A part of BMT in

Effect of the Minimum Ballast Condition on Manoeuvrability for INTERCARGO.

ISSUE DATE: 19th September 2008 REPORT NO: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

CONTENTS

1 TERMS OF REFERENCE...... 2

2 BACKGROUND...... 2

3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY...... 2

4 METHODOLOGY...... 2

4.1 General...... 2

4.2 Bulk Carrier...... 3

4.3 Met-ocean Conditions for Tubarao and Ponto de Madeira...... 3

4.4 Matrix of Scenarios...... 4

5 SIMULATION RESULTS ...... 6

6 DISCUSSION...... 8

7 CONCLUSIONS...... 10

8 REFERENCES...... 11

APPENDIX A – SIMULATION RESULTS...... 12

Document Information Project Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability Report Title Effect of the Minimum Ballast Condition on Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability Client INTERCARGO Report ref: C12145.1R Prepared by: Mr Dimitrios Argyros Naval Architect, BMT SeaTech Ltd

Approved by: Mr Simon Burnay Group Manager – Marine Safety & Compliance, BMT SeaTech Ltd

Document History Version Changes By 1 Draft for Release DA, SB 2 Comments from client added SB

Information contained in this document is commercial-in-confidence and should not be transmitted to a third party without prior written agreement of BMT SeaTech Ltd. © Copyright BMT SeaTech Ltd 2008

1 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

BMT SeaTech Ltd (BMT) was instructed by INTERCARGO to conduct a simulation study to assess the effect on manoeuvrability of minimum ballast conditions for Capesize bulk carriers. The study was undertaken by BMT staff with the simulations being conducted using the PC Rembrandt ship handling and manoeuvring simulator, developed by BMT. This report describes the methodology adopted for this project and includes the relevant analysis, a summary of results, and appropriate conclusions. 2 BACKGROUND

Due to the increased demand for raw materials such as iron ore, it is understood that a number of bulk terminals have been taking measures to optimise port throughput. This has resulted in terminals requesting fast ship turn-around times necessitating a very light ballast arrival condition in order to be able to load at high rates e.g. at up to 16000 tonnes per hour; in some cases also allowing 90% propeller immersion to facilitate this.

It is therefore understood that a number of operators of large bulk carriers (Capesize) have reported problems with vessel manoeuvrability due to the requirement for arriving in a loading condition that results in a very large trim by the stern and significantly higher windage. Both of these effects are well known to have detrimental effects on vessel manoeuvrability ref [1], relative to normal loading conditions. 3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The aim of this study is to present and quantify the differences in vessel manoeuvrability due to the requirement for a minimum ballast condition versus the normal arrival loading condition. 4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 General

The methodology employed for this study was to run a set of simulations for two ports where the loading rates are known to be 16,000 tonnes per hour ref [2] and [3]. Simulations were completed for arrival scenarios at the ports of Tubarao and Ponto de Madeira in Brazil, based on a matrix of scenarios derived from an analysis of met-ocean conditions for the area. Figures 4.1(a) – (b) present the nautical charts for Tubarao and Ponto De Madeira respectively, courtesy of UKHO.

2 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Figure 4.1(a) – Tubarao Bulk Terminal Figure 4.1(b) – Ponto de Madeira Bulk Terminal

4.2 Capesize Bulk Carrier For the purpose of simulating the vessels which call at these ports, a Capesize vessel was selected that was felt to be typical for this class of ship. A ship model was provided with the principal characteristics given in Table 4.1 below.

Normal Loaded Normal Ballast Minimum Ballast Parameter Condition Condition Condition [m] 289.0 289.0 289.0 Length Between Perp. [m] 279.0 279.0 279.0 Breadth [m] 45.0 45.0 45.0 Mean Draught [m] 18.0 8.2 5.3 Stern Trim [m] 0.0 1.2 5.15 Propeller Immersion [%] 100% 100% 95% Rudder Immersion [% of area] 100% 73% 65%

Table 4.1 – 180,000 DWT Capesize Vessel Model Principal Particulars

4.3 Met-ocean Conditions for Tubarao and Ponto de Madeira A brief analysis of wind, wave and current conditions was undertaken for the ports to be assessed. The results of this analysis are as follows: Figures 4.2(a) – (c) present the data used for the Port of Tubarao to establish the tide heights, wind and wave data to be used in the simulations. Figures 4.3(a) – (c) present the equivalent data for Ponto de Madeira.

