few rubber fenders make contact with the ship; therefore,even the minimum total energy-absorption capacity is not utilized.For recovery purposes, the water-filled fenders are packed withrubber hoses which serve to spring the fenders back to their undisturbedshape after the ship's load is removed. They are secured to thebulkhbed' with their axis horizontally instead of vertically as forthe pneumatic fenders. An 18" pipe filled with sectional concretecylinders is used as ballast weights.

The floating bulkhead is made of timber and steel materialswith the core poured with polyurethane foam (see Appendix A) forincreased buoyancy purposes. All timber members are treated withcoal-tar creosote oil to increase resistance to corrosion. Itis noted that the treatment meets standard requirements. Thepreservation appears to be excellent. (See Appendix B.)

To reduce water-logging, all cracks, checks, and joints ofwood plankkngs were caulked with oakum and then coated with coal-tar epoxy resin. All outside steel surfaces were first paintedwith primer red-lead (MIL-T-704) and then overcoated with blackanti-fouling paint (MIL-P-19449).

The camel has two lifting and mooring eyes located approxi-mately 10 feet from each end. In addition, a position maintainingdevice, not in the original design, was provided (Figure 1). Theenergy-absorbing characteristics of both hydro-and pneumatic fendersare shown in Figures 2 and 3. It will be noted that each hydro-fender will absorb a maximum energy of 25 ft-tons as compared with18 ft-tons (initial air pressure 24 lb/in2 ) for pne matic fenders,assuming in both cases maximum pressure of 50 lb/in which is theworkihg strength of the rubber fenders. The impact load will notexceed a maximum allowable load of 40 tons on the ship's hull.Naval architectural characteristics are shown in Table I.

The camel design was reviewed by NCEL, CBC, and San FranciscoNaval Shipyard. Reviewers included harbor pilots, designers,engineers and port facility operators. General comments were describedby NOEL (1962)3 and BUDOCKS (1962)4. Two major modifications to theoriginal design were made with the approval of BUDOCKSs (1) twenty-four 2-foot-long cylindrical precast sections of concrete wereused to fill the ballast pipe in lieu of a solidly-filled concreteballast, and (2) a position-maintaining device, as shown inFigures 1 and 8 was added to keep the camel in proper positionunder all tidal conditions.

The cost of the camel is approximately $360 per foot of camelor $68 per foot of berth. (See Appendix C.)

2

The bulkhead, rubber fenders, and ballast weights (concretecylinders) were transported separately from the fabrication shop tothe test site. The maximum dry-weight to be handled was estimatedas 12 tons.

EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT

Ship Velocity Meter

The approach velocity of the test ships is measured electronicallyby means of two mutually perpendicular probes, each employinga tachometer as sensor. As shown in Figure 4, one probe, a steelchannel, is pushed back laterally by the berthing ship; therebythe velocity component normal to the wharf is measured continuously.This probe extends approximately five feet beyond the camel fendersprior to the berthing operations. The other probe is a bicycle-wheel fastened to the steel channel probe, thereby the velocity com-ponent parallel to the wharf is measured. The wheel is turned bythe berthing ship. Since the velocity components in two directionsare measured, the angle and speed of approach is readily determined.

Ship acceleration perpendicular to the wharf is measured.by oneaaoelerbmeter fastenod to the ship's side near the transverse axisof the center of gravity of the ship. In addition an accelerometeris fastened to the ship-velocity measuring probe.

Energy Absorption

The energy absorbed by each of the pneumatic fenders is determinedfrom measurements of the pressure exerted on each rubber fender.These, in turn, give the load-deflection history during impact. Asample calculation is provided in Figure 2. An air-pressure trans-ducer in a water-proof- housing is provided for each pneumaticfender. A special fitting serves to transmit the pressure to thepickup as well as to inflate the rubber fender.

The energy absorbed by each of the four water-filled rubberfenders is determined from load deflection characteristics (Figure 3)inferred from pressure measurements. The area of contact and deflec-tion are related to the rate of flow by a calibration in which thedischarge through the connecting tubes is directly related to thepressure measured.

3

Calibration was done using a pile testing facility (Hromadik,19615 and Figures 5 and 6). Three loads range~from 12,500 to50,000 lbs were applied at speeds of from 0.4 to 1.5 feet persecond.

Water-level Variations

Fluctuations in the water surface are measured by a pressurepickup located on the harbor bottom.

Wind

Wind velocity is measured by two anemometers, one located nearbyat the Tugs Office of Port Hueneme Harbor, another hand-held at thewharf.

Current

Currents are not measured and are believed to be insignificant.

Data Transmission and Recording

Signals from pickups are transmitted to an 18 channel direct-writing oscillograph through cables up to 500 feet long. Therecorder is housed in a trailer maintained at constant temperature.

Visual Observations and Interviews

Visual observations include descriptions of environment, berth-ing ship characteristics, and berthing procedures. In addition,the ship's captain, port pilot and other docking personnel areinterviewed.

A sample Field Inspection Worksheet completed for "SS AlaskaBear" is shown in Figure 7.

PROCEDURE

Two camels were fabricated at NCEL and installed on March 8, 1963at Wharf No. 3 of the Port Hueneme Harbor, using a mobile crane, witha clear spacing of approximately 100 feet. Figures 8 and 9 show thecamels during installation and operation, respectively. Figure 10

4

shows the general plan and profile at the test site.

During each berthing, the pressures exerted on the rubber fenders,lateral and longitudinal components of ship approach velocity,ship acceleration and water-level variations and wind velocity aremeasured and recorded (Figure 15). The average period of record-ing varies from 10 to 20 minutes. After the ship is berthed, theship's captain, harbor pilot, and port operators are interviewed.Usually measurements are not made at the time of ship-departure.

RESULTS

Excitations

a. Wind, wave, and currents

Wind velocities from 5 to 45 knots were recorded.60% of the time the wind was from the NW direction.. This is 450

off port beam of the wharf face. Details of wind data are given inTable II.

Water-level variations during testing were insignificantwith the exception of a great swell of unknown period and amplitudeon March 11, 1963.

