The effect of bottom variations in a probabilistic access

policy

Joris Cantaert

Supervisor: Prof. dr. ir. Marc Vantorre

Counsellors: Dr. Maxim Candries, Ir. Evert Lataire

Master's dissertation submitted in order to obtain the academic degree of

Master of Science in Electromechanical Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

Chairman: Prof. dr. ir. Peter Troch
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
Academic year 2013-2014
The effect of bottom variations in a probabilistic access
policy

Joris Cantaert

Supervisor: Prof. dr. ir. Marc Vantorre

Counsellors: Dr. Maxim Candries, Ir. Evert Lataire

Master's dissertation submitted in order to obtain the academic degree of

Master of Science in Electromechanical Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

Chairman: Prof. dr. ir. Peter Troch
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
Academic year 2013-2014
Preface

At the beginning of this thesis, I owe a lot of people thanks.

Foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof Marc Vantorre. You taught me
how to reset my goals and not to be satisfied too easily. Thank you for your advice
during our meetings.

I wish to thank Maxim Candries for being second observer. You were always there
whenever I needed help. Thank you for your advice, your support and for reading
over this thesis.

A special acknowledgment must go to my family and friends, for their

encouragement and support in times of pressure and stress.

The author gives permission to make this master dissertation available for
consultation and to copy parts of this master dissertation for personal use. In the
case of any other use, the limitations of the copyright have to be respected, in
particular with regard to the obligation to state expressly the source when quoting
results from this master dissertation.

August 11, 2014

Joris Cantaert
Overview

Subject The effect of bottom variations in a probabilistic access

policy
Author Joris Cantaert
Supervisor Prof. dr. ir. Marc Vantorre
Counsellors Dr. Maxim Candries, Ir. Evert Lataire

Department Civil Engineering

Chairman Prof. dr. ir. Peter Troch

Master’s dissertation submitted in order to obtain the academic degree of Master

of science in Electromechanical Engineering

Faculty Engineering and Architecture

Academic year 2013-2014
 Het effect van bodemvariaties in een probabilistisch
toelatingsbeleid
Joris Cantaert
Begeleiders: Prof. dr. ir. Marc Vantorre, Dr. Maxim Candries
Abstract - Deze masterproef beschrijft hoe de variërende
bodemdiepte van een scheepstraject best geïmplementeerd kan
worden in ProToel. ProToel is een beslissingsondersteunend
hulpmiddel om tijvensters te bepalen gebaseerd op zowel
deterministische als probabilistische criteria.
Trefwoorden - Vlaamse havens, bodemdiepte, ProToel,
toelatingsbeleid, tijvensters
I. INLEIDING
Voor de berekening van de tijvensters voor diepliggende
schepen die toegang willen tot de Vlaamse havens wordt
momenteel nog een deterministische aanpak gehanteerd. Deze
schrijft een minimale kielspeling voor, soms in combinatie
met een maximale dwarsstroom. Een vergelijkend onderzoek
[1] heeft reeds aangetoond dat een probabilistisch
toelatingsbeleid globaal leidt tot een duidelijke verruiming
van de toegankelijkheid van de Scheldehavens. Vanuit
economisch standpunt is het dan ook aangewezen de
tijvensters te bepalen aan de hand van zowel deterministische
als probabilistische criteria.
ProToel is een rekentool, ontwikkeld om tijvensters te
berekenen gebaseerd op een maximale kans op bodemraking
gedurende de reis. Bovendien wordt een minimale
manoeuvreermarge geëist om de manoeuvreerbaarheid en
beheersbaarheid van het schip te garanderen. Voor de
berekeningen is een scheepsdatabase beschikbaar die
karakteristieken bevat met betrekking tot scheepsdimensies,
squat en golfresponsies.
De voorbije jaren werden inspanningen gedaan om de
werking van ProToel te optimaliseren. Zo werd recent nog de
invloed van wind en draaimanoeuvres op de tijvensters van
schepen komende van of aankomend in Zeebrugge bestudeerd
[2]. Bovendien kan het programma nu ook gebruikt worden
voor scheepstrajecten van en naar de haven van Antwerpen,
daar waar vroeger enkel de toegang tot Zeebrugge bestudeerd
werd. Deze masterproef heeft als doel de impact te bestuderen
van de diepte-parameter. Voorlopig wordt voor verschillende
trajectpunten de streefdiepte meegegeven als input voor de
berekeningen. Het is nu de bedoeling om het werkelijke
bodemprofiel zo goed mogelijk te implementeren in ProToel.
Hiervoor werd gebruik gemaakt van dieptepeilingen voor de
Belgische kust.
II. HET TRAJECT
A. Algemene informatie
De berekeningen werden uitgevoerd voor een
containerschip (W092) met een lengte van 365,0m en een
breedte van 51,2m. De diepgang werd telkens gevarieerd met
stappen van 2dm in een relevant bereik tussen 145dm en
159dm.
Er werd besloten om de afvaart tussen Deurganckdok en
Kwintebank te bestuderen. Schepen maken hiervoor gebruik
van een lang tijgebonden zeekanaal (Westerschelde-
Wielingen-Scheur Oost-Scheur West), zoals weergegeven in
Afbeelding 1.
Afbeelding 1: Ligging van de vaargeul
De probabilistische parameters zijn gebaseerd op een
aanvaardbaar risico. Een typische waarde voor een
acceptabele kans op bodemraking is 10−4 . Voor de
manoeuvreermarge wordt een waarde van 5% van de
scheepsdiepgang gekozen zoals vooropgesteld in PIANC [3].
B. Bodemdiepte
Om te kunnen inschatten welke bodemdiepte in ProToel
dient meegegeven te worden werd eerst een analyse
uitgevoerd van de beschikbare dieptepeilingen voor de meest
kritische zones in het zeetraject. Voor Scheur Oost I en Scheur
Oost II (het gebied tussen trajectpunten 7 en 9, zie Afbeelding
1) werd de absolute minimale diepte bepaald gebaseerd op
gemiddelden van 1m2 en gebaseerd op gemiddelden van
gridcellen van 3m bij 3m, resp. gem1 en gem3 genaamd.
Deze laatste methode middelt de meest extreme waarden uit
waardoor het absolute minimum wat toeneemt. Voor de
berekeningen werd telkens een kanaalbreedte van 400m
verondersteld, niettegenstaande de Scheur 500m breed is. Dit
werd gedaan om ondiepere waarden aan de rand van het
kanaal niet in de berekeningen mee te nemen. Bovendien
zullen de diepliggende schepen zelden zo dicht tegen de rand
van de vaargeul varen.
 Een gedetailleerder beeld van het bodemprofiel werd werden gewichtsfactoren samengesteld. Deze
verkregen door het uitzetten van de dieptemetingen in een gewichtsfactoren bevatten het aandeel van de metingen in een
histogram. De minimale bodemdieptes voor verschillende beschouwd interval van 1dm.
gridcel afmetingen werden uiteengezet met een stapgrootte Vervolgens werd de totale kans op bodemraking
van 1dm. Zo werden histogrammen op basis van de minima samengesteld als de som van kansen op bodemraking bij een
voor een gebied van 50m op 100m en voor een gebied van beschouwde diepte vermenigvuldigd met de fractie van de
10m op 10m opgesteld. Op die manier konden de metingen die in dat beschouwde interval liggen. De tijvensters
bodemkarakteristieken (gemiddelde, standaardafwijking, werden tenslotte berekend met de nieuwe waarden voor de
minimum) vergeleken worden. kans op bodemraking. Een vergelijking van de bekomen
tijvensters met de resultaten op basis van een uniforme diepte
III. RESULTATEN (min(gem1) of min(gem3)), leert dat de tijvensters op basis
van de combinatie van criteria (BTP en MM) vergroten, zoals
A. Uniforme bodemdiepte getoond in Afbeelding 2. De streefdiepte (TD) geeft echter
In eerste instantie werd een uniforme bodemdiepte nog steeds de beste resultaten.
verondersteld voor de gebieden tussen 2 trajectpunten.
Ondanks deze sterke vereenvoudiging wordt deze methode
momenteel nog toegepast. Aan de trajectpunten wordt dan een
diepte toegekend met een kleine standaardafwijking (0,01m).
Wanneer deze methodiek wordt toegepast is men verplicht de
minimale waarde van een gebied aan het overeenkomstig
trajectpunt toe te kennen. Als input worden dan ook de
minimale waardes bekomen op basis van gem1 en gem3
gebruikt. Bij gem3 worden de meest extreme waarden wat
uitgemiddeld. Wanneer dit over een voldoende kleine gridcel
gebeurt is dit aanvaardbaar. Die ondiepste waarden kunnen
immers meetfouten zijn en zelfs indien ze werkelijk optreden,
zullen ze het schip nooit schade berokkenen bij een eventuele
bodemraking.
Uit de resultaten voor Scheur Oost I en Scheur Oost II bleek
dat het absolute minimum op basis van gem1 ongeveer 2dm
minder diep ligt dan de streefdiepte. Wanneer vertrokken
wordt van gem3 is de minimale waarde ongeveer 1dm minder
diep dan door de baggermaatschappij wordt voorgeschreven.
Voor de verdere berekeningen werd vervolgens aangenomen
dat deze bevindingen voor Scheur Oost I en Scheur Oost II
geldig zijn voor alle trajectpunten op het zeetraject en de
tijvensters werden voor beide scenario’s berekend.
Afbeelding 2: Tijvensters uitgaande van een uniforme bodemdiepte
B. Gemiddelde bodemdiepte met standaardafwijking en een werkelijk bodemprofiel
Om het eigenlijke bodemprofiel beter te benaderen werd
eerst geprobeerd de tijvensters te berekenen aan de hand van IV. CONCLUSIES
de gemiddelde diepte (van de minima voor gridcellen van
Het effect van een variërende bodemdiepte op de tijvensters
50m op 100m) met de standaardafwijking op deze waarde.
voor containerschepen die Deurganckdok verlaten werd
Voor Scheur Oost I werd berekend dat de gemiddelde diepte
onderzocht aan de hand van verschillende strategieën. Op
0,30m dieper ligt dan de streefdiepte van 15,50m. De
basis van de resultaten van een bodemanalyse van de meest
standaardafwijking van 0,22m zorgde echter dat de tijvensters
kritische gebieden in het zeetraject werden de tijvensters eerst
kleiner werden ondanks de grotere diepte. ProToel
berekend volgens een uniforme diepte door het meest ondiepe
veronderstelt een normale verdeling van bodemdieptes en
punt. Om meer informatie omtrent het eigenlijke
wanneer de standaardafwijking oploopt, wordt ook een
bodemprofiel in een bepaald gebied aan een trajectpunt te
aanzienlijk deel metingen verondersteld die minder diep
kunnen meegeven, werd vervolgens een methode ontwikkeld
liggen dan in werkelijkheid het geval is. De diepere zones
om de totale kans op bodemraking samen te stellen uit de
hadden zo een averechts effect. Deze methode werd dan ook
kansen verkregen voor verschillende dieptes. In Afbeelding 2
als ongeschikt beoordeeld.
wordt een vergelijking van beide methodes weergegeven.
Door het werkelijke bodemprofiel in ProToel te
C. Bodemprofiel op basis van histogram implementeren, zal de gemiddelde kielspeling vergroten
Om ProToel te kunnen gebruiken zonder grote wijzigingen aangezien ook de diepere gebieden meegerekend worden. De
aan de programmatie aan te brengen, werd het bodemprofiel vereiste manoeuvreermarge wordt hierdoor makkelijker
nu als volgt geïmplementeerd. Vooreerst werd met behulp van gehaald waardoor dit criterium minder bepalend wordt.
ProToel de kans op bodemraking voor alle trajectpunten Voorlopig wordt de bodemdistributie van Scheur Oost I als
berekend voor dieptes variërend tussen de minimale diepte (de representatief beschouwd voor het volledige zeetraject. In de
streefdiepte -2dm) en de streefdiepte +6dm met stappen van toekomst zou men elk kritisch gebied apart kunnen
1dm. De standaardafwijking werd hierbij telkens op 0,01m implementeren.
gezet. Op basis van een histogram van de bodemmetingen
 REFERENTIES

[1] Candries, M., Vantorre, M., Verwilligen J. (2013) . Deterministisch

vs . Probabilistisch Toelatingsbeleid Vergelijkend onderzoek voor
de Scheldehavens. Verslag. Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium.

[2] Keung, J-Y. (2014). Evaluatie van een berekeningsmethode ter

ondersteuning van het toelatingsbeleid tot de Vlaamse havens. MA
thesis. Universiteit Gent.

[3] PIANC (2014). Harbour Approach Channels - Design Guidelines.