3 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Tubarao Ponto de Madeira

Figure 4.2(a) – Tubarao Tidal Data Figure 4.3(a) – Ponto de Madeira Tidal Data

Figure 4.2(b) – Tubarao Wind Data Figure 4.3(b) – Ponto de Madeira Wind Data

Figure 4.2(c) – Tubarao Wave Data Figure 4.3(c) – Ponto de Madeira Wave Data

4.4 Matrix of Scenarios Based on the analysis of the data presented in Section 4.3, the scenario matrix was derived and is presented in Table 4.2 below. The scenario matrix was derived by analysing the data presented in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 to obtain the following information: - Typical tidal ranges in neap and spring cycles. - Wind and wave data relating to the probability of occurrence e.g. conditions that occur 50% 25%, 10% and 1% of the time. - Current conditions based on available public data e.g. Admiralty South American Pilot.

4 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Tidal heights were selected for each port that gave a typical height of tide combined with the relevant current flow. For Tubarao, it was determined that there is a general South-west current flow parallel to the shoreline of circa 1 knot. This was therefore applied with a tidal height of 0.8m representing a typical mid-tide condition (i.e. maximum current flow). The current was defined to be realistic inside the port breakwaters such that the effect is reduced when close to the berths. For Ponto de Madeira, the tidal height is much larger (reaching a range of up to 6 metres), in which case stronger currents can be expected. Based on the data available, a 2 knot current was selected as being significant, but not extreme. Again a mid-range tidal height of 4 metres was selected. For wind and wave conditions, analysis was made of the percentage occurrence data in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 to derive the typical wind speeds and directions for prevailing conditions (i.e. the majority of the time, or circa 30-50% probability), stronger conditions ( e.g. 25% or 10% probability) and storm conditions (less than 5% probability). The vales used as presented in Table 4.2 were only included if they represented feasible conditions, i.e. they are practically as well as theoretically possible to occur and hence conditions with a very low probabilities of occurrence were not included.

Wind Current Tide Waves Height Port ID Condition Speed Dir Speed Dir Ht Period Dir +CD [kts] [deg] [kts] [deg] [m] [sec] [deg] [m] T1 Ballast 10 30 1 225 0.8 1.5 7.5 90 T2 Ballast 14 30 1 225 0.8 1.5 7.5 90 T3 Ballast 20 30 1 225 0.8 2.5 10.5 90 Tubarao T4 Light Ballast 10 30 1 225 0.8 1.5 7.5 90 T5 Light Ballast 14 30 1 225 0.8 1.5 7.5 90 T6 Light Ballast 20 30 1 225 0.8 2.5 10.5 90

M1 Ballast 15 90 2 0 4 1.5 5.5 30 M2 Ballast 20 90 2 0 4 2.5 6.5 30 M3 Ballast 20 30 2 0 4 2.5 7.5 30 M4 Light Ballast 15 90 2 0 4 1.5 5.5 30 Ponto M5 Light Ballast 20 90 2 0 4 2.5 6.5 30 de M6 Light Ballast 20 30 2 0 4 2.5 7.5 30 Madeira M7 Ballast 15 90 2 180 4 1.5 5.5 30 M8 Ballast 20 90 2 180 4 2.5 6.5 30 M9 Ballast 20 30 2 180 4 2.5 7.5 30 M10 Light Ballast 15 90 2 180 4 1.5 5.5 30 M11 Light Ballast 20 90 2 180 4 2.5 6.5 30 M12 Light Ballast 20 30 2 180 4 2.5 7.5 30

Table 4.2 – Scenario Matrix

The manoeuvres required for arrivals at each port can be summarised as:

5 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Tubarao Ponto de Madeira - Course keeping during deceleration - Course keeping during deceleration - Swinging - Steady turn / swinging - Backing into berth - Coming alongside - Coming alongside