Only occasional tugrinduced surface currents were significant.

b. Berthing Ships

Fifteen ships ranging in size from 8,000 to 20,000 tonsdisplacement, made contact with the test camels over a period offour months (Table II). All ships berthed at Wharf No. 3 with theassistance of two tugs. In most cases, the ship initially wasbrought in at an angle, then swung beam-on the wharf and finallywas pushed slowly to berth. In some instances, the ships weremoved longitudinally soon after their first contact with the camels.Ship approach velocity was 0.1 to 0.75 foot per second. Typicalmeasured ship approach velocities are shown in Figure 11. Thedirection of ship motion varied from 00 to 900 port beam relative tothe wharf face. A summary of environments, berthing-ships character-istics, berthing procedures and responses (impact load and energyabsorption), and comments of ships' captains and others is givenin Table II.

5

Hydrodynamic masses and kinetic energy were computed usingmeasured ship velocity, acceleration, and the known ship charac-teristics. The hydrodynamic mass varied from 2.98 to 3.46 times theship's mass (Figure 15). The kinetic energy generated by theberthing ship varied from 3 to 73 ft-tons.

c. Biological Excitation

Marine growth which were active in the harbor include:barnacles, mussels, tube worms, bryozoa, hydroids, tunicates,sponges, Bankia species, teredo species, limnoria, tripunetata, andalgaes.

Response

a. To Wind, Wave and Current

The kinetic energy resulting from winds, waves, and cur-rents was considered insignificant as compared with that generatedby the berthing of the ship. However, these environmental forcescausedboth ship and camel to heave, pitch, roll, surge and sway.When the camels were unoccupied, the surge and sway motions wereconsiderable under severe sea conditions. Resonance motion ofthe camels due to waves of the same period of oscillation wasnoted. During an examination of the floating camel in lateMay 1963, it was found that the unsubmerged portions in contactwith the fender piles have worn as shown in Figure 13. There wasno wear on the fender piles since the piles were well protectedwith steel strips. The north camel had a higher degree of wearthen the south camel because of higher waves.

b. To Berthing Ship

The total load exerted by the rubber fenders was computedindirectly from the pressures measured. It varied from 4.2 to 24.6long tons. The total kinetic energy absorbed was obtained from thesummation of the energy absorbed by each individual rubber fenderin contact with the berthing ship. It varied from 1.5 to 17 ft-tonswhich is from 4% to 42% of minimum designed capacity of the two camels.The energy-absorbing data is shown in Table II and Figure 15. Asample spectral analysis of measured pressures was made and thesignificant, average and highest one-tenth of energies absorbed weredetermined accordingly (Figure 14).

6

The test results showed that the pneumatic ship-fenders normallyabsorbed more energy than the hydro-fenders. The reason is thatthe hydro-fenders are capable of absorbing much greater kineticenergy only when the impact has a high-rise time. Attempts weremade to have the ships berthed at higher approach velocity butthis idea was not acceptable to the pilots for safety reasons.However, it was realized from the characteristics curves (Figure 3)that the hydro ship-fenders absorb more energy under severeberthing condi'tions.

The captains of the ships reacted favorably, generally.The camels performed well and damped ship motions during windswith sustained speeds of 20 knots and gusts to 45 knots. Thecamels created serious cargo-handling problems according to thePort Services Officer and the Marine Terminal Sup-erintendent sincethe extent to which the camels hold the ships off the wharf tendsto make loading or unloading unsafe when cargo has to be handledby equipment on board the ship. No problems were encountered whenserving passenger ships or cargo ships of modern design.

There were no significant damages to the rubber fenders eitherby excessive impact or by large ship protuberances. The onlyaccident which happened during the tests was the breakae 'of amooring bead (hook-ring) on top of a pneumatic fender. Thecause of the minor damage was unknown. It was very possible thatthe damage was made by a working barge. The cost to repair thedamage was $50. In addition, two pneumatic fenders have developedair leakage. Remedial work is in progress.

d. To Corrosion and Biological Excitation

The corrosion and biological effects on the camels wereminor. Heavy marine-growth (algaes) was found at the water-lineof the fenders, particularly the hydro-fenders. Barnacles andbryozoa were found on the camel bulkhead and the hydro-fenders(Figures 12 and 13). They caused no operational trouble. Detailedcomments are given in Appendix D.

7

FINDINGS

1. Excitations

a. Winds of 5 to 45 knots from the northwestern diiection wereencountered 60% of the time. This is 450 off port beam of wharfface.

b. Waves and currents were negligible.

c. Fifteen naval and merchant ships of 8,000 to 20,000 tonsdisplacements made contact with the camels over a period offour months.

d. Ship approach velocity was 0.1 to 0.75 foot per second.

e. Ship excitation was slight due to tugs' assistance.

f. The direction of approach was approximately normal tothe wharf face (broadside berthing) at the first contact with thecamel.

g. The kinetic energy generated by the ships was estimatedto be from 3 to 73 ft-tons.

h. Marine growth such as barnacles, bryozoa, clams, tunicatep,and algaes were active in the harbor.

2. Response

a. The kinetic energy generated by wind, wave, and current

was insignificant.

b. Resonance motion of the camels resulted in some wear on

contact areas between camel and fender piles.

c. Impact load on the camel due to ship-impact varied from4.2 to 24.6 long-tons.

d. Kinetic energy absorbed varied from 1.5 to 17 ft-tons. Thecushion effect was generally good.

8

e. Light cover of barnacles, bryozoas, and algaes on thecamel caused no operational trouble.

f. After serving fifteen ships, only superficial damagewas found. The fittings on two pneumatic fenders failed, andthe mooring bead (hook-ring) of one pneumatic fender was brokenby an unknown barge.

3. Operational Features

a. Ship captains generally showed enthusiasm.

b. The Port Services Officer and the Marine TerminalSuperintendent complained that the camel holds ships too far offdock for service by on-board booms.

c. Ships berthed broadside at the camel safely and comfortably.No jerks or bumps were felt on board the berthing ships.

d. The camel was helpful in reducing ship motion when berthingwas subject to swell and wave action.

e. The initial air-pressure of 12 lb/in 2 inside the pneumaticfenders apparently provided atisfaCtOryeneg'y-absorption.and didnot dent the ship's hull. The rubber fenders have adequatelysustained the lateral, longitudinal, and torsional forces inducedby ships.