Tech. rep. Nr. 121. PIANC.
Table of contents

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1
1.1 PROBLEM ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 GOAL ............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 GENERAL APPROACH ......................................................................................... 3
LITERATURE STUDY .......................................................................................... 5
2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 5
2.2 THE FLEMISH HARBOURS ................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 The port of Zeebrugge ........................................................................... 6
2.2.2 The port of Antwerp .............................................................................. 9
2.3 DETERMINISTIC ACCESS POLICY ......................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Under Keel Clearance .......................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Current window ................................................................................... 15
2.4 PROBABILISTIC ACCESS POLICY – PROTOEL .......................................................... 16
2.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 16
2.4.2 Probabilistic parameters [11] .............................................................. 17
2.4.3 Input data ............................................................................................ 19
2.4.4 Calculation method ............................................................................. 23
2.4.5 The calculations ................................................................................... 27
2.5 BOTTOM ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 28
2.5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 28
2.5.2 The effect of bottom variations on the needed under keel clearance . 28
PRELIMINARY STUDIES ................................................................................... 37
3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 37
3.2 TIDAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR CONTAINERSHIPS (W092) LEAVING DEURGANCKDOK ... 39
3.3 DETERMINATION OF THE CRITICAL TRAJECTORY POINTS ......................................... 40
3.3.1 With the target depths allocated to the TP ......................................... 40
3.3.2 With an increased depth for the most critical TP ................................ 40
3.4 STUDY OF THE STANDARD DEVIATION ................................................................. 44
STUDY OF THE MOST CRITICAL AREAS............................................................. 45
4.1 SCHEUR OOST I .............................................................................................. 45
4.1.1 Study of S511 ....................................................................................... 47
4.1.2 Study of S513 ....................................................................................... 56
4.2 SCHEUR OOST II ............................................................................................. 62
INFLUENCE OF BOTTOM DEPTH ON THE TIDAL WINDOWS............................... 69
5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 69
5.2 UNIFORM BOTTOM DEPTH ............................................................................... 69
5.3 HIGHER DEPTH WITH VARYING STANDARD DEVIATION ........................................... 72
5.4 ACTUAL DEPTH BASED ON THE HISTOGRAM OF THE BOTTOM DISTRIBUTION .............. 75
5.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TARGET DEPTH AND THE ACTUAL BOTTOM PROFILE ....... 80
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 83
6.1 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BOTTOM DEPTH IN PROTOEL .................................. 83
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .................................................... 85
APPENDIX A: BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR SCHEUR OOST I ........................ 86
APPENDIX B: BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR SCHEUR OOST II ....................... 94
APPENDIX C: NORMAL DISTRIBUTION TABLE .................................................. 99
List of figures

FIGURE 1: MAP OF THE BELGIAN COAST [2]......................................................................................1

FIGURE 2: EXAMPLE OF TIDE CURVE FOR TERNEUZEN .........................................................................2
FIGURE 3: THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE ..............................................................................................6
FIGURE 4: RELATION BETWEEN CHARTED DEPTH AND ACTUAL DEPTH .....................................................7
FIGURE 5: TIDAL CURVE AT ZEEBRUGGE ...........................................................................................8
FIGURE 6: ACCESS CHANNELS FOR THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE AND THE WESTERN SCHELDT ........................9
FIGURE 7: RESULT OF THIRD DEEPENING IN THE WESTERN SCHELDT [10] .............................................10
FIGURE 8: EXAMPLE OF INBOUND AND OUTBOUND SHIP PASSAGE USING THE TIDE [11] ..........................11
FIGURE 9: CONTAINER TERMINALS IN THE PORT OF ANTWERP ............................................................11
FIGURE 10: SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION UKC [11] .......................................................................12
FIGURE 11: SQUAT PHENOMENON (SQUAT AT THE BOW) [11]...........................................................13
FIGURE 12: SHIP MOTIONS RELATED TO THE AXIS OF THE HULL [13] ....................................................14
FIGURE 13: NUMERICALLY DETERMINED CURRENT PROFILE IN THE PORT OF ZEEBRUGGE: 1H30 BEFORE HIGH
TIDE, MAXIMUM FLOOD CURRENT [15] .................................................................................15
FIGURE 14: TURNING CIRCLE TO PORT (35 DEG) FOR DIFFERENT H/D RATIOS [15] .................................18
FIGURE 15: LOCATION OF THE WAYPOINTS.....................................................................................20
FIGURE 16: LOCATIONS FOR THE DATA FOR THE WAVE SPECTRA .........................................................22
FIGURE 17: PRINCIPLE OF THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM IN RELATION TO SQUAT (A) ...................................29
FIGURE 18: PRINCIPLE OF THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM IN RELATION TO SQUAT (B) ...................................29
FIGURE 19: PRINCIPLE OF THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM IN RELATION TO SQUAT (C) ...................................30
FIGURE 20: PRINCIPLE OF THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM IN RELATION TO SQUAT (D) ...................................31
FIGURE 21: VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE SHIP ABOVE A HORIZONTAL BOTTOM ....................................32
FIGURE 22: RELATIVE VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE SHIP IN RELATION TO THE ACTUAL BOTTOM ...............33
FIGURE 23: EFFECTIVE BOTTOM ...................................................................................................33
FIGURE 24: VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE SHIP ABOVE THE EFFECTIVE BOTTOM .....................................34
FIGURE 25: RELATIVE VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE SHIP ABOVE THE AVERAGE EFFECTIVE BOTTOM ...........35
FIGURE 26: REPRESENTATION OF THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM..............................................................35
FIGURE 27: LOCATION OF KWINTEBANK, SLOEHAVEN AND DEURGANCKDOK ........................................37
FIGURE 28: LOCATIONS FOR THE DATA FOR THE WAVE SPECTRA .........................................................37
FIGURE 29: TIDAL WINDOW CHARACTERISTICS FOR DGD-KWI ..........................................................39
FIGURE 30: LOCATION OF TRAJECTORY POINT 7 ..............................................................................41
FIGURE 31: EFFECT OF THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE BOTTOM DEPTH ON THE TIDAL WINDOW
CHARACTERISTICS FOR A CONTAINER VESSEL SAILING FROM ANTWERP TO KWINTEBANK
(W092_DGDKWI) .........................................................................................................44
FIGURE 32: DETAILED VIEW OF SCHEUR OOST I ..............................................................................45
FIGURE 33: LOCATION OF SCHEUR OOST I .....................................................................................46
FIGURE 34: SOUDINGS OF S511, AVG1.........................................................................................47
FIGURE 35: POSITIONING GRID CELLS WITH RESPECT TO THE SEA CHANNEL ...........................................48
FIGURE 36: SOUNDINGS OF S511 (ROTATED), AVG1 .......................................................................48
FIGURE 37: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S511............................................................50
FIGURE 38: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S511 (400M WIDE) ........................................50
FIGURE 39: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S511 .............................................................................51
FIGURE 40: STD50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S511 ..............................................................................52
FIGURE 41: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S511 (400M WIDE) ...............................................53
FIGURE 42: HISTOGRAM MIN30AVG1 FOR S511 (400 WIDE) ..........................................................53
FIGURE 43: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1-MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S511 ..................................................54
FIGURE 44: HISTOGRAM MIN10AVG1 FOR S511 (400M WIDE) .......................................................55
FIGURE 45: SOUNDINGS OF S513, AVG1.......................................................................................56
FIGURE 46: SOUNDINGS OF S513 (ROTATED), AVG1 .......................................................................56
FIGURE 47: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S513 (400M WIDE) ........................................57
FIGURE 48: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S513 (400M WIDE) ...............................................57
FIGURE 49: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S513 .............................................................................58
FIGURE 50: STD50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S513 ..............................................................................59
FIGURE 51: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1-MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S513 ..................................................60
FIGURE 52: HISTOGRAM MIN30AVG1 FOR S513 (400M WIDE) .......................................................61
FIGURE 53: HISTOGRAM MIN10AVG1 FOR S513 (400M WIDE) .......................................................61
FIGURE 54: SOUNDINGS OF SCHEUR OOST II (BETWEEN TP 8 AND 9), AVG1 ........................................62
FIGURE 55: SOUNDINGS OF SCHEUR OOST II (BETWEEN TP 8 AND 9) (ROTATED), AVG1 ........................62
FIGURE 56: LOCATION OF SCHEUR OOST II ....................................................................................63
FIGURE 57: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SOII (400M WIDE) .........................................64
FIGURE 58: HISTOGRAM MIN50_100AVG1 FOR SOII (400M WIDE) .................................................64
FIGURE 59: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 1) ..................................................................65
FIGURE 60: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 2) ..................................................................66
FIGURE 61: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1-MIN50_100AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 1).......................................67
FIGURE 62: MIN50_100AVG3AVG1-MIN50_100AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 2).......................................68
FIGURE 63: TIDAL WINDOWS FOR DIFFERENT UNIFORM DEPTHS .........................................................71
FIGURE 64: HISTOGRAM OF MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 COMPARED WITH NORMAL DISTRIBUTION ..............72
FIGURE 65: HISTOGRAM OF MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 WITHOUT VALUES ABOVE 16,0M .........................73
FIGURE 66: HISTOGRAM OF MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SCHEUR OOST I ..........................................75
FIGURE 67: HISTOGRAM OF MIN10AVG1 FOR SCHEUR OOST I ..........................................................75
FIGURE 68: TIDAL WINDOWS FOR AN UNIFORM BOTTOM DEPTH AND FOR THE ACTUAL BOTTOM DEPTH .....79
FIGURE 69: CONTAINER CARRIERS (W092) LEAVING DEURGANCKDOK: FRACTION OF THE TIDE CYCLES FOR
WHICH THE BTP IS DETERMINATIVE FOR THE OPENING AND/OR CLOSURE OF THE TIDAL WINDOW OR
WHICH INFLUENCES THE LENGTH OF THE TIDAL WINDOW IN COMBINATION WITH A MINIMUM MM
(CALCULATIONS PERFORMED WITH TD AND Σ=0,01M) ............................................................80
FIGURE 70: CONTAINER CARRIERS (W092) LEAVING DEURGANCKDOK: FRACTION OF THE TIDE CYCLES FOR
WHICH THE BTP IS DETERMINATIVE FOR THE OPENING AND/OR CLOSURE OF THE TIDAL WINDOW OR
WHICH INFLUENCES THE LENGTH OF THE TIDAL WINDOW IN COMBINATION WITH A MINIMUM MM
(CALCULATION PERFORMED WITH ACTUAL BOTTOM) ..............................................................81
FIGURE 71: MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S511.....................................................................................87
FIGURE 72: STD50_100AVG1 FOR S511 .....................................................................................88
FIGURE 73: THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM FOR S511 ...........................................................................89
FIGURE 74: EQB50_100-MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S511 .................................................................90
FIGURE 75: EQB50_100-MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR S511 .........................................................91
FIGURE 76: MIN50_100AVG1 FOR S513.....................................................................................92
FIGURE 77: THE EQUIVALENT BOTTOM FOR S513 ...........................................................................93
FIGURE 78: MIN50_100AVG1 FOR SOII (PART1) ..........................................................................95
FIGURE 79: MIN50_100AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 2) .........................................................................96
FIGURE 80: STD50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 1) ...................................................................97
FIGURE 81: STD50_100AVG3AVG1 FOR SOII (PART 2) ...................................................................98
List of tables

TABLE 1: REQUIRED GROSS UKC ..................................................................................................14

TABLE 2: PROTOEL SHIP DATABASE ...............................................................................................20
TABLE 3: OVERVIEW TRAJECTORY POINTS.......................................................................................21
TABLE 4: SHIP DIMENSIONS OF W092 ..........................................................................................38
TABLE 5: TIDAL WINDOW CHARACTERISTICS DGD-KWI (DECEMBER 2011) .........................................39
TABLE 6: NUMBER OF TIMES A TRAJECTORY POINT BECOMES CRITICAL FOR THE OPENING OR CLOSURE OF THE
TIDAL WINDOW ................................................................................................................42
TABLE 7: NUMBER OF TIMES A TRAJECTORY POINT BECOMES CRITICAL FOR THE OPENING OR CLOSURE OF THE
TIDAL WINDOW (WITH DEPTH OF POINT 7: +1DM) ..................................................................43
TABLE 8: PARAMETERS WITH THEIR SPECIFIC NAMING ......................................................................49
TABLE 9: BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR S511 ..............................................................................55
TABLE 10: BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR S513 ............................................................................61
TABLE 11: BOTTOM CHARACTERISTICS FOR SCHEUR OOST II (BETWEEN TP8 & TP9) .............................64
TABLE 12: TIDAL WINDOWS FOR DIFFERENT DRAUGHTS WHEN A UNIFORM DEPTH BASED ON MIN(AVG1)
AND MIN (AVG3AVG1) IS ASSUMED ....................................................................................70
TABLE 13: TIDAL WINDOWS FOR DIFFERENT DRAUGHTS WHEN A HIGHER DEPTH WITH VARYING STANDARD
DEVIATIONS IS ASSUMED ....................................................................................................74
TABLE 14: DETERMINATION OF THE WEIGHT FACTORS FOR MIN50_100AVG3AVG1 (SCHEUR OOST I) .....76
TABLE 15: DETERMINATION OF THE WEIGHT FACTORS FOR MIN10AVG1 (SCHEUR OOST I) .....................76
TABLE 16: TIDAL WINDOWS FOR DIFFERENT DRAUGHTS BASED ON THE HISTOGRAMS OF THE ACTUAL BOTTOM
(AB) AND FOR TD WITH Σ=0,01M .....................................................................................78
TABLE 17: CRITICAL DRAFT (DM) FOR DIFFERENT BOTTOM DEPTH IMPLEMENTATIONS.............................79
TABLE 18: NUMBER OF TIMES A TRAJECTORY POINT BECOMES CRITICAL FOR THE OPENING OR CLOSURE OF
THE TIDAL WINDOW (ACTUAL BOTTOM IMPLEMENTED) ...........................................................82
TABLE 19: NORMAL DISTRIBUTION TABLE [19] ...............................................................................99
List of abbreviations

AB Actual Bottom
BAW Bundesantstalt für Wasserbau
BEN Boundary Element Method
BTP Bottom Touch Probability
CD Chart Datum
CP Critical Point
DGD Deurganckdok
ECS Electronic Chart System
GM Metacentric Height
HW High Water
JONSWAP Joint Noth Sea Wave Observation Project
KWI Kwintebank
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
LNG Liquid Natural Gas
LW Low Water
MARIN Maritime Research Institute Netherlands
MLLW Mean Lower Low Water
MLLWS Mean Lower Low Water Spring
MLW Mean Low Water
MLWS Mean Low Water Spring
MM Manoeuvring Margin
NaN Not A Number
NAP Normaal Amsterdams Peil (Normal Amsterdam Level)
PIANC Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses
ProToel Probabilistisch Toelatingsbeleid (Probabilistic access policy)
RAO Response Amplitude Operator
RM Relative Movement
SLO Sloehaven
SO Scheur Oost
TD Target Depth
TP Trajectory Point
UKC Under Keel Clearance
UTM Universal Transfers Mercator
VM Vertical Movement
WF Weight Factor
List of symbols

A amplitude (m)
Am midship area (m2 )
B beam (m)
d ship draft (m)
Fnm Froude number (-)
g gravitational acceleration (m/s 2 )
h water depth (m)
Hs significant value of the vertical motion (m2 s)
k wave number (1/m)
L ship length (m)
Loa length over all (m)
m blockage (-)
rpm rotations per minute (1/s)
SWW transverse area of the water way (m2 )
Sz spectral density motion spectrum (m2 s)
S𝛇 spectral density wave spectrum (m2 s)
Te encounter period (s)
z heave (m)
ε phase (-)
θ pitch angle (°)
λ wavelength (m)
μ propagation direction (°)
σ spreading (m)
φ roll angle (°)
ω encounter frequency (rad/sec)
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Problem
Nowadays, seaports are expected to receive increasingly large ships. Due to depth
limitations, those deep-drafted ships can only reach the harbour using dredged sea
channels. The access channels to the Belgian seaports of Zeebrugge and Antwerp
are shown in Figure 1. The Scheur West channel links the deeper Wandelaar area
in the southern North Sea via the Pas van het Zand to the port of Zeebrugge, and
via the Scheur East and Wielingen channels to the mouth of the river West
Scheldt, which gives access to the port of Antwerp [1].