The simulations were conducted by BMT’s experienced marine staff in a manner to enable suitable comparison between specific manoeuvres for the two loading conditions. Tugs were applied in the simulations to aid berthing and control of the ship. The available tugs were determined from publically available information (e.g. http://www.magioli.com/pmadeira.htm#P) and they were controlled using the PC Rembrandt on-screens controls, applying normal nautical practice for the tug use. In the absence of specific information, the tug sizes available for Tubarao were assumed to be the same as Ponto de Madiera. 5 SIMULATION RESULTS

The full set of simulation results are presented in Appendix A. To assess the differences between the manoeuvring capabilities of the typical Capesize bulk carrier, it is possible to compare the results of standard manoeuvres such as the turning circle or zig-zag in the same manner as conducted during the sea trials. This was not the purpose of this study, but it is a well-know effect that as the trim of the vessel increases by the stern, it becomes more dynamically stable ref [1], that is, it is harder to turn the ship and the size of the turning radius increases although conversely it is generally easier to check the yaw of the vessel. For the purposes of this study, we have assessed the arrival manoeuvres at the ports of Tubarao and Ponto de Madeira and analysed the results to derive an index that describes the ability to manoeuvre the ship. Two indices are defined that allow us to present the engine power and rudder angles used, as a function of certain critical value which were are set as; - Critical rudder angle = 20 degrees - Critical engine rpm = 56 rpm (Half Ahead) Where rudder angles over 20 degrees and engine orders greater than Half power are required, it is felt that the manoeuvre has exceeded the limits of safe operation and there are reduced safety margins. As rudder effectiveness is directly linked to the use of the main engine (through the wake of the propeller), the index to assess the manoeuvring ability is therefore defined as a multiple of rudder and engine factors and allows the determination of a safety margin. It can be defined as follows: nn i (δ R ⋅⋅ ) Ship Safety Index: S = CRIT CRIT CRIT ……… …………………………………….(i) (δ R ⋅⋅ nn )

6 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

CRIT CRIT Where δR and δR are the applied and critical rudder angles respectively and n and n are the applied and critical engine rpm values. Where tugs are required to assist the manoeuvre, they too must have a margin of power in order to respond to emergency situations and to allow for degradation of the effective bollard pull with environmental conditions and ‘wear and tear’. A safety index for tug use is also defined as follows: P i ( TUG ) Tug Margin Index: T = MAX …………………………………………………………….(ii) ()PTUG

MAX Where PTUG and PTUG are the applied tug power and maximum tug power respectively. The results for these two indices should therefore be less than 1.0 for normal manoeuvring and provide a means of assessing the relative requirements to safely manoeuvre using the main engine, steering forces and tug control. Table 5.1 presents the summary results for the simulations performed. Maximum Maximum Loading Run ID Sustained Sustained Comments Condition Ship Index (iS) Tug Index (iT) Tubarao Min ballast vessel set’s down more T1 Normal Ballast 0.1 0.5 under wind, is harder to keep in channel and keep course and cannot generate higher Rate Of Turn (ROT), T4 Min Ballast 0.5 0.5 hence higher ship index. Tug index equal as stern into wind and current zero in port. T2 Normal Ballast 0.2 0.5 As above. T5 Min Ballast 0.25 0.5 T3 Normal Ballast 0.4 0.75 ROT and ability to keep course about equal, but min ballast vessel is very hard to keep in channel due to set of T6 Min Ballast 1.0 1.0 wind. Max ship index for min ballast vessel and max tug usage, showing limits of operation. Ponto de Madeira Min ballast vessel is harder to hold M1 Normal Ballast 0.45 0.75 on track, but easier to bring alongside berth, hence lower ship index. Ability to turn is worse in certain wind angles – ‘jittery’. Normal M4 Min Ballast 0.25 0.5 ballast vessel is harder to berth hence higher tug index. Harder to control drift of min ballast M2 Normal Ballast 0.7 0.75 vessel, turning ability is worse at certain wind angles, hence higher tug M5 Min Ballast 0.7 1.0 index. Easier to control yaw of min ballast M3 Normal Ballast 0.45 0.75 vessel during approach and easier to move ship laterally in berth. Greater windage balances with current M6 Min Ballast 0.5 0.75 allowing controlled drift, hence ~ equal indices.