CONCLUSIONS

1. After four months of operation with fifteen ships served,the camel is considered satisfactory, except for the creation ofcargo-handling problems.

2. Impact loading induced by the ships is relatively light.The minimum total energy absorption capacity of the camel has notbeen utilized.

9

3. Tests need to be continued for at least one more yearto provide meaningful evaluation of the camel. This will bedone in FY-64.

10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The cooperation and assistance of the following is acknowledged:LCDR G. W. Stoddard, Port Services Officer, Construction BattalionCenter, (CBC); Mr. C. A. Stine, Marine Terminal Superintendent, CBC;Capt. R. E. Fosse, Capt. A. F. Havemann, and Capt. Swanson, portpilots; and captains of berthing ships who have furnished commentson the behavior of camels.

Mr. Dale H. Johnson, Instrumentation Division and Mr. R. 0. Doty,Design Division, designed the ship velocity meter. Mr. Johnsonand Mr. J. C. Quigley, Instrumentation Division assisted ininstallation and operation of the instruments. Messrs. A. H. Cannon,G. L. Cappedge, J. P. France, and L. J. Temple, and others wereactive in the fabrication of the camel. Mr. C. V. Brouillette,Chemistry Division, assisted in evaluation of the effect of marinegrowth and corrosion. Mr. T. Roe, Jr., Chemistry Division andMr. J. W. Chapin, Process Division assisted with the creosotingtechnique. Members of the Design Division assisted in data-reduction and preparation of some illustrations in the report.The special assistance of the members of the Photographic Divisionin reproduction of the illustrations is gratefully acknowledged.All persons listed are on the staff of NCEL. Professor R. 0. Eastonalso furnished comments.

11

REFERENCES

1. Green, D. F., (1962), "Summary and Discussion of the Repliesto the Questionnaire sent to the Naval Shore Establishment onthe use of Camels," Technical Note N-424, U. S. Naval CivilEngineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California, February, 1962.

2. Leendertse, J. J., (1962), "Design Criteria for Camels orFloating Fenders," Technical Report TR-174, U. S. Naval CivilEngineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California, 17 January 1962.

3. NCEL (1962) letter to BUDOCKS (L54/JTO/acm)of 16 March 1962.

4. BUDOCKS (1962) letter to NCEL (72/FK/mvs)of 10 May 1962.

5. Hromadik, J. J., (1961), "Column Strength of Long Piles,"Technical Report TR-133, U. S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory,Port Hueneme, California, 3 May 1961.

6. Grim, 0., (1955), "Das Schiff und der Dalben," Report No. 288,Hamburg Shipbuilding Research Station, Schiff U. Hafen, Vol. 7,pp. 535-545, ("Ship and Bollard"), September 1955.

7. Chapin, J. W., (1963), "Chemical Wood Preservative Plant,"Technical Note N-468, U. S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory,Port Hueneme, California, May 1963.

8. West Coast Lumbermen's Association (1958), "Douglas Fir UseBook - Structural Data and Design Tables," 1958, p. 28, Portland, Ore.

9. Merritt, F. S., (1958), "Building Construction Handbook,"McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1958, p. 2-37.

10. American Wood-Preserver's Association, (1962), "Manual ofRecommended Practice," Index No. C3-62, June 21, 1962, Washington, D. C.

12

/4 steel guide pi" 7 &) :-

0 " pneatc sI p-fender 40' 60" ship-fender, as modified,inflate dwith air 125 p63ig 9 file ith water and packed

(EJSHIFS~~~~~ d.no80-334)wth ruber hoses (See Detail A)

PLAN

Lifting and Mooring e , Creosote-treated wood pianal

adjuSte d ital td -uywtrsctonyo rgna~nltre

Movable (Sor*n DotL / Ihp aBte thte release of35 wovniYwith~~lec load qureoenn

FRN VITAEA VAWO DTI

Scale 0 2 feet

4'Sal 0to 2ud feetoyueho faScal 0 2bu feet

Figue 1 Hydo-peumtic nery Asoring Camel

8.1/41 .

2-

044

I4

a--4

4+1

L)J

0 g.

_ __q 41 -1 " Id)." T

*~~~~oute or0 .t f rr.0'- 1od.* - to 0 ~ . o0 10 20 ]a 40 50 0

'Co

0 10 20 30 40 o 6 70

.. t /f Il _ _ _ 110

(a) Pressure- Water Flow Relationship .CMMt10. 4ater ?fto M.t of Fqd - 10. 0-- c 0

500 2 0 6 0 Io0 0 1 U 16 0

ffl.o11. Of %.o fw nph.

M0 (d) Load -Deflection Characteristicsxoi (Initial Impact Load =50 kips) g Eeg

A Ch ara c

__0 ___ __ (Initi

0 0 0 00 00 40 5020 0HT~ 0O W0 .100

22 2ip 1.0 20

'2 .

da~ter F1 flo 5

", .0 1 . 0.5

(b) Water Flow- Deflection Relationship o.... 0

(h) Enerc

VX(e) Load -Deflection Characteristics CharaOr0(Initial Impact Load = 22 kips) (Initi

201201. 00 so I0

INTA3.FCTLA

0.0

D-C*,t, o b''o.feolo -(i) EflE

00(f) Load -Deflection Characteristics Chi(Initial Impact Load = 12.5 kips)

'Y Flguie 3. Energy-Absorb

(c) Deflection -Contact Area Relationship Hydro Rubber

PL0.. at W&-NW - 20floetten a? 2yDP-fW* -mla 1230 on Hq -ave . 1D, tow~20 30 90 0 10 to 30 0 so

0 5 10 15 20 25 x 314

A, Cciti- Imac L.oa N m-t"..G 25kN

I INITIAL IMPACT LOAD 600a/

- -~~~~ 2.01, W2 2. I2

4 ~ 1.5 - - f.WA.wt..

V/ 2/4 71 0

j1.0. / / / l

S 22 16 20 a 1 6 0 -' g0 -

:tion hrctrsic oac oa 0 ls (g) Energy Absorption -Deflectio d'

Characterrsttcsistics(Initial Impact Load =50 kips)

20 10 0 50 WO0 ,,

hf.u.ti.. .1 ftd,.Jfw .- At

IT 201 IMPACTD LOAD 10 20 4 ..