Figure 1: Map of the belgian coast [2]

1
As the sea channels are subject to the tide, arrival and departure of ships may be
limited to a certain time limitations. Figure 2 shows the tidal elevation for 1 day at
Terneuzen [3]. A tidal window is the part of the tide where the ship can complete
the travel in a secure way. At present, the tidal windows are determined in a
deterministic way and guarantee a gross under keel clearance (UKC) during the
passage. The gross under keel clearance is the margin between the nominal
channel bed level and the ship’s keel. The deterministic approach accounts for
water level fluctuations due to the tides and for the loading condition of the ship.
Weather conditions, wave climate and ship characteristics however, are not
considered.

Figure 2: Example of tide curve for Terneuzen

Since the UKC guarantees a safe travel, independent of the weather condition and
wave climate, this value should be sufficient for the most severe conditions. This
implies a significant margin for a ship travelling in favourable conditions. Because
of this conservative approach, the capacity of the harbours decreases. The aim
however, is to increase the productivity of the harbours preferably without the need
for new infrastructure or dredging. Therefore, one prefers to choose an admittance
policy based on probabilistic principles [4]. In a probabilistic access policy, an
acceptable value for the probability of undesired events such as bottom touch is
determined. In this study, this is done with the help of the software package
ProToel.

ProToel has been developed by the Maritime Technology Division of Ghent

University and Flanders Hydraulics Research (Antwerp). It is a calculation tool to
determine tidal windows for deep-drafted ships approaching and leaving the
harbour of Zeebrugge and the Western Scheldt Estuary. As input, ProToel uses
hydro-meteo data, bottom levels, ship characteristics and the ship’s speed. The
probabilistic criteria are based on a maximal chance of bottom touch during the
trajectory of the ship and on a minimal manoeuvring margin.

2
Developments over the last couple of years, including more detailed input data and
compiling a comprehensive internal ship database, have led to more accurate
results. Yet, there is still room for improvement so the software is subject to
continuous changes. For example, the influence of wind and turning on the bottom
touch probability of container vessels arriving at and departing from Zeebrugge has
recently been studied [5] [6]. A study on the effect of bottom depth variations
however, has not been finalised yet.

1.2 Goal
An important input factor for the determination of the tidal windows with ProToel is
the bottom depth. Up to now, the target depth is used for the calculations. The
target depth is the depth that is assured by dredging companies. The aim of this
study is now to implement the bottom depth based on available sounding data. In
this way, the use of an uncertain reference depth is avoided. Afterwards, the effect
of this modification is studied as the obtained tidal windows are compared with the
tidal windows based on the target depth.

1.3 General approach

In Chapter 2 an overview of the Flemish harbours is given followed by a discussion
on a deterministic and a probabilistic access policy. Also a research assignment to
define a scientifically based algorithm for the purpose of creating ECS-charts [7] is
discussed.

The actual research starts in Chapter 3 where container shipping between

Deurganckdok and Kwintebank is examined. The most critical trajectory points
were determined and the effect of the standard deviation on the target depth was
studied.

Chapter 4 focuses on a bottom analysis of the most critical areas. Different bottom
characteristics were calculated and compared.

In Chapter 5, the influence of the bottom depth on the tidal windows is described.
Three strategies for the implementation of the bottom depth are illustrated.

This study ends with a conclusion and some recommendations (Chapter 6).

3
4
Chapter 2

Literature study

2.1 Introduction
This chapter starts with an overview of the main Flemish seaports: the Port of
Zeebrugge and the Port of Antwerp. Next, all the factors defining the UKC are
briefly discussed as well as the current access policy of the harbours.

Then, the deterministic access policy is compared with a probabilistic access policy
and an introduction on ProToel is given.

This chapter ends with a discussion on a study done by MARIN and Ghent
University [7]. In this study, an algorithm is developed that converts raw sounding
data to useful ECS-charts and dredging charts.

5
2.2 The Flemish harbours
2.2.1 The port of Zeebrugge
The port of Zeebrugge is a deepsea port with modern port equipment suitable for
the largest ships [8]. Sufficient water depth is guaranteed in the access channels
(Scheur West and Pas van het Zand) and along the quays. The port consists of 3
major parts: The outer port, the inner port and the seaport of Bruges (See Figure 3)

Two breakwaters having each a length of more than 4 kilometers protect the outer
port. Due to the direct access and the substantial water depth, the outer port is
used for the fast roll-on/roll-off and container traffic. LNG vessels also moor in the
outer port. The inner port is accessible through the Pierre Vandamme lock and the
Visart lock and houses two large docks: the Northern Inlet dock and the Southern
Canal dock. The main activities are handling, storage and distribution of new cars,
breakbulk cargoes or food products. The seaport of Bruges, at last, focuses on
bulk and conventional cargoes.

Figure 3: The Port of Zeebrugge

6
Deep drafted ships reach the Port of Zeebrugge through the channels Scheur West
and Pas van het Zand. The Scheur West is approximately 9000 meters long and
500 meters wide. The Pas van het Zand is about 3600 meters long and 300 meters
wide. The depth is 16,20 meters Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) for the Scheur
West and 15,76 meters for the Pas van het Zand.

LAT is the lowest water level that can occur as a result of the tidal effects of
astronomical bodies and the local geographic circumstances. A water level below
LAT can only occur due to meteorological circumstances [9]. Water depths and
tidal predictions will here be referred to this reference level (Chart Datum). Due to
the variety in tidal characteristics, a large number of implementations of Chart
Datum exists, usually related to mean of low ocean surfaces. Examples are Mean
Lower Low Water Spring (MLLWS), Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), Mean Low
Water (MLW), Low Water (LW), Mean Low Water Spring (MLWS). Also the Normal
Amsterdam Level (NAP = Normaal Amsterdams Peil) is sometimes used. It is very
important to know which Chart Datum is used since the charted depth will change
and a false sense of safety might arise. This is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Relation between charted depth and actual depth

7
The mean difference between high water (HW) and low water (LW) in Zeebrugge is
about 4 meters, as illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Tidal curve at Zeebrugge

8
2.2.2 The port of Antwerp
As one of Europe’s most central seaports, Antwerp plays a major role as a port in
the world. Transport via the Port of Antwerp to European customers and factories
is quick, cheap and very ecological as the sea-going vessels can transport their
goods 80 kilometers inland [10].

After passing the channels Scheur West, Scheur Oost and Wielingen, ships
continue their travel via the Western Scheldt (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Access channels for the Port of Zeebrugge and the Western Scheldt

The central location is not the only asset of the port of Antwerp. Continuous
investments provide a modern infrastructure with high productivity and a sufficient
capacity. In 2010, Maritime Access carried out a third deepening in the Western
Scheldt. This allows the biggest container vessels in the world to visit the port of
Antwerp during larger tidal windows. Ships with a draught limited to 13,1 meters
can even enter tide-independently (Figure 7).

9
Figure 7: Result of third deepening in the Western Scheldt [10]

A distinction is made between inbound and outbound shipping. Inbound ships may
transit the channel on a rising tide. The ship starts at sea some time before high
water and reaches the port at high water. In case of outbound ships with maximum
draught transiting a long tidal channel, ships may have to sail against the tide (see
Figure 8). In this case ships will experience different water levels during the
outbound transit. Therefore, the speed over ground is an important factor for the
tidal windows, while speed through water is important for the hydrodynamic-related
factors [11].

10
Figure 8: Example of inbound and outbound ship passage using the tide [11]

Figure 9 shows the port of Antwerp and the location of the container terminals. In
section 3.2, container shipping for ships leaving the Deurganck terminal (6) will be
analysed.

Figure 9: Container terminals in the port of Antwerp

11
2.3 Deterministic access policy
At present, tidal windows are determined based on deterministic criteria. For the
sea channels giving access to the port of Zeebrugge and Antwerp, a minimal gross
UKC is required. For ships sailing to Zeebrugge, an additional criterion is obtained:
the cross current is limited.

As mentioned earlier, this deterministic method has its restrictions. Ship

characteristics, weather conditions and the wave climate are not taken into
account. In addition, the deterministic approach is conservative and leads to
shorter tidal windows or ships carrying less cargo than possible. This is an
unfavourable economic situation and it is therefore desirable to switch to a more
accurate model based on the chance of bottom touch. This is the subject of section
2.4. First, the deterministic criteria are discussed.

2.3.1 Under Keel Clearance

PIANC divides the vertical distance between the design water level and the
channel dredge level into water level factors, ship related factors and bottom
related factors (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Schematic representation UKC [11]

The bottom related factors are determined by dredging tolerances, sounding

uncertainties and sedimentation between two dredging executions. The actual
bottom level will therefore lay deeper than the nominal target depth, guaranteed by
the dredging companies.

12
The water level depends on tidal and to a lesser extent on meteorological effects.
Tides are caused by the gravitational forces exerted by the moon and the sun.
They can be predicted by tide tables or mathematical models. Meteorological
effects are due to winds and atmospheric pressure variations.

Because the deterministic access policy demands a minimal gross UKC, some of
the ship related factors are discussed in more detail. In section 2.3.1.4, the
required UKC for the sea channels giving access to our harbours are described.

2.3.1.1 Ship squat

A ship moving through water creates a hydrodynamic pressure field in the vicinity
of its hull, causing a deviation from the static floating condition. The term ‘‘ship
squat’’ refers to the combined effect of the lowering of the mid-ship section and the
change of trim. [12]

When a ship proceeds through water, a volume of water must return down the
sides and under the bottom of the ship. This water flow induces a relative velocity
between the ship and the surrounding water that causes a water level depression
in which the ship sinks. This phenomenon is called squat and causes a dynamic
change in sink and trim (Figure 11). Squat is influenced by the ship’s speed, its
geometry, its propeller rate and the blockage factor.

Figure 11: Squat phenomenon (squat at the bow) [11]

2.3.1.2 Dynamic heel due to wind and turning

Heeling will occur during turning of a vessel or due to non-oscillating motions from
wind and currents. The extent to which a ship heels during turning depends on the
ship’s speed, rate of turn, metacentric height (GM) and tugboat line forces. Wind-
induced heeling is mainly determined by the windage area of the ship. The
dynamic heel will add to the ship’s draught and is therefore of importance for the
UKC.

2.3.1.3 Wave response allowance

A ship sailing through the water has 6 degrees of freedom (Figure 12). There are
three translational motions (surge, sway and heave) and three rotational motions
(roll, pitch and yaw). The UKC is only affected by heave (translation along vertical

13
Z-axis), roll (rotation about longitudinal X-axis) and pitch (rotation about transverse
Y-axis).

Figure 12: Ship motions related to the axis of the hull [13]

The amplitudes of heave and pitch motion of a ship depend on the ship’s speed,
the wavelength (𝛌) and the propagation direction (𝛍) of the waves. Ratios of 1 ≤
𝛌⁄ ≤ 2,5 cause large wave forces and moments and can give rise to large motion
𝐿
amplitudes especially when synchronism occurs [14].

2.3.1.4 Required gross UKC

Table 1 gives an overview of the minimum required UKC for the channels giving
access to the port of Zeebrugge and Antwerp and for the channel Ghent-
Terneuzen. The UKC is expressed as a percentage of the ship’s draft.

Table 1: Required gross UKC

15,0% Scheur West / Scheur Oost / Wielingen

12,5% Pas van het Zand / Western Scheldt
10,0% River Scheldt
10,0% Outer harbour of Zeebrugge, i.e. within the breakwaters
1m Channel Ghent-Terneuzen

It is clear that the needed UKC is lowered when the ship sails more inland, since
the influence of waves is less pronounced and squat effects are reduced due to the
lowered speed.

14
In areas subject to sedimentation where the bottom of the navigation areas is
covered with fluid mud, a penetration of 7% of draft in the mud layer is considered
as acceptable in case sufficient tug assistance is available [1]. This applies to the
port of Zeebrugge.

2.3.2 Current window

For ships approaching the port of Zeebrugge, there is an additional restriction.
Ships are not allowed to pass the breakwaters when the cross current exceeds 2
knots. For LNG-carriers, the acceptable cross current at the breakwaters is even
reduced to 1,5 knots. The transverse current causes ships to drift when it
approaches the harbour. In addition, a moment exists when the ship enters the port
since only the aft will experience the transverse current. This moment will hinder
safe entry. To counteract the external forces, abrupt propeller and rudder
commands are required. Further, sufficient speed to limit the drift angle is
necessary.