7 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Min ballast vessel swings quite M7 Normal Ballast 0 0.75 easily, but loses headway very quickly. Normal ballast vessel is harder to move laterally onto berth, due to large wind turning moments, M10 Min Ballast 0.6 0.5 hence higher tug index. Higher ship index due to need to keep speed on hence higher RPM used. M8 Normal Ballast 0.15 0.75 As above M11 Min Ballast 0.15 0.5 M9 Normal Ballast 0.2 0.5 As above M12 Min Ballast 0.4 0.75

Table 5.1 – Summary of Results 6 DISCUSSION The results presented provide an assessment of the relative manoeuvring ability of a typical Capesize bulk carrier in ‘normal’ and minimum ballast conditions. It was felt to be important that this comparison be undertaken for realistic manoeuvres and the results for these are presented in Section 5 above. However, it is also important to understand the general effects that the use of the minimum ballast condition has on vessel manoeuvrability. In general terms the minimum ballast condition has a much reduced draught (and hence vessel ) and a large trim by the stern. This can result in a reduced propeller immersion and less rudder area in the water. The general effect of the reduced draught (and displacement) is to reduce the inertia of the vessel, which means that it will generate momentum much more easily to any stimulating forces. On the positive side, this can result in a quicker response to steering forces or engine power for example. However, it also means, that the vessel will generate momentum much quicker under the action of the wind and to an extent, the current; although the effect of current is much reduced due to the reduction in draught as there is less underwater area to act upon. The reduction in propeller immersion results in a reduced propeller thrust compared to the propeller being fully immersed. Its performance will also be worsened by so-called aeration whereby the action of the propeller blades coming out of the water, drags air onto the propeller blade surface reducing its effectiveness. The reduction in rudder area in the water, combined with the reduced capability of the propeller (producing reduced propeller wake) reduces the steering forces that the rudder can apply. The effect of the stern trim must be considered in conjunction with the effect of the reduced draught and increased windage. With level trim, the windage has a ‘centre of effort’ (i.e. a point at which the wind appears to act) that may be expected to be somewhere just aft of midships as the distribution of area is mainly aft. With stern trim, there is a greater proportion of the above water area forward and hence the ‘centre of effort’ moves forward and may be ahead of midships. For a vessel moving ahead with level trim, then the turning lever due to the windage and the rudder is large, as both are far aft of the hydrodynamic pivot point which is typically 1/4 to 1/3

8 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

of the length aft of the when moving ahead (see Figure 6.1(a)). The hydrodynamic pivot point may be thought of as the ‘centre of effort’ of the , although it is not fixed.

R

Figure 6.1(a) – Turning Levers in Level Trim Condition With a large stern trim, the pivot point moves aft relative to its level trim position and hence this reduces the turning lever that the rudder has, resulting in decreased turning performance. In addition, the additional windage area forward moves the windage centre of effort forward and this in turn reduces the turning lever the wind has and may even change its direction (see Figure 6.1(b)).

R

Figure 6.1(b) – Turning Levers in Stern Trim Condition

The net result can generally be assumed to be a worsening of turning performance as demonstrated in Figure 6.2 below. The reduction in turning lever of the wind with stern trim also explains why the vessel in this condition will tend to drift bodily under the wind rather than turning. This was especially apparent in a number of runs conducted for this study. The greater windage area of the minimum ballast vessel was seen to result in lower ROT and higher tug powers required to swing the vessel. The reduced displacement also leads to a more ‘jerky’ response, whereby the vessel will quickly build momentum to any applied forces (e.g. tugs, wind) and therefore needs careful control to ensure that large forces are not allowed to be imparted for a significant length of time. Whilst the majority of the effects of the minimum ballast condition can be seen to worsen the vessels manoeuvring ability, there are some positive effects. The arrival manoeuvres into Ponto de Madeira with a Southerly flowing current allowed the minimum ballast vessel to be manoeuvred into the berth using a controlled descent technique with relatively little tug power and use of the ships engines. This technique used the wind and current to swing the vessel and drift it down onto the berth. This was not possible with the normal ballast condition vessel as the wind does not cause a bodily drift, but tends to yaw the vessel making the manoeuvre harder. This also affects the final stage of the manoeuvre when bringing the vessel laterally alongside the berth.