22 02 10

22~:2 - -IITA ip.OTA 0 10 20 30 40 so 50 70 s0 90

09 14j0 Energy Absorbing Characteristics of171 a 40" x 60"' Hydro Ship-Fender

1 12 14 20 a 1 2 1

tion of 0:',-- f#DdI . inch.0 WI I, of Ryd84.Mm im-

(h) Energy Absorption - Deflection NOTE I Ie.,g-'C. 2le4O~b,

?ction Characteristics Characteristics)act Load = 22 kips) (Initial Impact Load =22 kips)

Danlo0io" of ridIJ.2iW0 10 10 NO00 3

111"mAL 11OCT 2M 9

12~~2 h, 0 p.9

.0l0% MPDC WAD lmn I-

(1) 1 Energy Abopio eleto

'lection Characteristics Characteristicsmpact Load = 12.5 kips) (Initial Impact Load = 12.5 kips)

Lgute 3. Energy-Absorbing Characteristics ofHydro Rubber Ship-Fender

Suitable we ight

ILAN (steel pan tilled

with melted lead) Concre'te weoqht(Principle of determining provld, .-r t ly

Tachom~Tcha'eter measurin ahq.'r esz ng

Tahp-elty meporns ship-velocity component

Cable to recorder

\Steel rackaiet plfr

S8" steel chanel, Calet ap ifemovableand recordo-r

Scl

sh l~~peedP.A%

r,- a- pt epa red based on 4CE, Dwq No. b2-.34- 1F and 6.~- 34-e. as od. feid.

Figure 4 A Ship-Velocity Measuring Device

44

UU

.00 in .

A~ Z :

41,)

'V

c1

Wil- 110i 12fdI (0) $d;)l - p.jle. (2) t

.. ------- 0) ... 0... ..

C:

:

to £2

_~~4 A)- -

_ I _0

_ _ _ - 0 _ _ '0

r i:I4

1-4.-

C)

a0)

eassaid (w) YTA -'-4M(v

020

0

LI-

FIELD INSPECTION WORKSHEET - TASK Y-FOIS-1O-303 CAMELS FClN

PORT HUENEME HARBOR0e * lug #1

*: * *.!. 2jfi3............ . .

.. • SouthCmul

scale ft "0 so too Ship Velocity Motor

WHARF NO. 3

ENVIRONMENT BERTHING SHIP CHARACTERISTICS

Wind: Speed 6mphDirection: 20-250 Najs Ship.Alaska Bear CaptainDavid L.

aes i Calm Current: 1 Yes * No Iy=e: Pacific Far East Line, Inc.o Moderate Displacements Full 15.200tons) Rough BerthingJ8200tons

1--mdt W Yes * No Lengths 455' 3"Tug speed: - knotsAngle of approach - degrees Beams 62'

SRjs 0 Yes * NoTides oHigh Gage +2 ft Draft ow2,. .. ; Sternj.:

0 Mean Mid-draft 28'6 3/4" (full)V LowI

(1) The distance between the dock and ship berthed is considered too far but this woul(2) The normal boom capacities ranged from 5 tons to 50 tons for large boom. Small bc

z (3) The simple-log camel is considered adequate for most merchant ships. There is no1-(4) The high-pressure inside the rubber fenders might dent the ships hull.

(5) It will be possible to break the bags by pin-pointing and longitudinal forces, (olu (6) The test camels have the advantage of distributing impact load to fender piles bul

7) Consideration should be given to securnq the rubber fenders directly to the fender

M apt. Fosse commenteds (1) The cargo ship is too far away from dock for satisfactory

1 (2) The rubber fenders wal be subjected io f" loose by bargesis 1 (3) The half-pipes welded on ship-hull (from scupper to the i

* .~(4) The test camels would work well in largeberlbe basins.apt. Swanson commenteds (1) There is a law that the maximum distance between dock ai

(2 Rubber tubes hanging on fender iles would be better thapt. Parker is very cooperative. and pleasant to TOK wt~i. - 6s6e11819"Tt he berthing was very careful. No wave and inertia impact observed. Only four bags 1

UF

Figure 7 A Sample Field Inspection Workihel

Dae 23 April 1963 (0635)

tKSHEET -TASK y-FoI5.lO-303 CALS FOR BERTHING VESSEL Name of Inspector: T. T. 1,06

Instrumentation

J (check I if working)PORTHUEEMEHARBR 1 #2Air Beg PressurePORTHUEEME ARBR Tu #2Transducers

Tug #1 13 D#1 0#2 DM#3 0 #4

I ~ TransducersS.It*S'oS* 0#M1 D2 0#3 0#4

~ l~4.P~ *~ i:~ :::W:::*: Ship Velocity:.. " 0~i$' ~~::::j: :. Longitudinal

* *.*.1~~.*::t.2* * LateralSo7t Cm Shi Acceleration

Sot Cam I Not UallSi Acceleration

Ship Velocity Meter *Instrumentation Wave Gage go

WHARF NO. 3 * Bitts Trailer Wind Gage JS-Cleat Current 0

BERTHING SHIP CHARACTERISTICS BERTHING PROCEDURES

LIU, Ship!Alaska Bear CaptainDavid L. Parke rTug Assistance:Pacific Far East Line, Inc. No of Tugs:2 9 None ID Tugs

Nominal Power of Tug: t030 hp/ugLslc~et Full 15,200 ons Location of Tugs: (see sketch abo~ie) 0

BerthingQQtons Ship Approach Angle (Approx.): 45 then 0

4556 3I6 Ship Approach Velocity: 2 knots (angle)- Ship-Leaving Velocity (Approx.):

Lis 62' Part of Ship Contacted Camel First: a Bow 0 Stern 0 Broadside

Llft : owJQL Stern_.22a_. Durations: _

Berthing: From 6:30 am to 16:30 am-Pm pm

Mid-draft 28'6 3/4" (full) Berthed: 10 hours

-hod is considered too for but this would not present any serious problem in cargo-handling.ins to 50 tons for large boom. Small boom capacity may be below 5 tons as designed.ifor most merchant ships. There is no need for special-type camels such as the test camels.imight dent the ships hull.n-pointing and longitudinal forces, (obstructions on shipside) especially . ;'ieyrerlencel viava! ca~talns.