Figure 13: Numerically determined current profile in the port of Zeebrugge: 1h30
before high tide, maximum flood current [15]

15
Figure 13 shows a numerically determined current profile when the flood current is
at its highest. Unfortunately, the maximum current occurs around high tide so that
not the entire tidal window can be used.

2.4 Probabilistic access policy – ProToel

2.4.1 Introduction
ProToel was developed for the Flemish Government by the Maritime Technology
Division of Ghent University. It is a decision support tool that can be used in
probabilistic admission policy for deep-drafted ships arriving at, and departing from
the harbour of Zeebrugge. Over the years, the software package has been
extended to include the ports of Vlissingen (Sloehaven), Terneuzen and Antwerp.
[16]

Based on data about environmental conditions, which are obtained from most
recent predictions of a remote database, and special ship characteristics, which
are stored locally, the program calculates the vertical motions of the vessel at
designated locations and gives a prediction on the under keel clearance and
bottom touch probability. Furthermore, the program analyses the speed of
transversal currents at the mouth of the harbour of Zeebrugge. Based on the
results, a tidal window is created for the calculated ship at the specified time range.
[17]

ProToel can calculate those tidal windows based on both deterministic and
probabilistic criteria. In a deterministic mode, the gross UKC clearance, relative to
both the nautical bottom and the top of fluid mud layers, and the magnitude of the
current components are taken into account. In case probabilistic criteria are used,
the chance of bottom touch due to squat and response to waves during the voyage
will be calculated and compared to a selected minimum value. Also the
manoeuvring margin may not exceed a certain maximal value if you want to obtain
a positive travel advice.

This section starts with a background of the probabilistic parameters used in

ProToel. Next, the input data and the calculation method are discussed.

16
2.4.2 Probabilistic parameters [11]

2.4.2.1 Criteria for probability of exceedance

The maximal allowed bottom touch probability is set at 10−2 and 10−4 . The choice
for those values is based on published criteria. In PIANC, following values are
reported:

One of the earliest summaries of safety criteria for deep-draught vessels in port
entrance channels has been compiled by van de Kaa (1984). Four of his listed
probability criteria for ship-channel bed contact are:

 Accident per passage under average environmental conditions: 10−4

 Accident with heavy damage per passage for average conditions: 2,5 ×
10−4
 Accident per passage under extreme environmental conditions: 10−2
 Accident with heavy damage per passage for extreme conditions: 5,0 ×
10−4

PIANC has also listed probabilities of grounding based on an analysis of

groundings in Northern European ports by Dand and Lyon. This analysis showed
that grounding occurs with a probability of 0,03 incidents per 1000 ship
movements.

Savenije quotes the following criteria presently in use at the Port of Rotterdam:

 During 25 years, the probability of a ship touching the channel bottom with
maximum minor damage, most not be more than 10%. This means that
only one out of ten bottom touches during a period of about 250 years
results in serious damage. This criterion is based on a shipping intensity of
250 deep-draught vessels calling at the Port of Rotterdam per year. This
would mean that one bottom touch with zero to minor damage is accepted
per 25 years, or per 6250 deep-draught shipping events. This is a
probability of bottom touching of 1,6 × 10−4 per shipping event.
 The probability of bottom touch for an arbitrary ship during an individual
route can never exceed 1%.

2.4.2.2 Manoeuvrability Margin

Manoeuvrability Margin (MM) is used to define the time-averaged clearance under

a ship. It is a deterministic summation of UKC factors such as water depth,
draught, squat and heel intended to set a minimum gross UKC requirement to
provide adequate manoeuvrability for a moving vessel.

17
When the clearance between the channel bottom and the ship’s keel reduces, the
ability of the vessel to manoeuvre will decrease as well. The vertical MM
component will also affect horizontal motions as a vessel with a very small MM
becomes very sluggish in manoeuvring. The risks of collisions or path width
excursions will therefore increase. Figure 14 gives an example of the changing
manoeuvring behaviour of a vessel as the UKC decreases.

Figure 14: Turning circle to port (35 deg) for different h/d ratios [15]

The MM is mostly formulated as a percentage of the ship’s draft as the

manoeuvrability behaviour is highly dependent on the water depth-draft ratio.
PIANC demands a minimal MM of 5% of draught or 0,6m, whichever is greater.

18
2.4.3 Input data
In addition to the criteria for the access policy discussed in the previous section,
ProToel needs following input data to work properly: ship characteristics, waterway
characteristics, a chosen trajectory, nautical bottom level, top mud level, speed
over ground and trough the water, tidal elevation, directional wave spectra, current
data, wind data and a departure time.

Therefore ProToel requires the availability of a number of databases:

 A ship database
 A database of trajectories and waypoints, containing recent soundings (or
design depths);
 Forecasts or measurements of hydro meteorological data for a number of
locations as a function of time: tidal elevation, current speed and direction,
directional wave spectra, water density.

2.4.3.1 Ship database

The ship database contains dynamic response characteristics and squat data for a
large range of ship dimensions and types. The most common dimensions of deep-
drafted container ships and bulk carriers that make use of the Scheur and Pas van
het Zand are covered (See Table 2: ProToel ship database). The content of the
ship database is based on seakeeping tests carried out with five ship models in the
Towing tank for manoeuvres in shallow water in Antwerp and additional numerical
calculations with the 2D strip method Seaway and the 3D Boundary Element
Method (BEM) Aqua+. The database covers a large number of draft - water depth
combinations, a realistic range of forward speeds and a variation of metacentric
heights.

19
Table 2: ProToel ship database

2.4.3.2 Trajectories and waypoints

The chosen trajectory is built up with different trajectory points (See Figure 15).
Each waypoint contains the target depth for a certain area.

Figure 15: Location of the waypoints

The trajectory points are also linked with a reduction point for which the input files
for wave-, tide- and current-information were generated. Table 3 shows the
coordinates (UTM), bottom depths (LAT) and reduction points for the trajectory
points used in the calculations. The displayed bottom depths are the target depths.

20
Table 3: Overview trajectory points

Reduction
Trajectory

Northings
Eastings
Name

Depth
point

point
UTM UTM LAT
# m m m -
Kwintebank 1 480161.00 5691690.00 18.8 Kwi
VG1 2 487353.00 5696994.00 18.8 vg1
Geul I West 3 492126.00 5696500.00 16.2 vg3
Geul I Oost 4 497500.00 5695937.50 16.2 vg5
Scheur west 5 503375.00 5695312.50 16.2 sc3
S507 6 507125.00 5694187.50 16.2 t24
Scheur Oost I 7 509875.00 5694375.00 15.5 t25
Scheur Oost II 8 513750.00 5694875.00 15.4 t26
Scheur Oost II-knik 9 518000.00 5695437.50 15.4 t28
Scheur Oost III 10 519000.00 5695312.50 15.4 t29
Scheur Oost IV 11 521875.00 5695062.50 15.3 Sch
Scheur Oost IV-knik 12 523000.00 5695000.00 15.3 t30
Wielingen 13 526625.00 5695375.00 14.9 t31
W7 14 531625.00 5696250.00 14.9 t34
W9 15 535250.00 5696875.00 20.0 t36
Songa 16 539007.70 5696792.66 20.0 t38
Drempel van Vlissingen 17 540929.00 5697131.00 14.5 Vli
Honte 19 546338.00 5698748.00 15.5 Hnt
Sloehaven 20 546597.00 5699706.00 18.0 Slo
Drempel van Borssele 23 549759.83 5693448.56 14.5 Pas
Tern1 24 553070.00 5690241.00 23.5 Pvt
Put van Terneuzen 25 559640.75 5688330.00 14.5 Put
Zeedorp 26 565310.00 5692194.00 22.5 ha1
Overloop_Hansweert-opw 28 567751.63 5697651.00 14.5 ha2
Bocht Hansweert 1 29 568589.00 5698883.00 29.0 ha2
Bocht Hansweert 2 30 571252.00 5697967.00 29.0 Val
Drempel van Hansweert 31 571987.63 5695348.00 14.5 Val
Kloosterzande 32 572693.00 5692318.00 29.0 Val
Overloop_Valkenisse-afw 33 576332.45 5691555.00 14.5 Val
Valk1 34 579035.00 5691769.00 16.0 Ovv

21
Drempel van Valkenisse 35 580987.63 5693279.00 14.5 Ovv
Bath 36 583452.00 5694985.00 16.0 Bat
Drempel van Bath 37 584635.50 5693553.00 14.5 Svd
CP 38 585039.00 5691153.00 20.0 cp1
Drempel van Zandvliet 39 587381.00 5689734.00 14.5 nz1
Europaterminal 41 588777.00 5687861.00 17.2 nz1
Drempel van Frederik 42 588777.88 5685348.00 14.5 Fre
Bocht DGD 43 588883.00 5684541.00 18.0 dg1
DGD 44 588550.00 5684049.00 18.0 Dgd

2.4.3.3 Hydro-meteorological data

Tide levels, water currents, sea state (waves) and bottom depth data needed for
the computations are available through:

 A local database, containing long-term predictions;

 A remote database, located at the Hydra server of Flanders Hydraulics
Research in Antwerp, containing the most recent predictions and
measured data.

Tide and current information is available for a number of so-called reduction points.
Figure 16 shows the locations where the wave spectra are measured.

Figure 16: Locations for the data for the wave spectra

For the calculations in ProToel, all the depths are expressed with respect to LAT.
Density variations along the trajectory are not taken into account.

22
2.4.4 Calculation method
To fully understand how the calculations are performed, an examination of the
theory behind ProToel is required [17].

2.4.4.1 Vertical motions

The vertical motions of a ship caused by the wave action will influence the draft
and the under keel clearance of the vessel. Therefore, the vertical motions will
have a major impact on the bottom touch probability.

From the non-dimensional amplitude A and the phase ε characteristics for roll φ,
heave z and pitch θ of a vessel, the response amplitude operator RAO can be
calculated for any critical point (xc , yc ) on the ships hull.

RAO
2
= √(Az − x. Aθ . cos(εθ − εz ) + y. Aφ . cos(εφ − εz )) + (y. Aφ . sin(εφ − εz ) − x. Aθ . sin⁡(εθ − εz ))2

x and y are depending on the coordinates of the critical point:

xcrit − xcg
x=
0,5. LPP
ycrit
y=
0,5. B

The directional wave spectrum Sζ (ω, µ) can be converted to a motion spectrum

Sz (ω, µ) of a specific point through the response amplitude operator, which is the
transfer function between wave and motion spectra.

Sz (ω, µ) = RAO2 . Sζ (ω, µ)

The significant value of the vertical motion Hs,z in the critical point of the vessel is
defined as four times the square root of the area underneath the motion spectrum
with a spreading σHs,z .

Hs,z = 4. √∑ ∑ Sz (ω, µ) . Δω
ω µ

σH
σHs,z = Hs,z . ( s + σ′RAO )
Hs

The mean period of the vertical motion Te,mean can be calculated from the mean
encounter frequency ωe,mean which depends on the motion spectrum and

23
encounter frequency ωe . The encounter frequency is dependent on the wave
frequency ω and direction µ.

2. π
Te,mean =
ωe,mean
∑ω ∑µ ω2e (ω, µ). Sz (ω, µ)
ωe,mean = √
∑ω ∑µ Sz (ω, µ)
ωe (ω, µ) = ω − k. V. cos⁡(180 + µ − µs )

The wave number k has to be calculated iteratively by solving following equation:

ω2
k. tanh(k. h) =
g

2.4.4.2 Bottom touch probability

The bottom touch probability of a ship during one motion cycle P1 ⁡is a product of
probabilities and consists of the cumulative probability of net under keel clearance
PUKC and the probability of vertical motion pm .
∞

P1 = ∫ pm . PUKC
0

If the number of cycles N is increased, the probability is given by:

PN = 1 − (1 − P1 )N

The net under keel clearance is assumed to be Gaussian distributed and depends
on the stationary net under keel clearance z0 which is based on mean values for
the water depth, tide, ship draft, squat and under keel clearances standard
deviation σ.
z
1 (z−z0 )2
−
PUKC = ∫ e 2.σ2 dx
√2. π. σ
−∞

The vertical motion is assumed to be Rayleigh distributed. It is further assumed

that Hs,z is Gaussian distributed with the mean value µHs,z and a standard deviation
σHs,z .

z2
16 −8 2
pm = 2 . z. e Hs,z
Hs,z

24
 2
+∞ (z−µHs,z )
z2
1 2.σ2 16 −8 2
P1 = ∫ e Hs,z
. 2 . z. e Hs,z dHs,z
√2. π. σHs,z Hs,z
−∞
z2
−8 2
1 12 16 1
(µHs,z + .i.σHs,z )
∑6i=−6 e− 4i . 2 . z. e
2
√2. π 1
(µHs,z + . i. σHs,z )
P1 ≈ 2
6 1 −14i2
∑i=−6 e
√2. π

2.4.4.3 Squat

Squat can be described by the additional trim and sink at the aft perpendicular. The
following equations show formulas for the calculation of sink at the aft and trim for
ships with forward speed and a propeller rate of zero rpm. The reference draft dref
is the reference draft used to calculate the squat coefficients. The parameters csi
are the non-dimensional sink and cTRi the trim coefficients obtained from the model
trials via regression. The equations assume that a bow-side trim is positive, d is the
current ship draft, B is the ship beam and h is the local water depth.

