Appendix D. Theoretical Tanker Berthing Impact Analysis: Chevron Corporation D-1 April 1989

Appendix D.
Theoretical Tanker Berthing Impact Analysis
From basic engineering mechanics, the equation for kinetic energy (K.E.) is:
1
K.E. = --- m ( v ) 2
2
(Eq. D-1)
where:
m = mass of an object moving with a velocity v
v = velocity
For the design of wharf breasting fenders, Equation D-1 can be modified as
follows:
1
( K.E. ) Design = C red --- m ( v ) 2
2
(Eq. D-2)
where:
(K.E.)Design = Energy to be absorbed by the wharf structure
Cred = Reduction factor to account for other types of energy dissipation
Many items make up the Cred reduction factor. The two important ones are ship
rotation (Cg) and ship hull deformation (Cd). Where tankers berth alongside a solid
quay-wall structure, water build-up between hull and wharf induces a factor Cc.
Finally, all other effects including tanker heeling can be combined into a factor Cr.
These four terms then are combined into Cred as follows:
Cred = Cg Cd Cc Cr
(Eq. D-3)
The ship rotation effect, Cg, can be calculated from the tankers geometry and
approach angle for any specific impact point. As soon as the approaching tanker
makes its first impact, a rotational motion is introduced which leads to a second
impact on a fender at the other end of the wharf. This second impact can be larger
than the first if the dolphin spacing is greater than twice the tankers radius of gyration. The following equation gives Cg:
k 2 + r 2 cos2
C g = ------------------------------k2 + r2
(Eq. D-4)
Chevron Corporation
D-1
April 1989
Appendix D
Civil and Structural Manual
where:
k = Radius of gyration of ship (approximately 0.2 times the length
between perpendiculars for most tankers)
r = Distance between point of impact and ship center of gravity.
(See Figure D-1)
= Angle between line r and direction of the ships velocity.
(See Figure D-1)
Values for Cg will vary depending on the out-to-out spacing of the wharf breasting
dolphins versus the tanker radius of gyration. Typical values run from 0.25 to 0.6.
Values reported in the literature for Cdship structure deformationrun from 0.85
to 1.0. As tankers get larger, their structural framing becomes heavier, and the
wharf structures become relatively more flexible. From a practical standpoint, therefore, the value of Cd for design should approach 1.0.
The water build-up effect does not occur for pile-supported, open wharf structures
most commonly used for tankers. The Cc value, therefore, is 1.0. For very large
tankers the value of Cr will also approach 1.0.
The reported value of m to be used in Equation D-2 varies widely in the literature.
The mass of a body moving in a fluid includes a certain amount of added or
hydrodynamic mass due to the mass of fluid that moves with the body. Factors
that affect the amount of added mass include: 1) velocity, 2) clearance between hull
and bottom and, 3) shape or form of hull. The total effective mass of a hull
including added mass is termed virtual mass. The following equation gives fair
agreement for tankers in the 35,000 to 50,000 DWT class and is suggested for the
full range of tanker sizes:
W
m = ----- C m
g
2D
where C m = 1 + ------B
(Eq. D-5)
where:
W = Total displacement of vessel
g = Acceleration of gravity
D = Draft of hull
B = Beam of hull
The above development is of little value without a good estimate for the tanker
approach velocity, v. This velocity of course is subject to the human factor.
Measurements of actual impact energies at one wharf showed that the average total
energy for 35,000 DWT berthings was higher than for 50,000 DWT berthings. A
possible reason for this is that the pilots, knowing the wharf was designed for larger
tanker, were fractionally less cautious when handling smaller tankers.
April 1989
D-2
Chevron Corporation
Appendix D
Consideration of this human factor leads to a method where harbors and wharf
locations are classed as to degree of berthing difficulty, and then a design velocity is
assigned. Figure D-2 can be used to classify the navigation conditions if the
approach and exposure conditions are known. These navigation conditions can then
be used in conjunction with Figure D-3 to approximate the approach velocity.
For a more complete discussion of the kinetic energy approach and coefficient evaluation, see Section 900, Reference 4.
Fig. D-1
Cg as Function of Ship Gravity
Chevron Corporation
D-3
April 1989
Appendix D
Fig. D-2
April 1989
Navigation Conditions
D-4
Chevron Corporation
Fig. D-3
Appendix D
Ship Approach Speeds Recommended for Design
Chevron Corporation
D-5
April 1989

Appendix D. Theoretical Tanker Berthing Impact Analysis: Chevron Corporation D-1 April 1989

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix D. Theoretical Tanker Berthing Impact Analysis: Chevron Corporation D-1 April 1989

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix D. Theoretical Tanker Berthing Impact Analysis: Chevron Corporation D-1 April 1989

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How does the kinetic energy equation get modified for wharf design?

What factors make up the Cred reduction factor?

Appendix D.

Theoretical Tanker Berthing Impact Analysis

Civil and Structural Manual

Civil and Structural Manual

Cg as Function of Ship Gravity

Civil and Structural Manual

Civil and Structural Manual

Ship Approach Speeds Recommended for Design

You might also like