ibuingimpct oadto endr plesbutare expensi~e.,waste of money. No camel woul tpaccidental ship-impactPrubber fenders directly to the fender piles.

too far away from dock for satisfactory self-loading and unloading operations.will W subjected to f"ru loose by barges.'led on ship-hull (from siouper to the water line) would tear the rubber fenders when ship surges.Ald work well In largebarbs basins.tat the maximum distance between dock and -ship should not exceed 36".lins on fender pils would be better than the test camels.I o W orRWIH it seems that everyone compiains that the distance of 5 feet from dock to sisipside rs too f

ortia Impact observed. Only four bags contactid the'ship. (See sketch above)

7 A Sample Field Inspection Worksheet -"SS Alaska Bear"

(a) A Single-log Camel Being Removed

(b) A Hydro-pneumatic Camel Being Installed

Figure 8 Installation and Operation of a Hydro-pneumaticCamel at Wharf No. 3, Port Hueneme Harbor, Calif.(See also Figure 9)

(a) Close View of a Hydro-pneumatic Camel Placed inTesting Operation

ss 9on Aa"om - d

(b) A Pair of Hydro-pneumatic Camels Ready for Trail Operation

Figure 9 Installation and Operation of a Hydro-pneumaticCamel at Wharf No. 3, Port Hueneme Harbor, Calif.(See also Figure 8)

Jntrle

-- Velocity enter

WhArf

W~Et 9=

PIAM

1201 4Sc.l 0 1 t7. fedrti

'*. L. IV. 1 1 to8.

Figure 10 General Plan and Profile of the Test Site-Wharf No. 3, Port Hueneme Harbor, California

0 0 00 0 o

9T3s

A 00

6 4-,

0 .4

0 41m0

'U)

CU)

W- -4

N\ 4-' (U)c 4 4 0

M 0 454- 0 4

u 00 4

0 a-) a) -41J a) Ca

(0u 4. 0

-4 43

4-40.4

0 0

00

L5

ulals

R Moe

C>U..

laweot olewneud

9*17d 2*puoi

44

0)

-)

-4 0U)

4

m )

c0.

3C 0o -4

> 0p

4J-

00

4

4.)

0

0

0 04JU

0 '0 IA

4. -4 V~

0.4OW

-4 c~

04~ Q)

0

m 0W

00

0 ~0

U 0 C 4

0

14 54

4.24.

0~~ 44J0

00

+1 0

544a.+ 54Jap t 0

-4 W r_

uU

tU

20 ---- - - -.- -

I __ ___SS C. . awe

!~bt 1/10 n.sint 16.J? - -- I/,!.:

• - 1 A-- o web .,k/

L s ore 43410/1

0 90 100 150 2oO 250 300 350 40 050

Tim . ooond

(a) Pressure Fluctuations Recorded

350

)00

"8S C. S. DAWr

#00-_ - so ...

30 6_ _ _0

0 _ 40

00

0 0

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0

Pressure Fluctuation Frm Meem Pressure (1b/In2 *-- -&-

(b) Frequency Analysis

Figure 14 A Sample Spectral Analysis of Measured Pressure~of a Pneumatic Fender.

-I______3 C. C. oweT ~o~iIA)p 3

64 vf l jl -- - -o -~ -o - - pkootiU kloo I

150 200 250 300 5,o sic

. ?aa u~mq! Cmi) - wed. pew ueead

essure Fluctuations Recorded 2 2 5 6 7

390

E1 : f It Ib/ I

-- / i- -L__

100.. ..- o 230 . 0o - I, .oIll.

IutUv Peftt 4.60 ossb f.3 163 1b.3 16.00 5_"i q C a.naiys" 61 00- __X_37

___nay__oesueresrofaPeuai Fender. (c)W~ Power* SpectrumdSI~~f

40 I

L -

- 20 I _ __ _ _

0 0 L

.5 20 25 30 35 4.0 0 O.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.10ctuation From %ean Prtesiare (lb/i

3

)Frequency Analysis

tral Analysis of Measured Pressurerof a Pneumatic Fender. (c) Power Spectrum

P'amytto presI* ( &-..p

"Ul.m NTT*=lm

"" - - .. .. . .. - ....-'; -- .- ....--........-is- -1 ."3 ,,,.atic ,SU ( - )

--0 ~ip V. ci ty Per. 9to Wharf

?b,,0- - - -,i

(a) Typical Recozxi9ng"of Felasures-

1.0, P- - -

O o.,. "p) 10

Aor etma~

-020

-00

'Now verat31 .0'

- - -. ~g- II"- . .. o q'-

(a) Typical Recording of Field Measurements -USS General William Mitchelmn18 April 1963

orestimated

0.6 mesred.

0.0

0

0.2 - -I

- -.-p

0

S ~ ~ M -- - - - - - -

Figure 15 Smur fRs(b) Ship Velocity Component Normal to Wharf and~r of pei

to at nip a-4lt

pneumtic pvensur (N 1 1)

- - -- r' r___VAN 8" 17.90w 6.,, Vimt

15 w QN469%__

-- - - ~ -20-.t'. am:* Then d t eNt @6661it..d is

.10 th estimated ewwv betau .9 diffecuat0~ berthLa CeadiLta eugh " waheeqeeme

.1eat Sal -0ttF *I 3 fmr.-.35

Pfeeewe 135.4.?) -10 0600

M I0 aW e l n i t & t l l s f su lt m U t-

-1.0 - -.. 1m.. 31 HAa . -mum aft _2

900

I 70e m o Meue& moS10 2.22 6

10 St 4114 beM 0.M4 L.3S.

o .o

A.N3.-E I 11

and Inspatco Lodrogram. Asopto

TABLE I. Naval Architectural Characteristics of aHydro-Pneumatic Camel

Item Unit Quantity

Mass slugs 1,105Hydrodynamic mass in heave slugs 450Center of buoyancy above 18" pipe ft 5.4Center of gravity above 18" pipe ft 3.6Draft ft 10.0Beam ft 1.7Water depth, average ft 32.0Free period of oscillation in roll sec 0.6Free period of oscillation in pitch sec 3.3Free period of oscillation in heave sec 4.7