Fn2m
d
ZAP d − dref d d − dref cS5 + . cS6
== [(cS1 . ( ) + cS2 ) . + cS3 . ( ) + cS4 ] . B
dref dref h dref Fn2m
√1 − d
cS5 + . cS6
B

Fn2m
d
d − dref h cTR4 + . cTR5
τ = [cTR1 . ( ) + cTR2 . + cTR3 ] . B
dref d Fn2m
√1 − d
cTR4 + . cTR5
B

The trim coefficients cTR4 and cTR5 are calculated by the equations below, based on
the empirical relationship with the sink coefficients.

cTR4 = 0,134 + 0,69. cS5

cTR5 = 0,69. cS6

The depth dependent Froude number Fnm is corrected by an environmental factor

km:

v
Fnm =
√k m . g. h
3
arcsin⁡(1 − m)
k m = [2. sin⁡( )]
3

25
The blockage m is the fraction of the midship area Am with the transverse area of
the waterway SWW .

Am
m=
SWW

The waterway area that is considered for the blockage calculation is obtained as
follows.
IB+

SWW = ∫ h(y) dy
IB−

The function h describes the depth of the waterway in dependence of the

transversal position y on the waterway. The integration bounds IB+ and IB- can be
obtained by the following equation, with w as the distance of the shore towards the
vessel and Fnh as the depth dependent Froude number.

wstarboard
IB+= min {+(5. F + 5). B
nh
wport ⁡(< 0)
IB−= min {
−(5. Fnh + 5). B
v
Fnh =
√g. h

2.4.4.4 Environmental conditions

For ProToel, the following environmental conditions are of interest:

 Tide
 Currents
 Directional wave spectrum

The tide information is relevant for the calculation of the net UKC while the
directional spectrum also influences the bottom touch probability. The currents
have an influence in the region of the harbour mouth of Zeebrugge, where the
transverse currents may not exceed 2 knots because otherwise the ship is not able
to enter the port.

The directional wave spectra consists of the wave energy and the mean direction,
both in dependence of the wave frequency. Standard wave spectra (without
direction information) can be used to describe typical sea states. For the North
Sea, the 2 parameter JONSWAP (Joint North Sea Wave Observation Project)
spectrum SJ (ω) is applicable, because it takes limited fetch into account. The
spectrum depends on the significant wave height HS and the average period T1 .

26
 944
Hs2 (− 4 4 )
T1 ω . 3,3γ
SJ (ω) = 155. . e
T14 . ω5
(0,191.ω.T1 −1)2
[− ]
γ=e 2.σ2

0,07⁡⁡⁡ω < 5,24/T1

σ={
0,09⁡⁡⁡ω > 5,24/T1

2.4.5 The calculations

Based on those input parameters, ProToel calculates the UKC, the manoeuvring
margin and the bottom touch probability for a specific ship following the route with
a chosen speed along the trajectory. The route is split into several intervals. In
each interval, the UKC are calculated based on bottom depth, up-to-date current
and tide data and the speed dependent squat. The bottom touch probability and
manoeuvring margin are calculated from the directional wave spectrum for that
time, location and the motion characteristics of the ship. The results of each
interval are stored and can be displayed after computation.

27
2.5 Bottom analysis
2.5.1 Introduction
In a research assignment conducted by MARIN and Ghent University (division of
Maritime Technology), an algorithm was developed to convert raw sounding data
of the sea bottom into manageable ECS-charts and dredging charts [7]. A
conservative approach is safe but can lead to lower allowed drafts or high dredging
costs. A progressive approach may compromise the safety. The ultimate aim of the
study was to formulate a proposal for an algorithm that converts the soundings in a
value of the equivalent depth for each grid cell in such a way that this depth doesn’t
influence the safe sailing behaviour of the ship.

Today, two different algorithms are in use. Rijkswaterstaat, part of the Dutch
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, uses the lowest depth of each grid
cell of 10 to 10 meters. Afdeling Kust works with the average depth of a grid cell of
10 to 10 meters. In area’s where the bottom is rather flat, these algorithms will lead
to similar results. In ribble area’s though, large differences can occur.

Since the aim of this thesis is to link a certain depth value to the trajectory points,
the assumptions made in this assignment are very interesting. The most important
results are discussed in this section.

2.5.2 The effect of bottom variations on the needed

under keel clearance

2.5.2.1 Squat

Sinkage and trim of the ship under the influence of its own speed depends on
several parameters: the ship’s speed, geometric characteristics, water depth, and
the nature of the channel. A variety of (semi-) empirical formulas give an estimation
of the squat as a function of these parameters. The influence of the water depth is
clear: a greater depth leads to a smaller return flow, which results in a smaller
sinkage of the ship. The effect of bottom variations has been studied by the
Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau (BAW) in Hamburg [18]. This study showed that the
squat above a bottom with large depth variations approached the squat above a
horizontal bottom with a level corresponding with the average depth of the ribble
area. This squat reduction allows a smaller gross UKC with respect to this
shallowest point or it allows defining an equivalent bottom level that results in the
same margin with respect to this most shallow point. This reasoning is explained in
Figure 17 to Figure 20.

28
Figure 17: Principle of the equivalent bottom in relation to squat (a)

The sinkage of the ship due to squat above the actual bottom, can approximately
be set equal to the sinkage that the ship would undergo above a horizontal, flat
bottom through the most shallow point.

Figure 18: Principle of the equivalent bottom in relation to squat (b)

The squat that would occur when the ship sails above a horizontal bottom through
the most shallow point of the channel is larger than the squat occurring above the
actual bottom.

29
Figure 19: Principle of the equivalent bottom in relation to squat (c)

This means that the margin between keel and bottom is larger when the ship sails
above the actual, variable bottom, in comparison with the situation in which the
ship sails above a horizontal bottom through the shallowest point. If one decides to
choose the red dot and dash line as a representation of the actual bottom, the
displayed margin is smaller than in reality.

The equivalent bottom can now be defined in such a way that the actual margin
remains the same; this is shown by the green dot and dash line. The equivalent
bottom for squat is therefore located under the minimal bottom depth. The level
difference equals the difference in squat between the actual and the minimal
bottom.

30
Figure 20: Principle of the equivalent bottom in relation to squat (d)

To define the magnitude of this squat reduction, a method was used based on the
calculation of the return flow around the ship sailing in a (wide) channel. Starting
from a certain draft (14,1m) and gross UKC (15%), the effect of increased water
depth was tested. Under these conditions, the increased water depth gave rise to a
decrease of the sinkage of 10 to 12% of the deepening.

In the determination of the equivalent bottom, this squat effect will be taken into
account. The squat will be calculated starting from the average depth and not the
minimal depth. This leads to the following expression when only the effect of squat
is contemplated.

(squat)
heq = hmin + 0,10(hgem − hmin ) = 0,90hmin + 0,10hgem

For a uniform ribble area with peak to valley values of 1m, this means a deepening
of about 0,05m.

2.5.2.2 Vertical movement of the ship caused by wave action

The vertical movement of the water level caused by the wave action can only be
described in a probabilistic way. To calculate the probability of exceedance of a
value for the wave height, it is sufficient to only know one parameter: the significant
wave height Hs . The significant wave height equals 4 times the standard deviation
of the time lapse of the instantaneous water level. The distribution of these water
levels can be assumed to be normal.

For all (linear depending) effects of the wave action, for example the ship’s vertical
movements, an analogous reasoning applies. The vertical position of the ship

31
oscillates around an average level; the time lapse of the instantaneous level is
characterized by the significant amplitude and equals 2 times the standard
deviation of the vertical position.

If the significant amplitude of the vertical movement of a point of the ship is known,
the probabilities of exceedance of a certain critical value can be calculated. For a
ship sailing in a shallow channel this critical value will match the available UKC
after deduction of other vertical movements like squat.

The safety margin against bottom tough for a ship sailing in waves above a
horizontal bottom depends therefore on two parameters:

 The fraction of the UKC available for the vertical movements under the
influence of waves.
 The size of the significant amplitude of the vertical movement of the ship,
or the related standard deviation of the time lapse of the vertical position of
the most critical point around the average level.

Foregoing is illustrated in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Vertical movement of the ship above a horizontal bottom

In Figure 22, the actual bottom is considered. The relative vertical distance
between a point of the ship and the underlying point of the bottom isn’t relevant for
an area with short ribbles. The ship’s keel can never reach this area without
touching it at some point. It makes no sense to consider the vertical movement in
relation to the actual bottom. A more accurate method is to define an effective
bottom shown in Figure 23.

32
Figure 22: Relative vertical movement of the ship in relation to the actual bottom

Figure 23: Effective bottom

The effective bottom consists of grid cells of 10m to 10m, each containing a
horizontal level through the most shallow point. In this way, the unattainable points
of the ship are eliminated and the relative movement of the ship in relation to the
effective bottom is considered (See Figure 24).

Of this effective bottom, an average depth and standard deviation is determined.

This is done over a sufficiently large zone, relevant for the dimensions of the tide
dependent ships. With this in mind, grid cells of 50m to 100m are considered.

33
Figure 24: Vertical movement of the ship above the effective bottom

The relative vertical movement of the ship in relation to the effective bottom
oscillates around an average value with a standard deviation. The standard
deviation can be composed of the standard deviations of both the absolute vertical
movements as well as the effective bottom.

2
𝛔RBeff = √𝛔2VM + 𝛔eff
B

To obtain the same safety margin above the effective bottom as for the horizontal
bottom, the space ZVM is calculated next. First, the relative vertical movement of
the ship in relation to the average effective bottom level is considered; therefore,
the standard deviations of the vertical movement and the standard deviation of the
effective bottom are composed.

To remain the same safety level, the needed space between the average keel level
and the average effective bottom has to increase proportionally:

2
√𝛔VM + 𝛔Beff2 2
𝛔eff
RB 𝛔eff
B
ZRB = ZVB = ZVB = ZVB √1 + ( )
𝛔VB 𝛔VB 𝛔VB

34
Figure 25: Relative vertical movement of the ship above the average effective bottom

The needed space ZRM between the average levels of keel and effective bottom is
larger than the needed space ZVM between the average keel level and a horizontal
bottom. The difference is ZRM − ZVM . In Figure 26, a horizontal plane at this
distance above the average effective bottom is shown.

Figure 26: Representation of the equivalent bottom

35
Between this plane and the average keel level, a minimal space of ZVM needs to be
provided, in order to obtain the same safety level as above a horizontal bottom. If
the ship uses the same UKC with respect to this level as to the horizontal bottom,
the same safety margin is used. The surface defined in this way, can therefore be
regarded as the equivalent bottom.

2
𝛔eff
B
heff
gem − heq = ZRB − ZVB = (√1 + ( ) − 1) ZVB,min
𝛔VB

To be able to calculate the equivalent bottom depth, some assumptions have to be

made. The fraction of the UKC needed for the vertical movements of the ship can
be estimated by 1,0m and for the significant amplitude of motions, 2⁡𝛔VM , a value of
0,5m is taken.

If also the effect of squat is considered, the following equation for the equivalent
bottom is obtained:

eff 2 eff
heq = heff
gem − (5,45(𝛔B ) + 0,28𝛔B ) + 0,10(hgem − hmin )

36
Chapter 3

Preliminary studies

3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, ProToel is used to investigate container shipping between
Deurganckdok – Kwintebank and between Kwintebank – Sloehaven. The
calculations on the trajectory KWI – SLO were performed before the choice to
investigate DGD – KWI as the main trajectory. However, the results of this section
were also useful and are added in this chapter.

Figure 27: Location of Kwintebank, Sloehaven and Deurganckdok

The calculations are based on predicted sea states and environmental data of the
year 2011. To shorten the calculations, only the month December is taken into
account, which represents 58 possible tidal windows. The selected locations of the
measurements for the wave spectra are shown in Figure 28

Figure 28: Locations for the data for the wave spectra

37
Table 4 shows the dimensions of ship W092 for which the calculations were
performed. The draft will be varied within a relevant range of loading conditions
with steps of 2 dm.

Table 4: Ship dimensions of W092

Type Containership
Length over all (m) 365,0
Breadth (m) 51,2
Draft (dm) 145-159

The assigned tidal windows are based on two probabilistic criteria:

 Bottom touch probability (BTP) < ⁡ 10−4

 Bottom touch probability (BTP) < ⁡ 10−4 ⁡AND Manoeuvring Margin (MM) >
5%

For a relevant range of drafts, it was examined whether the criteria were met in
function of the departure time. For this purpose, December was divided into 4392
intervals of 10 minutes so that the departure time was changed in a 10 minutes
interval.

First, the tidal window characteristics are calculated for DGD-KWI. For this
calculation, the target depth of each region (and therefore trajectory point) is
chosen with a very small standard deviation: σ = 0,01m. Next, the critical trajectory
points were determined and the influence of a change in depth for the most critical
point was investigated. This chapter ends with a test on the influence of the bottom
depth’s standard deviation on the tidal windows.

38
3.2 Tidal characteristics for containerships
(W092) leaving Deurganckdok
For two probabilistic criteria, the maximal duration of the tidal window is determined
for each tide cycle. The results of the post processing in Matlab are shown in Table
5 and Figure 29.

Table 5: Tidal window characteristics DGD-KWI (December 2011)

𝐁𝐓𝐏 < 𝟏𝟎−𝟒 𝐁𝐓𝐏 < 𝟏𝟎−𝟒 ⁡&⁡𝐌𝐌 > 𝟓%

Window for 90%

Window for 10%

Window for 90%

Window for 10%

of cycli (min)
Draught (dm)

of cycli (min)

of cycli (min)

of cycli (min)
# windows /

# windows /
# tidal cycli

# tidal cycli
145 190 373 1,05 150 333 1,03
147 157 333 0,98 127 276 0,98
149 130 300 0,97 90 240 0,95
151 97 260 0,97 50 200 0,95
153 81 220 0,93 37 170 0,93
155 51 183 0,95 7 130 0,93
157 0 150 0,90 0 100 0,84
159 0 120 0,84 0 70 0,72

420
Length of tidal window (min)

360 BTP<0,0001: 90%

percentile
300 BTP<0,0001: 10%
percentile
240
BTP<0,0001 &
180 MM>5%: 90%
percentile
120 BTP<0,0001 &
MM>5%: 10%
percentile
60
140 150 160
Draft (dm)
Figure 29: Tidal window characteristics for DGD-KWI

39
3.3 Determination of the critical trajectory points
3.3.1 With the target depths allocated to the TP
In this section, the regions causing the largest constraint for the duration and
number of the tidal windows are determined. ProToel defines the most critical
trajectory point both for the opening and for the closure of the tidal windows. An
overview of the critical trajectory points and the number of times they are critical is
shown in Table 6. On Belgian territory, especially Scheur Oost I (point 7) is critical,
mostly for the closure of the tidal windows. Scheur Oost I becomes even more
critical as the draught increases. For example, at a draught of 145dm, point 7 is 15
times the critical point (based on the combined criteria of bottom touch probability
and manoeuvring margin) for closure. This corresponds with 28% of the tidal
windows. At a draught of 153dm, this is 31 times or 58% of the tidal windows. At
even larger draughts, the number of times point 7 becomes critical decreases but
so does the number of available tidal windows.