43

Table II Summary of

Tims ofNorthlng Northin cLto ihUL t CAno,,

Dendlh Length Beam DraftIf (long-ton-)lNa a' Shi Name of Ca-tann T r .fL) ftl a I noo Direction 1

3/11/63 UfiS PVT. JOSEPH F. ERRELL Howard H. Cleaves Ictory 454 62 11.; 22.8 17.3 8.fi 1.500 SE(0 ) (T- -275) y

3/14/00. Frgo(1317)

dShifted berth fram

Wharf No. 3 toWharf No. 5

3/14/63 ITS GENERAL WILLIAM MITCHEL C. R. Bauer P-2 622 75.5 21.1 23.1 22. 17.2M't' 2(%,175 2n N Ca(0650) (T-AP-114) Tranp. 25. (gut 'j(full) to 45

knots)

3/15/63(17oo)

3/20/63 $S WASHINGTON John Beole Dry 565 76.1 19 25.1 22 14.5m 22629 SE C1(0745) (STATES LINE) cargo 32 (120°)

(full!3/20/63(is")

2/21/63 SS FLYING DRAN Thoma. Wyte cargo 438.9 63 - 13.9 6.93 * 12 64(1410)

(25P0

3/22/63

3/3O/63 USS GALVESTON Gerald P. Joyce rui ser 61LI 64 24 25 24.5 15,m 15m, a - - -(16m) (CLG-3) hip for

4/1/63(0700) ru, $or

Ietroylr:lotlt 11£

4/17/63 Swqe (- mnL on) high

1 1Gm UI INL C. N. so P-2 t~ 75.5 It.0 ;3.( 20.5 17.2n ~ i7 IUNI miLULI U Ltram 25.5

_______ ________________ _______________hll)

Table II Summary of Rsulte of Load Measurement, and Inspection Program

IAN L A M Mj j tt n we " Current Ve- 7 t PttthC

la t ~ s g (L a - e s11.4 22.8 17.3 8.( in 15,5w SE Calm -31.5 2 1,3 00.8 brood.d sIt oamused

~ first. and than Owf

foimmod appiex. 60 Fact

Longitudinally.)

21. 23.1 22. 1 7,2M 20.175 U Calm 29.4 2 103P 0.2 boadsisbst aiu25.5 (ust upNtmaue(full) t. 5(. Olc*t

knots) mtod at the tim

I of contact)

19 M5.1 22 14,5M 2.,629.nCl no 20.6 2 1.0l3n 25 ae Fourth Point. Not mesued32 (2 ) C18then (2 knots Ingo Is"r(full w12) oehing With

13.9 69"3 * 12 (20 as * 1.(13n~ OnQ.ges featS point. lst waor~(s)then (Ostimeted) Oft

24 25 24.5 15." B." ' I S no m410 5~t a31.0 ~~thenDteat e

highesp

255a(0.14 AM.) Pattss, m~g

oad Mbasuremoflt and Inspection Pr'ogram

*sa nl oett a*atd oo is Measured (Long-tone) Mesurced (Pt-tons) Ship Captain Pilot &nd Other*-h (Se.) (,te) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

31.5 2 1.030 e2g MIL oadeld. Not pstured Not "aoured (1) The idea of the test The port pilot. Captain Mavenew5, coe.-131 then ln~ (tae IsALF of ahip smokel is eacellent and senteds0 etmae) motacted south mtl should vs. awge.'ed (I mi eee e.al

fleet. d th. en et (2) The eit would be an- under a skillful. piloting condition.eongitdinally.) d feet help"'l 6e r" 149g (2) the ship did not berth at thes peal-

Longitudinally.) ~~~~~berthing dalages. PdrtiCU- lna pcfld eea eeeptlerly to berths and shipsa o as hecifto becom~res tar amgth

subjct o sell uri acion ship to be berthed at Wharf No. 5.(3) There was no osibiity The Marine Tenelnal Suwerin tddas . 4fdamaging rubber fe der s by tom 2.w ly Department. CEC (M . C. A ,

in oa " impact in Gese of Stine) Gomotedsangle approach.

44) It was a oleasaht berth- lng because there wee no JerkIt at the times of berthing.

5) The 5-feet distance be- u w ;0ship and dock face meul 27ON&

sent no serious cergo- Otherstandlingq oroblee.

(1) The instrument# of test caml. have6) The eomit did function nt yet been opereted.well during a great swelleaperianced. The bummingto the ship was avoided.

1942 I.mr ~ a 0.2 oa"dal Not measured (1) The eomitl would be much Teport pilot. Captain Pteet cs,(0.5 Ws~t wttl lot Measured more helpful to wharf then setaduseat*4 at the ti to berthing ship. (1) The berthing wee smooth far seES-of contact) tyraos

(2) Would try higher berthing @Paed neatt ~time.

The Tug Office, CE. Chief Lempard. re-rteds

(1) The sweatoma speed of gust aere

M1 The inetasmete, of teat Guests, howtyet been opeeeta&

2 l~nr' 25 use fourth point. Not measured Not meaured. (1) Theme met no diffevene (I) The5SS asehinghms'ie a needy-bult 4than (2 nots whm towe felt wmith or without cmels wge ship and me tiuge-handlingweereshinga" betmi because weather andt berthing lsa emitted.

condition mere so goad.(2) The cei meuld behelpful under greet swellmeadi Clns.

(3) when the ship is berth-Ing at a harbor ompoed toswells, such we Natal. Brastilusme of ship anchtor Isfor safety reasons.(4) The behavior of berth-ing depends on entvirsmetalcondition

and captains

a~p I. i5 Q.' To oe fourth point. Not meaured Hot weasured ()TeIdea of the teathen *a' steninow Is goad.

(2) The mter-filled r bberlenders suals better than

- -- Ots no et Dat etye t x able to contact the ship I~The berthIng wee strosty swet .4.5he dreue aptain becoes the officer, ) mlsdV(isignifrcace) tied up for an open 2) I* ship wine approaching in . n~

as t f 45 than steppad masd turned witingefcn) (insignificant) me to public, tstence of tugs) wmith bew tinedohth In lieu. of the eorth direction.

feeder we bedean, Pr*IAqMabYBy -~m barg.

a ir cat waa alet t S. w laWT

-- visit sek med to 100 VWIp cap~tatIf2~~~~~~~~~a hip Net iiee 1 eI ne e visited pmeviemeiy.(0.44 leoe.) *eeat with wartS /4/2 ~~~~~~~~~~. y_________________

-coas-

Table II (continued)

Timve of Berthing ship @hareatristie Seat

adLeave Drafet Cft) U10001-UNw of Ohio Nonm of Captain TV" (ft) Cf ta) Dimteft U

4/22J0, U AAUA EiDavid L. Parker 10t 45.2 03 10.1 3.65 1". 0.40 *am 5 NI G.(OW) (Poselfi For lost Line, Inc.) 3.5 (21)

(4=/

4a4/e INC. L. OWt L. JAsgs am DRY be 7& 13 36 195 2.9m~ 22.0 27vi(o7M) MSats. Urn) 3ad

440 tNte 109 nmylosuit ship (let)(17n1)

U POSS2MR v ING Capt. Paeron car" 492 70 U 2 1" 17.f"a i7,M 9 11 s(07M) Ammis Pmidl*. Uima)

vens 00 LYU U. 0 uIc 458 49 Is Is so SU00P 11,90(Ursm y W11)

_______ I I -

a/~ UUUtIO 92*! is An 62 I 21 19 11.0SF 15,900D

(S9a /(0' %a Iau VEY (fell)

feo - - -- -suso

UNS IUML -UI J. PP P-2 60 75 a ae.s mxs, 2.574

5/22/63 par(2065)

5/21/03 SS mNIMuM WSate. Lim) 34. 3.01. Day me 74.1 3 w 12i,70P A"00(O04) -(SaIl

USS (NORAL U6 A. P.I 2 022 "A 1.7(0915) (74P211236Su p 19 (fill

SI UOWIO (States Hiol C3 410 70 I s aa s.$ 1.08 IT.499Dows b (fell)

GoU.

Table II (Continued) '.Sumsryof Results of Load Measuremenlt' and Inspection Program