For ships sailing from Deurganckdok to Kwintebank, this means that the area
between trajectory points 8 and 7 causes the tidal window to close in a majority of
the cases when the draught is more than 145dm. It was decided to concentrate on
this region for the bottom analysis (Chapter 4). The location of trajectory point 7 is
shown in Figure 30.

3.3.2 With an increased depth for the most critical TP

When the bottom depth of trajectory point 7 increases with 1dm, the most critical
trajectory point shifts to TP8. In Table 7, it can be seen that trajectory point 8 is
now the most critical and that TP7 is never determinative for the opening or closure
of the tidal windows. This relative small increase of the bottom depth for section
Scheur Oost I resulted in a new critical section: Scheur Oost II. It was decided to
perform the bottom analysis also for Scheur Oost II (between TP 8 and 9). This
makes a comparison of the results for both regions possible.

40
Figure 30: Location of trajectory point 7

41
Table 6: Number of times a trajectory point becomes critical for the opening or closure of the tidal window

Draft (dm) 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159
BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP
Criteria BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP
& MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM
Tidal window O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 6
7 1 12 1 15 14 20 1 16 1 25 21 28 25 31 31 28 29 26 23 20
8 5 9 8 11 10 7 9 3 7
13 34 27 28 19 23 17 14 13 12 12 10 11 1 10 1 10 10 9
Trajectorypoints

23 5 2 1
25 5 2
33 10 1 6 2 1
35 19 2 12 1 9 3 2
37 15 2 15 1 27 1 9 1 27 1 3 1 23 1 1 1 12 4 1 1 1 1 2 1
39 3 2
42 2 35 2 2 2 44 2 12 3 50 3 27 6 53 6 39 7 53 7 49 11 51 9 49 12 43 6 48 13 39 5

42
Table 7: Number of times a trajectory point becomes critical for the opening or closure of the tidal window (with depth of point 7: +1dm)

Draft (dm) 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159
BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP
Criteria BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP
& MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM
Tidal window O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 4 3 5 2 5 4 6 8 15
7
8 1 16 1 23 22 31 1 24 1 30 29 29 30 28 28 24 24 22 17 10
13 34 27 28 19 23 17 14 14 13 13 12 13 1 11 1 11 10 10
Trajectorypoints

23 5 2 1
25 5 2
33 10 1 6 2 1
35 19 2 12 1 9 3 2
37 15 2 15 1 27 1 9 1 27 1 3 1 23 1 1 1 12 4 1 1 1 1 2 1
39 3 2
42 2 35 2 2 2 44 2 12 3 50 3 27 6 53 6 39 7 53 7 49 11 51 9 49 12 43 6 48 13 39 5

43
3.4 Study of the standard deviation
For the calculations of the tidal windows, one of the input parameters is the bottom
depth in combination with a certain standard deviation on this value. A well-chosen
value for this parameter will depend on the chosen bottom depth and on the
considered area. Calculations were therefore carried out in order to estimate the
effect of the standard deviation on the number and duration of the tidal windows for
a ship (W092) with a draft of 159dm sailing from Kwintebank to Sloehaven. The
duration of the tidal windows is shown for following standard deviations:

0,01m-0,05m-0,10m-0,20m-0,30m

Figure 31 shows the result. As expected, the tidal windows become smaller with
increasing variation on the bottom depth.

Figure 31: Effect of the standard deviation of the bottom depth on the tidal window
characteristics for a container vessel sailing from Antwerp to Kwintebank
(W092_DGDKWI)

44
Chapter 4

Study of the most critical areas

4.1 Scheur Oost I

Scheur Oost I is the most critical area of the sea route for ships sailing from
Deurganckdok to Kwintebank. This region will therefore be used as the main test
section for the bottom analysis. Figure 33 shows the complete Scheur (Oost and
West). The trajectory is subdivided in smaller areas, each with a specific target
depth. The trajectory points are situated at the beginning and at the end of each
section, in the middle of the channel.

Scheur Oost I is situated between the eastings 509875-513750 and the northings
5694375-5694875. The target depth is 155dm. Figure 32 shows that the area is
further divided into sections S511 and S513.

Figure 32: Detailed view of Scheur Oost I

First, the soundings of S511 are analysed. Over 50 million soundings are available
for this specific area. Section S513 is treated separately as the soundings for this
area had to be selected from a data file containing the soundings of the entire
Scheur Oost area. Afterwards, the results are put together.

45
Figure 33: Location of Scheur Oost I

46
4.1.1 Study of S511
First, the existing Matlab code was adapted in order to read the large data files
containing the sounding data of S511. Once read, the area was divided into grid
cells of 1m2 each containing the average depth of all measurements of that m2 .
Those values form the basis for further calculations and contain the highest level of
detail. In Figure 34, S511 is plotted based on the average values for 1m2 . The sea
channel is located at the top of the figure.

Figure 34: Soudings of S511, avg1

Later on, larger grid cells (50m to 100m) will be introduced. Those grid cells are
positioned horizontally in contrast to the channel that has a certain inclination.
Without a modification of the Matlab code, some of the soundings located outside
the channel are used for the calculation of bottom characteristics from the channel.

Those shallow areas are not of interest and will influence the results in a negative
way. The solution consists of a rotation of the area. The grid cells of 50m to 100m
can now be chosen in a way that they are located completely in the channel, see
Figure 35. The result of this rotation is shown in Figure 36.

47
Figure 35: Positioning grid cells with respect to the sea channel

Figure 36: Soundings of S511 (rotated), avg1

48
Because the sea channel is 500m wide, only the area between 150m and 650m
northings is considered from now on. For different sized grid cells, the average and
minimum bottom depth is calculated as well as the standard deviation. An overview
of the most interesting characteristics is given in Table 8.

Table 8: Parameters with their specific naming

Avg1 Average value for 1m2

Min(Avg1) Absolute minimum of Avg1 values
Avg3avg1 Average of 9 avg1 (3m by 3m)
Min(Avg3avg1) Absolute minimum of Avg3avg1 values
Min10avg1 Minimum of 100 avg1 (10m by 10m)
Min30avg1 Minimum of 900 avg1 (30m by 30m)
Avg10avg1 Average of 100 avg1 (10m by 10m)
Avg50_100min10avg1 Average of 50 min10avg1 (50m by 100m)
Avg50_100avg10avg1 Average of 50 avg10avg1 (50m by 100m)
Min50_100min10avg1 Minimum of 50 min10 avg1 (50m by 100m)
Std50_100min10avg1 Standard deviation of 50 min10avg1 (50m by 100m)
Avg50_100avg3avg1 Average of 556 avg3avg1 (50m by 100m)
Min50_100avg3avg1 Minimum of 556 avg3avg1 (50m by 100m)
Std50_100avg3avg1 Standard deviation of 556 avg3avg1 (50m by 100m)
Avg50_100avg1 Average of 5000 avg1 (50m by 100m)
Min50_100avg1 Minimum of 5000 avg1 (50m by 100m)
Std50_100avg1 Standard deviation of 5000 avg1 (50m by 100m)

Now, bottom characteristics for different grid cell sizes are calculated. For some
grid cells, the calculation resulted in Not A Number (NaN). For these cells, at least
1m2 didn’t contain information about the bottom depth. To avoid this problem, the
commands nanmean and nanmin were used. Those commands allow calculating
average and minimum values neglecting the empty grid cells.

The results for grid cells of 50m to 100m are displayed graphically. The most
important results are discussed next. Sometimes, reference is made to an
Appendix, as not all figures are attached in the actual text. The calculations are
also executed for grid cells of 10m to 10m and for 30m to 30m. Those results are
summarized in histograms.

49
Figure 39 shows the minima for each grid cell of 50m to 100m starting from the
values for avg3avg1. To compare those minima with the target depth, the values
are plotted in a histogram with steps of 1dm.

Figure 37: Histogram Min50_100avg3avg1 for S511

The average bottom depth is 15,59m. The absolute minimum for section S511 is
14,66m. This is almost 1m lower than the target depth (15,50m) in this area.
However, the grid cell with this value is found at the edge of the channel and
probably contains soundings that do not belong to the channel. Indeed, the lowest
values are located in the upper and lower row grid cells. It is assumed that the
deep drafted ships won’t sail so close to the edge of the channel so that the width
of the channel is limited to 400m for the further calculations. When the values at
the edge of the channel are disregarded, the histogram shown in Figure 38 is
found.

Figure 38: Histogram Min50_100avg3avg1 for S511 (400m wide)

The minimum value is now 15,40m and only 3 grid cells don’t reach the target
depth. The average value is 15,67m. The standard deviation is lowered from 0,21m
to 0,10m as only the 400m-width channel is regarded. This is because the less
deep values at the edge are not taken into account.

50
Figure 39: Min50_100avg3avg1 for S511

51
Figure 40: Std50_100avg3avg1 for S511

52
Now the minima are determined starting from the average values for each m2
(avg1), the result of this calculation is attached in Appendix A. The effect of this
modification is shown in Figure 43 where the difference between the two methods
is illustrated. Starting from the average value for an area of 3m to 3m, the lowest
values are averaged so that the minima for each grid cell are somewhat higher.
This is also illustrated in Figure 41.

Figure 41: Histogram Min50_100avg1 for S511 (400m wide)

The average and minimum values are around 5cm lower than for
Min50_100avg3avg1.

When smaller grid cells are considered (30m by 30m or 10m by 10m), the average
bottom depth will increase. Indeed, when a small depth is linked to a larger grid cell
(the minimum of this cell), it will weight more than if this value is linked to a grid cell
of 10m by 10m. In the second case, the neighbouring cells can contain a higher
value, leading to a larger average depth. The absolute minimum however does not
change. The histograms and characteristics for grid cells of 30m to 30m and for
cells of 10m to 10 m are shown in Figure 42 and Figure 44.

Figure 42: Histogram Min30avg1 for S511 (400 wide)

53
Figure 43: Min50_100avg3avg1-Min50_100avg1 for S511

54
Figure 44: Histogram Min10avg1 for S511 (400m wide)

An overview of the characteristics of S511 is given in Table 9.

Table 9: Bottom characteristics for S511

Average Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum

(m) (m) (m) (m)
Min50_100avg1 (m) 15,63 0,11 15,33 15,87
Std50_100avg1 (m) 0,05 0,01 0,02 0,10
Min50_100avg3avg1 (m) 15,67 0,10 15,40 15,90
Std50_100avg3avg1 (m) 0,04 0,01 0,02 0,10
Min50_100avg3avg1 –
0,04 0,05 0,00 0,33
Min50_100avg1 (m)
Min30gem1 15,68 0,11 15,33 15,94
Min10gem1 15,73 0,11 15,33 16,07
EqB50_100 (m) 15,72 0,10 15,51 15,94
EqB50_100 –
0,09 0,05 0,03 0,29
Min50_100avg1 (m)
EqB50_100 –
0,05 0,02 0,01 0,20
Min50_100avg3avg1 (m)

55
4.1.2 Study of S513
Section S513 is located next to S511 between the eastings 512000 and 513750
and northings 5694500 and 5696000. The study of this area is analogous to the
one of S511. Again, the average value of the soundings for each m2 is used to plot
the area (Figure 45 and Figure 46).

Figure 45: Soundings of S513, avg1

Figure 46: Soundings of S513 (rotated), avg1

56
In Figure 49 the values for Min50_100avg3avg1 are displayed. As illustrated in the
histogram (Figure 47), it can be noticed that some values are significantly deeper
than the target depth. This deeper area causes a larger average depth but also a
larger standard deviation.

Figure 47: Histogram Min50_100avg3avg1 for S513 (400m wide)

Figure 50 shows the standard deviation of the avg3avg1-values in each grid cell of
50m to 100m. These values are higher than for S511 because of the presence of
so-called ribbles. Those ribble areas are characterized by relative large bottom
depth variations within a small distance.

When the avg1 is used for the calculations, the following histograms are
composed. The conclusions are similar to those of section S511.

Figure 48: Histogram Min50_100avg1 for S513 (400m wide)

57
Figure 49: Min50_100avg3avg1 for S513

58
Figure 50: Std50_100avg3avg1 for S513

59
Figure 51: Min50_100avg3avg1-Min50_100avg1 for S513

60
Figure 52: Histogram Min30avg1 for S513 (400m wide)

Figure 53: Histogram Min10avg1 for S513 (400m wide)

An overview of the characteristics for S513 is given in Table 10.

Table 10: Bottom characteristics for S513

Average Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum

(m) (m) (m) (m)
Min50_100avg1 15,86 0,24 15,38 16,48
Min50_100avg3avg1 15,94 0,23 15,46 16,53
Std50_100avg3avg1 0,12 0,05 0,05 0,28
Min50_100avg3avg1-
0,08 0,06 0,00 0,25
Min50_100avg1
Min30gem1 15,94 0,25 15,32 16,67
Min10gem1 16,04 0,26 15,32 16,94
EqB50_100 16,01 0,23 15,54 16,62
EqB50_100 –
0,15 0,06 0,07 0,35
Min50_100avg1
EqB50_100 –
0,07 0,05 -0,05 0,20
Min50_100avg3avg1

61
4.2 Scheur Oost II
The second most critical area in the sea trajectory is situated in Scheur Oost II
between trajectory points 8 and 9 (See Figure 56). For this section (between the
eastings 513750 and 518000), a target depth of 154 dm is valid. It is useful to
investigate also this area because the results can be compared with those of test
section Scheur Oost I.