berthing P"ror

~~~ftIL (fe) b A ppoach hip ppr a ch a t o Z a t L a Kinel

11 ro1tilmataireatio bot uo. of Tugs hp/tug nl ooi Contacted CaMI First (Long-tons)

216 14.0a rkm 1.9 5 11 CaLD no 90.1 2 1.030 0 0.12 25 foot from c. 9. of 4.2

(ful)) (0.09 Aver.)

36 1 2 . 904 2 2 .6 3 9 27 6 10 1 10 2 1 A 2 1 .0 3 0 - D ata no t ed uc d D t @

.7 .0 vr First hit 6.4

(r~l O : U: Thr hit 1:010 (0.16 Awr.'v Loig .

II 29 0,W 15,300

a 0 * 6. a 1."00 22,54 MNData not reduced Onto I

a 5 Ws 12.70WP 2.0

(fall)

n 22 1.S 11,090 17.40

(fill)A 1

ilts of Load Measurement *and Inspection Program

Verthing Procedure- Mrnxim Noissi Cemments

So Shia MAnroach Ship Aproc Part of Ship Kineti Enoad

Re.lf Tug$ hip/tug Angle yoci cotctdCmlPialaured" Aineic Eerg- - Contacted C ame I Firs (Long-on) (Ft-e)ns Shiuiaptai Pilot and Others

2 .0ship12 2 to strnc .o 4.21. (1) The distance between the The port pilot, (Captain ft. E. Poese)(0hip tovster deck and ship berthed is con- eommentede

(009Avr. deald nt oo t a y utetis (1) The cargo ehip Is too fer awaywrolm n coran an. feiu ree dock for satisfactory self-leading

probaw n cego~andlng. and unloading operations.(2) The norwal beom capaciti. ("' -0 rubber tenders will r4.%ranged trom 5 to 50 tens. ter- loose'by barges. -

(3) The simple-leg cowl is (3 hOhl-isweddosiphlconsidered adequate for wost c pa to thf-ie wler lne shp-uldrchant shipsa there Is no (fOmaisuprt h ae ie olad for special-type camel. tear the rubber fenders dons ship surges.

such as the test canals. (4) The tast camels would wark well In4) The high-pressure inside large harbor basins.terubber fenders might dent Tepart pilot (Captain Swanson)aship hulls. cuamnteds

5) The test cmels hae the (1) There is a lee that the masi&A die-vantage ot distributing i.- tance between deck and ship should net

act load to tender Piles but eceed 36".rexeponsivesweste of mone y. (2) Rubber tubas hanging on tender piles

canls would stop acci dent uldb etrta h etcee1ship-impact. N db etrta h etcws

6) Consideration should beIven to secure the rubber

z enders directly to the ftnd

2 1.10301- Data net reduced Date net reduced I) The Idea of the teat pert pilot (Captain At. 9. Fossemel is very geeds others emnteald we good because te i

tinvent It 1e hy i ) All rubber fenders of the soutnam.melS were deflected were than 96Nan

2) It really hepdthe re twistot due to ecessive moements.Mting without any teeling 2) Twa tender piles were broken becauseJerks and bups f high Impact Iced at law tides.

9)The camels wauld reduce 3) Teceswr atdadpoenecessary damages to beth 3) bhe of witswetanding high se-i tips and decks. oal fwtsadn ihsi-oot

4) There would be we dangerdent the ship hull due to

Igh Pressure.5) There Is we cerge-handilnrblow at all for ships of

ro design. SS C. E. Dentan have five were feat may

____________________rom the deck.

2 1,020 .75 (0.50 Aver. Firat it 6.4 2.7.06 (0.06 Aver. Second hit 12.4 2.5 :1) Ship captain me net visited.

:2S 10 29 Aver. Third hit 6.0 2.4 2) The ship's ahor at baa me Jowae".16 (0.16 Aver, Laving 5. 2.1 er safety reaasns because the winds

ro in the 0iretien of berthing.

Load measuremet and InspectionprOVa On this shipwas wet conducted.

Load meaosement SOW InspectionPrOAgra an this ship meswet conducted

Deta wet reduced Date wet reduced Catin Anderson saIl.'VirsttmI have see anything in

Oil tam tenders, meat saIat in my opinion ame arebit Imprvement toward pee-

time at ships hull Aldplating. and the deGs.'

Lead meesuremt eW nd spoetlamPsepMow n this ship was

pi et coatuce.

Deta met reduced Data wet reduced

Load mea4s.Urment No i1apactionpallw M this shipPrwme fese

APPENDIX A

WATER-ABSORPTION CHARACTERISTICS OF POLYURETHANE FOAM

The polyurethane foam (Lockfoam G-504) was tested in theLaboratory for water-absorption properties. The results showedthat an average of 155% of water was absorbed after a four-week's immersion. Table III shows the water-absorptioncharacteristics of Lockfoam G-504 samples tested.

Table III. Water-Absorption Characteristics of PolyurethaneFoam (Lockfoam G-504)

Dry Weight Wet Weight- / Water Absorbed Percent of Water2/Sample No. Ounces Ounces Ounces Absorption

1 13.2 34.5 21.3 1602 12.6 27.3 14.7 1173 17.8 37.8 20.0 1134 20.6 67.7 47.1 230

Average 155

Since the test camels were relatively water tight, theexcessive absorption of water by the foam did not present aserious problem as far as buoyancy is concerned. The camelswere floating with a draft of 10 feet (above the bottom ofthe ballast pipe) as compared with 10' - 9" as originallyestimated.

I/ The wet weight of the foam sample was measured after a periodof four weeks of submergence in fresh water. Water on thesurface of the sample was cleaned with tissues before weighing.

2./ The variance of water-absorption characteristics is probablydue to different exposed areas and different quality of foaming.

49

APPENDIX B

CREOSOTING TREATMENT OF CAMEL

All timber members were treated with coal-tar creosoteoil at the NCEL's creosoting plant (Chapin, 1963)7. Theretentions of preservative vary from 18 to 26 pounds per cubicfoot of Douglas Fir treated.

A comparison of the degree of penetration with standardrequirements is shown in Table IV.

Table IV. Full-Cell Pressure Treatment to Refusal of PacificCoast Douglas Fir for Use in Coastal Waters

Retention ofPreservalive

Source of Information (lb/ftJ) Remarks

NCEL Camel 18 - 26 20 lb/ft3 in average

West Coast Lumbermen'sAssociation (1958)8 12

Merritt (1958)9 16 - 20 For teredo-infested harbors

American Wood-Preservers 12 - 16 The higher retentions and corres-Association, (1962)10 ponding penetrations are recom-

mended for severe service con-ditions.

50

APPENDIX C

COST ESTIMATES OF CAMELS

The Hydro-pneumatic Camel is considered expensive ascompared with a single-log camel but less expensive thanthose suggested by NCEL (Leendertse, 1962). For normaloperations, a pair of camels is required. In addition,simple-log camels should be provided to protect the fenderpiles which are not covered by the camels. A cost com-parison is shown in Table V.

Table V. Estimated Costs of Camels of Different Types forBerthing Ships of 20,000 Tons Displacement

No. of Camel Unit Cost Unit CostUnits Required 4/ Dollars per Ft. Dollars Per

Type Camel Log Total Cost-; Camel Log Ft. of Berth

Hydro-Pneumatic Camel - 2 17 $42,160 $360=5 $12 $68Hydraulic or Torsional2/

Camel (Leendertse, 1962) 6 17 $66,340 $600 $12 $107

Simple Log3 / 21 $13,440 $12 $12

NOTES:1/ Designed by Engineering Division, Office of Engineering and

Construction, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Washington, D. C. Eachcamel is 50 feet long.

.2/ Designed by Harbor Division and Design Division, U. S. NavalCivil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California. Eachcamel is 17 feet long.

2/ Existing log-camel being used without energy absorption exceptfor load distribution characteristics.

j/ Total cost is estimated for a total berth of 620 feet,designed for ships of 20,000 tons displacement.

5/ Includes $20.0/ft for creosoting cost (unit cost,$4.0/ft3 of timber treated).

51

APPENDIX D

INSPECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE TORUBBER FENDERS AND FLOATING WOODEN BULKHEAD

by

C. V. Brouillette

1. On 28 May 1963 subject inspection was made by Mr. T. Leeand Mr. C. V. Brouillette. The items of particular interestwere (a) the rubber fenders, (b) the floating wooden bulkhead,(c) the water screen filter, (d) the mooring chain, and (e) theballast pipe.

2. The rubber fenders showed no evidence of deterioration.The sides of rubber fenders near the top surface were coveredwith a heavy growth of algae, Figure 12c. Only a small amountof fouling and slime remained on the sides of the fenders be-cause of the rubbing action from ships and the floating bulk-head. No mechanical damage from this rubbing action was observed.The lower area and the bottom of the fenders were covered withsmall barnacles and brown algae, Figure 13a. The adhesion ofattachments of fouling on the rubber fenders was light and thefouling was easily scraped off.

3. The vertical rubber fenders were filled with pressurized airand maintained a full symmetric shape. The horizontal fenderswere filled with water and presented a slightly collapsedshape after being lifted from the water for inspection, Figure 12a.

4. The floating wooden bulkhead had light algae growth oversmall scattered areas near the water line, Figure 12c. Wherethe rubber fenders rubbed, the wooden surfaces were slightlyabraded and the wood was lighter in color here when compared tothe black creosote on the adjacent surfaces, Figure 13d. Lightcoverage of small barnacles appeared over the wooden surfaceof the floating bulkhead, Figure 13b. Bryozoa and hydroids werealso present to a considerable extent. No evidence of Limnoriaor boring animals were evident.

5. The chain attached to the ballast pipe was rusting betweenthe links. The bolts and nuts which held the caps onto the

52

ballast pipe were severely rusted. The coating on the sea waterscreen filter had failed and the water screen filter was severlyrusted, Figure 13c. The coating on the ballast pipe was abradedin several areas and light rusting was occurring here, Figure 12d.Also rusting was occurring along many of the welds.

53