Figure 54 and Figure 55 show the depth measurements for the area between
trajectory points 8 and 9. Again, the sea channel is rotated. To be able to visualise
the results of the calculations, the channel is divided in two sections.

Figure 54: Soundings of Scheur Oost II (between TP 8 and 9), avg1

Figure 55: Soundings of Scheur Oost II (between TP 8 and 9) (rotated), avg1

62
Figure 56: Location of Scheur Oost II

63
The histograms shown in Figure 57 and in Figure 58 show that few grid cells don’t
reach the target depth. A lot of areas are much deeper that 15,40m.

Figure 57: Histogram Min50_100avg3avg1 for SOII (400m wide)

Figure 58: Histogram Min50_100avg1 for SOII (400m wide)

An overview of the characteristics for Scheur Oost II is given in Table 11.

Table 11: Bottom characteristics for Scheur Oost II (between TP8 & TP9)

Average Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum

(m) (m) (m) (m)
Min50_100avg1 15,87 0,37 15,23 17,03
Min50_100avg3avg1 15,97 0,39 15,30 17,02
Std50_100avg3avg1 0,13 0,06 0,02 0,29
Min50_100avg3avg1-
Min50_100avg1
EqB50_100 16,03 0,39 15,36 17,16
EqB50_100 –
0,16 0,06 0,00 0,41
Min50_100avg1
EqB50_100 –
0,06 0,06 -0,05 0,27
Min50_100avg3avg1

64
Figure 59: Min50_100avg3avg1 for SOII (part 1)

65
Figure 60: Min50_100avg3avg1 for SOII (part 2)

66
Figure 61: Min50_100avg3avg1-Min50_100avg1 for SOII (part 1)

67
Figure 62: Min50_100avg3avg1-Min50_100avg1 for SOII (part 2)

68
Chapter 5

Influence of bottom depth on the tidal

windows

5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the tidal windows for the route Antwerp Deurganckdok –
Kwintebank (DGD-KWI) are calculated using different strategies. The choice for a
certain bottom depth is based on the results of Chapter 4. For the different bottom
depth parameters, the name codes given in Table 8 are used in this chapter. The
duration of the obtained tidal windows is compared to the results of section 3.2.

5.2 Uniform bottom depth

In the first method, a bottom profile with a uniform depth is assumed. A uniform
depth can be implemented in ProToel when a very small standard deviation is
chosen. The calculations were executed with a standard deviation of 0,01m for 2
choices of the bottom depth.

The absolute minimum value of avg1, Min(Avg1), for Scheur Oost I is 15,32m
(15,32m for S511 and 15,38m for S513). In Scheur Oost II, the minimum of all
avg1’s is 15,23m. In both cases, the absolute minimum is about 0,20m smaller
than the target depth (15,50m and 15,40m respectively). It was decided to allocate
a bottom depth of (target depth – 0,20m) for all waypoints located in the sea
trajectory (TP1 to TP14).

The absolute minimum of the avg3avg1 values, Min(Avg3avg1), for Scheur Oost I
is 15,40m (15,40m for S511 and 15,46m for S513) and for Scheur Oost II 15,30m.
In both cases, this is exactly 0,10m below the target depth. Again, the tidal
windows are determined based on the assumption that the bottom depth in
ProToel can be put in as the (target depth – 0,10m) for all the trajectory points
located in the sea trajectory.

The results of both calculations are shown in Table 12.

69
Table 12: Tidal windows for different draughts when a uniform depth based on Min(Avg1) and Min (Avg3avg1) is assumed

𝐁𝐓𝐏 < 𝟏𝟎−𝟒 𝐁𝐓𝐏 < 𝟏𝟎−𝟒 ⁡&⁡𝐌𝐌 > 𝟓%

Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # windows / # tidal Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # windows / # tidal
cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli

Draught
Min(Avg3avg1)

Min(Avg3avg1)

Min(Avg3avg1)

Min(Avg3avg1)

Min(Avg3avg1)

Min(Avg3avg1)
(dm)
Min(Avg1)

Min(Avg1)

Min(Avg1)

Min(Avg1)

Min(Avg1)

Min(Avg1)
145 181 194 425 442 1,15 1,17 134 144 273 280 0,95 0,95
147 154 160 330 340 1,09 1,05 97 114 233 236 0,98 0,95
149 117 124 280 290 0,97 1,02 57 57 190 200 0,93 0,95
151 100 100 253 260 0,97 0,95 34 44 160 170 0,93 0,93
153 37 60 210 220 0,95 0,95 7 14 130 133 0,91 0,93
155 0 7 170 180 0,90 0,90 0 0 100 113 0,84 0,84
157 0 0 140 150 0,88 0,90 0 0 80 80 0,72 0,78
159 0 0 120 130 0,88 0,84 0 0 50 50 0,66 0,69

70
When the duration of the tidal windows determined for both input depths
(Min(Avg1) and Min(Avg3avg1)) is compared, it can be noticed that an increase of
the bottom depth of 1dm causes the tidal windows to become somewhat larger.
When the target depth is used, an additional increase is obtained. Especially the
tidal windows resulting from the combined criteria of BTP and MM benefit from this
larger bottom depth. In Figure 63, the duration of the tidal windows is shown for 3
different input parameters.

Figure 63: Tidal windows for different uniform depths

71
5.3 Higher depth with varying standard deviation
In this section, the tidal windows are calculated starting from the average depth
based on Min50_100avg3avg1 with the standard deviation of those values. When
the values for Scheur Oost I are plotted, it can be noticed that the average depth is
0,30m deeper than the target depth (see Figure 64). The standard deviation of all
the Min50_100avg3avg1 values is 0,22. For the calculations of the tidal windows
with ProToel, a bottom depth of (TD-0,30m) with a standard deviation of 0,20m is
assumed for all the waypoints located in the sea trajectory. The results are shown
in Table 13 and can be compared with the tidal windows obtained using the target
depth as input.

Figure 64: Histogram of Min50_100avg3avg1 compared with normal distribution

It can be noticed that the tidal windows are shorter even tough an increased
bottom depth was used. This illustrates again the importance of the standard
deviation. ProToel assumes a normal distribution of bottom depths and therefore
expects some measurements to be smaller than the actual minimum value. This is
also illustrated in Figure 64. In this example, the percentage covered by the
marked area can be determined using the following formula and the normal
distribution table (Table 19 in Appendix C).

15,40 − 15,80
P(X ≤ 15,40) = P (Z ≤ ) ≈ ϕ(−1,80) = 3,5%
0,22

1 percentage of the assumed bottom distribution will even be smaller than 15,29m.
The BTP for those small bottom depths will be significantly higher than for the
actual minimal depth. This causes the tidal windows to shorten.

72
The influence of the standard deviation can also be shown by calculating the tidal
windows for a bottom profile without taking into account the deepest areas. Figure
65 shows the same histogram as before but leaves out all the values higher than
16,0m. The average bottom depth is of course lowered but so is the standard
deviation. The tidal windows are now determined for bottom depth values of 0,20m
below the target depth with a standard deviation of 0,14m. This last adjustment
causes larger tidal windows than those calculated with the deeper areas, which is
not realistic. It can be concluded that this method is not suitable for the
implementation of the bottom depth.

Figure 65: Histogram of Min50_100avg3avg1 without values above 16,0m

73
Table 13: Tidal windows for different draughts when a higher depth with varying standard deviations is assumed

𝐁𝐓𝐏 < 𝟏𝟎−𝟒 𝐁𝐓𝐏 < 𝟏𝟎−𝟒 ⁡&⁡𝐌𝐌 > 𝟓%

Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # Windows / # tidal Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # Windows / # tidal
Draught cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli
(dm)

TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD- TD-
TD TD TD TD TD TD
0,30m 0,20m 0,30m 0,20m 0,30m 0,20m 0,30m 0,20m 0,30m 0,20m 0,30m 0,20m
σ=0,01 σ=0,01 σ=0,01 σ=0,01 σ=0,01 σ=0,01
σ=0,20 σ=0,14 σ=0,20 σ=0,14 σ=0,20 σ=0,14 σ=0,20 σ=0,14 σ=0,20 σ=0,14 σ=0,20 σ=0,14
145 190 155 168 373 386 415 1,05 1,12 1,16 150 100 124 333 273 290 1,03 0,97 0,97
147 157 118 144 333 310 323 0,98 1,07 1,05 127 67 87 276 223 240 0,98 0,95 0,95
149 130 37 107 300 270 283 0,97 0,97 0,95 90 21 51 240 200 210 0,95 0,90 0,91
151 97 0 64 260 240 260 0,97 0,93 0,97 50 0 21 200 170 190 0,95 0,90 0,93
153 81 0 7 220 193 210 0,93 0,90 0,91 37 0 0 170 140 150 0,93 0,83 0,88
155 51 0 0 183 160 170 0,95 0,84 0,90 7 0 0 130 110 120 0,93 0,74 0,81
157 0 0 0 150 130 150 0,90 0,76 0,86 0 0 0 100 80 93 0,84 0,64 0,74
159 0 0 0 120 100 120 0,84 0,71 0,76 0 0 0 70 50 70 0,72 0,50 0,55

74
5.4 Actual depth based on the histogram of the
bottom distribution
To solve the problem explained in section 5.3, the following method was applied.
Firstly, the bottom depth measurements were plotted in a histogram with a step
width of 1dm. This way, the measurements were assigned to a certain interval
each containing a percentage of the total number of depth-values. For the following
calculations, the distributions of Min50_100avg3avg1 and Min10avg1 obtained
from Scheur Oost I will be used. Theretofore, the histograms of sections S511 and
S513 were combined (Figure 66 and Figure 67).

Figure 66: Histogram of Min50_100avg3avg1 for Scheur Oost I

Figure 67: Histogram of Min10avg1 for Scheur Oost I

75
Each interval now contains the number of grid cells with the corresponding depth.
The contribution of a certain interval on the total bottom touch probability will
depend on the number of measurements within the interval. In this way weight
factors are introduced. The weight factors for Min50_100avg3avg1 and Min10avg1
are obtained after rounding the actual percentages of measurements in the
interval. The results are shown in Table 14 and Table 15.

Table 14: Determination of the weight factors for Min50_100avg3avg1 (Scheur Oost I)

Number of
Interval Percentage Weight factor
measurements
[TD-1dm, TD] 7 2,5 2,5
[TD, TD+1dm] 44 15,8 15,0
[TD+1dm, TD+2dm] 68 24,4 25,0
[TD+2dm, TD+3dm] 45 16,1 15,0
[TD+3dm, TD+4dm] 40 14,3 15,0
[TD+4dm, TD+5dm] 25 9,0 10,0
[TD+5dm, TD+6dm] 25 9,0 10,0
[TD+6dm, TD+7dm] 12 4,3
[TD+7dm, TD+8dm] 5 1,8 7,5
[TD+8dm, …] 8 2,8

Table 15: Determination of the weight factors for Min10avg1 (Scheur Oost I)

Number of
Interval Percentage Weight factor
measurements
[TD-2dm, TD-1dm] 6 0,0 0,0
[TD-1dm, TD] 126 0,9 1,0
[TD, TD+1dm] 1160 8,2 10,0
[TD+1dm, TD+2dm] 2520 17,8 15,0
[TD+2dm, TD+3dm] 2980 21,0 20,0
[TD+3dm, TD+4dm] 1960 13,8 15,0
[TD+4dm, TD+5dm] 1590 11,2 10,0
[TD+5dm, TD+6dm] 1190 8,5 10,0
[TD+6dm, TD+7dm] 1060 7,5
[TD+7dm, TD+8dm] 670 4,7 19,0
[TD+8dm, …] 914 6,4

Secondly, the bottom touch probability for different bottom depth intervals needs to
be considered. In order to take this difference into account, the bottom touch
probability was calculated with ProToel for bottom depths varying from TD-2dm to
TD+6dm with a standard deviation of 0,01m.

76
This resulted in 9 csv-files, each containing the bottom touch probability for all
trajectory points for the month of December (with intervals of 10min) and based on
a certain bottom depth. The results show quite logically that the bottom touch
probabilities overall decrease for the deeper bottom depth intervals.

The third and final step of the method is to combine the weight factors derived from
the bottom depth distribution with the bottom touch probability for the different
bottom depth intervals. The total bottom touch probability can now be determined
according to following formula:

BTPTotaal = ∑i BTPi × WFi

The calculation of the total BTP is done in Excel for eight different draughts. The
obtained files are saved as csv-files. Those csv-files are than used for the post
processing with Matlab. This resulted in the tidal windows shown in Table 16. (It is
striking that the tidal windows are exactly equal for both histograms. Apparently,
the level of detail of the bottom profile is not that important. As long as the grid cells
are not too high, the tidal windows will not differ much.

77
Table 16: Tidal windows for different draughts based on the histograms of the actual bottom (AB) and for TD with σ=0,01m

𝐁𝐓𝐏 < 𝟏𝟎−𝟒 𝐁𝐓𝐏 < 𝟏𝟎−𝟒 ⁡&⁡𝐌𝐌 > 𝟓%

Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # Windows / # tidal Window for 90% of Window for 10% of # Windows / # tidal
Draught cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli cycli (min) cycli (min) cycli
(dm)

AB AB TD AB AB TD AB AB TD AB AB TD AB AB TD AB AB TD
50_100 10_10 σ=0,01 50_100 10_10 σ=0,01 50_100 10_10 σ=0,01 50_100 10_10 σ=0,01 50_100 10_10 σ=0,01 50_100 10_10 σ=0,01
145 184 184 190 343 343 373 0,97 0,97 1,05 144 144 150 310 310 333 0,97 0,97 1,03
147 137 137 157 310 310 333 0,97 0,97 0,98 117 117 127 260 260 276 0,97 0,97 0,98
149 110 110 130 270 270 300 1,00 1,00 0,97 64 64 90 220 220 240 0,98 0,98 0,95
151 94 94 97 240 240 260 0,93 0,93 0,97 44 44 50 190 190 200 0,93 0,93 0,95
153 57 57 81 210 210 220 0,95 0,95 0,93 21 21 37 163 163 170 0,93 0,93 0,93
155 7 7 51 173 173 183 0,90 0,90 0,95 0 0 7 130 130 130 0,84 0,84 0,93
157 0 0 0 150 150 150 0,90 0,90 0,90 0 0 0 100 100 100 0,78 0,78 0,84
159 0 0 0 120 120 120 0,84 0,84 0,84 0 0 0 70 70 70 0,69 0,69 0,72

78
When the tidal windows (for the combined criteria of BTP & MM) are compared
with the tidal windows obtained, starting from a uniform depth, the effect of
implementing the actual bottom profile becomes clear. Implementing the actual
bottom profile leads to larger tidal windows compared to those based on a uniform
depth through the most shallow point (Min(Avg1) or Min(Avg3avg1)). For the 10%
percentile, a prolongation of about 20 minutes is attained. This is illustrated in
Figure 68. The tidal windows based on the target depth however, still give the best
results. A more detailed comparison between the usage of the target depth and the
actual bottom is given in section 5.5.

Figure 68: Tidal windows for an uniform bottom depth and for the actual bottom depth

In Table 17, the maximum draught resulting in a tidal window in 90% and 10% of
the tide cycles is shown for the different cases. The minimum duration of a tidal
window is set at 60 minutes.

Table 17: Critical draft (dm) for different bottom depth implementations

90% 10%
Actual bottom 149,4 >159,0
Min(Avg3avg1) 148,9 158,3
Min(Avg1) 148,9 158,3
TD(σ=0,01m) 150,5 >159,0

79
5.5 Comparison between the target depth and
the actual bottom profile
The effect of the implementation of the actual bottom profile on the tidal windows
can best be illustrated when a comparison is made with the implementation of the
reference depth (TD with σ=0,01m). Figure 69 shows the influence of the required
manoeuvring margin. The MM turns out to be very dominant especially for the
opening of the tidal windows. In about 25% of the tidal windows, the MM is
determinative for the closure of a window. In maximum 2% of the tidal windows,
the bottom touch probability will be determinative for the length of the tidal
windows.

Figure 69: Container Carriers (W092) leaving Deurganckdok: fraction of the tide
cycles for which the BTP is determinative for the opening and/or closure of the tidal
window or which influences the length of the tidal window in combination with a
minimum MM (Calculations performed with TD and σ=0,01m)

The influence of the manoeuvring margin can also be studied in the case that the
actual bottom profile was implemented in ProToel (Figure 70). Still, the opening
and the length of the tidal windows are mostly determined by the manoeuvring
margin. However, it can be seen that the BTP has become increasingly important
for the closure of the tidal windows. Especially for the smaller draughts, the
manoeuvring margin won’t lead to an additional restriction. The MM will now be
determinative for the closure of the tidal windows in maximum 20% of the tidal
windows. This value is even a lot smaller for most draughts.

80
Figure 70: Container Carriers (W092) leaving Deurganckdok: fraction of the tide
cycles for which the BTP is determinative for the opening and/or closure of the tidal
window or which influences the length of the tidal window in combination with a
minimum MM (Calculation performed with Actual Bottom)

By implementing the actual bottom depth instead of the target depth, the average
UKC will increase. Therefore, the required manoeuvring margin is reached more
easily. This effect is only observed for the closure of the tidal windows because the
areas critical for the opening of the tidal windows are not located in the sea
channel (See Table 18). The actual bottom depth has only been implemented for
the waypoints located in the sea trajectory. Only for those areas, bottom data was
available.

81
Table 18: Number of times a trajectory point becomes critical for the opening or closure of the tidal window (Actual Bottom implemented)

Draft (dm) 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159
BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP
Criteria BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP BTP
& MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM & MM
Tidal window O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C
3 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 20 22 22 24 23 23
7 15 15 18 18 1 25 1 24 26 27 23 22 14 11 8 6 3 4
8
13 1 31 1 31 26 26 18 18 1 14 1 13 12 12 12 13 11 11 10 9
Trajectorypoints

23 1
25
33 6 1 2 1
35 12 3 8 2 3 1
37 30 1 16 33 11 20 3 11 1 4 2 1 1
39 5 2
42 2 33 2 9 3 41 3 29 3 50 3 41 4 52 4 50 8 54 8 51 7 52 6 51 10 47 7 50 14 41 6

82
Chapter 6

Conclusion

6.1 The implementation of the bottom depth in

ProToel
Using historic hydro-meteorological data, the tidal windows for containerships
(W092) leaving the Deurganckdok Terminal were determined based on different
input-values for the bottom depth in order to estimate the effect of this parameter.
To shorten the calculations, only the month of December was considered. For this
month the highest significant wave heights were observed in 2011. The tidal
windows were calculated with the aid of ProToel according to 2 probabilistic
criteria:

 An acceptable bottom touch probability (BTP) of 10−4

 An acceptable bottom touch probability (BTP) of 10−4 and a minimal
required manoeuvring margin of 5% of the ship’s draft

To be able to make a well-advised choice for the bottom depth, this study started
with a detailed bottom analysis of the most critical areas located at the sea
trajectory between Deurganckdok and Kwintebank. Scheur Oost I and part of
Scheur Oost II were found to be frequently determinative for the closure of the tidal
windows. It was therefore decided to concentrate on those two regions for a study
of the bottom depths.

The critical areas were plotted based on the average values for 1m2 and different
bottom characteristics (average, standard deviation, minimum) were illustrated and
compared. On the basis of these results, it was decided to concentrate on the
soundings located within a channel width of 400m. In this way the soundings at the
edges of the channel were eliminated for the further calculations.

The absolute minimum of the Avg1-values was found to be 2dm lower than the
target depth. When the Avg3avg1 values were used, the absolute minimum is
about 1dm lower than the bottom depth. Using the average values for a grid cell of
3m to 3m results in a higher bottom depth because the lowest soundings are
averaged. Histograms of for example Min50_100avg3avg1 showed that there are
also a lot of areas with a depth (much) larger than the minimal depth insured by the
dredging company. The bottom profile in the Scheur Oost is certainly not uniform.

83
The implementation of the bottom depth as an input for ProToel was done in 3
ways. First, a uniform bottom profile through the most shallow point (Min(Avg1) or
Min(Avg3avg1)) was assumed. Setting the standard deviation on a low value of
0,01m resulted in a quasi-uniform bottom depth. This method is still being used but
now the target depths are allocated to the trajectory points. If one wants to use the
sounding data instead of the hypothetic target depth, the use of Min(Avg3avg1) is
recommended. Using up to date bottom data is safer because the target depth is
not always reached. By sedimentation the sea channel can silt between two
dredging executions.

To implement the actual bottom profile, a second method was tried. A higher
bottom depth was allocated to the trajectory points: the target depth (TD) plus
0,30m. Indeed, the average value of Min50_100avg3avg1 for Scheur Oost I was
found to be 0,30m deeper than the TD. The standard deviation was 0,22m. This
region was supposed to be representative for the other trajectory points on the sea
trajectory. The tidal windows were calculated using TD-0,30m and σ=0,20m and
compared to those obtained with the uniform bottom depth. Using the average
bottom depth with the standard deviation resulted in smaller tidal windows than
when a uniform depth through the least deep point is assumed. When the standard
deviation becomes too high, the probability of unrealistic shallow areas will
increase. ProToel assumes a normal distributed bottom profile but in reality, the
shallowest areas are constantly removed due to dredging.

In the end, a method was developed to approach the actual bottom profile, without
the use of a high standard deviation. The bottom touch probability was composed
based on the BTP’s for varying input depths with a small standard deviation. The
contribution of each BTP depended on the number of depth measurements found
in the respective interval. The tidal windows were then calculated using the
composed bottom touch probability.

This study ended with a comparison between the results obtained when the target
depth is used as an input parameter and when the actual bottom is used. The
implementation of the actual bottom profile resulted in a higher average UKC and
therefore a higher manoeuvring margin. The most critical area in the sea trajectory,
Scheur Oost I, is still critical for the closure of some tidal windows but the bottom
touch probability is now more determinative.

The manoeuvring margin turned out to be still very important for the length of the
tidal windows. The opening of the tidal windows is almost always determined by
the MM. For the areas critical for the opening of the tidal windows, the target depth
was used because no bottom data was available for these regions. Therefore, the
tidal windows didn’t increase when they were compared to those based on the
target depth. Still, the actual bottom based on recent soundings should be
implemented, as the target depth remains an uncertain factor.

84
6.2 Recommendations for further research
 The bottom distribution for each route section can be linked with the
corresponding trajectory point. In this study, the distribution of Scheur Oost
I is used for all the trajectory points but it can be interesting (and more
accurate) to treat the most critical areas separately. It would also be useful
to implement the regions outside the sea trajectory.

 When the tidal windows calculated for 2011 are studied, it can be seen that
the MM is more determinative for the closure of the tidal windows than
when only December 2011 is taken into account [4]. In December, the
highest wave heights were found and therefore the BTP becomes more
determinative. The effect of an implementation of the actual bottom profile
will probably be larger under less severe weather. This could be
investigated.

85
Appendix A: Bottom Characteristics
for Scheur Oost I

86
Figure 71: Min50_100avg1 for S511

87
Figure 72: Std50_100avg1 for S511

88
Figure 73: The equivalent bottom for S511

89
Figure 74: EqB50_100-Min50_100avg1 for S511

90
Figure 75: EqB50_100-Min50_100avg3avg1 for S511

91
Figure 76: Min50_100avg1 for S513

92
Figure 77: The equivalent bottom for S513

93
Appendix B: Bottom Characteristics
for Scheur Oost II

94
Figure 78: Min50_100avg1 for SOII (part1)

95
Figure 79: Min50_100avg1 for SOII (part 2)

96
Figure 80: Std50_100avg3avg1 for SOII (part 1)

97
Figure 81: Std50_100avg3avg1 for SOII (part 2)

98
Appendix C: Normal distribution table

Table 19: Normal distribution table [19]

99
Reference

[1] Eloot, K.; Vantorre, M.; Richter, J.; Verwilligen, J. (2009). Development of
decision supporting tools for determining tidal windows for deep-drafted
vessels. Marine navigation and safety of sea transportation. Balkema CRC
Press. ISBN 9780415804790. 227–234 pp.

[2] Dumon, G.; Balcaen, N.; Huygens, M.; Hyde, P.; Haerens, P.
Hydrodynamica ter hoogte van de Vlakte van de Raan.

[3] URL: http://getij.rws.nl/getij_resultaat.cfm?location=TERNZN (July 2014)

[4] Vantorre, M.; Candries, M., Verwilligen J. (2013) . Deterministisch vs .

Probabilistisch Toelatingsbeleid Vergelijkend onderzoek voor de
Scheldehavens. Verslag 2.0. Universiteit Gent/Waterbouwkundig
Laboratorium.

[5] De Wit, S.; De Jaeger, N. (2011). Evaluatie van een berekeningsmethode

ter ondersteuning van het toelatingsbeleid tot de Vlaamse havens. MA
thesis. Universiteit Gent

[6] Keung, J-Y. (2014). Evaluatie van een berekeningsmethode ter

ondersteuning van het toelatingsbeleid tot de Vlaamse havens. MA thesis.
Universiteit Gent.

[7] Vantorre, M.; Candries, M.; Lataire, E.; van Doorn, J.; van Heel, D. (2012).
Algoritme equivalente bodem ECS-kaarten – Eindrapport. Bestek nr.
16EN2011/10 i.o.v. De Staat der Nederlanden & De Vlaamse Overheid
t.b.v. Gemeenschappelijk Nautisch Beheer – Scheldegebied. Versie 3.0.
Universiteit Gent / MARIN, 23 maart 2012

[8] URL: http://www.zeebruggeport.be/en. (November 2013)

[9] Elema, I.A.; Kwanten, M.C. Introduction of vertical reference level Lowest
Astronomical Tide (LAT) in the products of the Netherlands Hydrographic
Service

[10] URL: http://www.portofantwerp.com/en (November 2013)

100
[11] PIANC (2014) Harbour Approach Channels – Design Guidelines. Tech.
Rep. Nr. 121. PIANC.

[12] Härting, A.; Laupichler, A.; Reinking, J. (2009). Considerations on the squat
of unevenly trimmed ships. Ocean Eng., vol. 36, no. 2, pp.193-201.

[13] URL: http://schiw.sf.hs-wismar.de/siw/paper/heft5/beitrag10 (July 2014)

[14] Vantorre, M.; Eloot, K. (2014). Manoeuvring and Seakeeping behaviour of

Maritime Constructions

[15] Eloot, K. (May 2014) Ship Behaviour in Shallow and Confined Water.
Lecture 5

[16] Candries, M.; Vos, S.; Peeters, P.; Mostaert, F. (December 2013). ProToel
v13.1 User Manual

[17] Richter, J.; Vantorre, M.; Laforce, E.; Eloot, K.; Mostaert, F. (2009) Support
of a probabilistic access policy for the Flemish harbours: Implementation of
the software ProToel for the harbour of Zeebrugge: ProToel theoretical
manual. Version 2_0. WL Rapporten, 801_03. Flanders Hydraulics
Research & Ghent University: Antwerp, Belgium

[18] Uliczka, K.; Kondziella, B. (2008). Dynamic Response of very large

Container Ships in extremely Shallow Water.

[19] URL: www.mathcaptain.com (August 2014)

101