9 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Min Normal Ballast Ballast Condition Condition 1390m 957m

Figure 6.2 – Comparison of Turning Performance for Normal and Minimum Ballast Conditions 7 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the analysis completed for this study, we can draw the following conclusions: (i) The requirement for vessels to be in a minimum ballast condition results in a number of significant effects to the manoeuvrability of the vessel. (ii) These effects are generally characterised by; a. Increased bodily drift under the action of wind due to the greater windage and more even distribution of above water profile area along the vessel. b. Increased difficulty in swinging the vessel at low or zero speed in significant wind conditions due to the greater windage. c. A more ‘jerky’ response to the actions of environmental (e.g. wind or current) and control forces (e.g. tugs) due to the reduced displacement. This results in the requirement for control forces (e.g. tugs, rudder etc) to be applied more often and with lower power (i.e. a little and often) to minimise momentum build up. d. A worsening in turning performance when underway with a corresponding increase in the ability to control yawing motions under certain wind directions relative to the ships heading. This is due to the reduced turning lever as a result of the large stern trim. e. Increased loss of speed when heading into the current for a given engine power due to the reduced displacement.

10 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

(iii) In all cases simulated as part of this study, tug powers of 50% or greater were used consistently. In a number of cases, 75% or even 100% power was required, indicating a reduction in safety margins for the manoeuvres. There was no consistent pattern of higher tug power requirements between the two loading conditions. This is due to the trade off between displacement and windage. (iv) In almost all cases, the Ship Safety Index was higher for the minimum ballast condition demonstrating that the minimum ballast condition required higher engine power and rudder angles to maintain control and manoeuvre the vessel. (v) In some cases, such as the action of wind or current from certain directions relative to the ship, positive effects were experienced. These included the ability to better balance the combined forces due to the wind and current, hence increasing the ability to maintain course and track. 8 REFERENCES

[1] Principles of ; Volume III: Controllability, rev. 2. Ed. E.V. Lewis SNAME Publication,1989. [2] “SUMMARY OF VALE PORT REQUIREMENTS FOR VESSELS PRESENTED FOR NOMINATION AND ACCEPTANCE FOR TRADING WITHIN VALE’S PORTS”, available from www.vale.com. [3] “Tubarão Port Information”; COMPANHIA VALE DO RIO DOCE PORT OPERATIONS GENERAL MANAGEMENT, Sept 2004.

11 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

APPENDIX A – SIMULATION RESULTS

12 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

SIMULATION RESULTS - TUBARAO

Runs T1 and T4: Wind 10kts, 30 deg, current 1 kt, 225 deg

T1

WIND: 10kts

Current: 1kt 10kts T1

Figure A1: Track Plots for Runs T1 & T4

ROT with Time Manoeuvring Safety Index

10 1.0

0.8

5

0.6

0 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24 0.4 ROT ROT °/min] [ T1 T1 -5 0.2 T4 T4 SafetyIndex

0.0 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24 -10

-0.2

-15

-0.4

-20 -0.6 Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A2(a): ROT Plots for Runs T1 & T4 Figure A2(b): Safety Index for Runs T1 & T4

Tug Bollard Pull with Time Tug Bollard Pull with Time

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

T1 Tug 1 T4 Tug 1 0.4 0.4 T1 Tug 2 T4 Tug 2 Bollard PullBollard PullBollard [% of max.] [% of max.]

T1 Tug 3 T4 Tug 3

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 01:04:48 01:12:00

-0.2 -0.2 Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A2(c): Tug Index for Run T1 Figure A2(d): Tug Index for Run T4

13 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Runs T2 and T5: Wind 14kts, 30 deg, current 1 kt, 225 deg

T2

WIND: 14kts

Current: 1kt 10kts T2

Figure A3: Track Plots for Runs T2 & T5

ROT with Time Manoeuvring Safety Index

10 1.0

0.8 5

0.6

0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 01:04:48 01:12:00

0.4 ROT ROT °/min]

[ T2 -5 T2 T5 T5 Safety Index 0.2

-10

0.0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 01:04:48 01:12:00

-15

-0.2

-20 Time -0.4 [hh:mm:ss] Time [hh:mm:ss] Figure A4(a): ROT Plots for Runs T2 & T5 Figure A4(b): Safety Index for Runs T2 & T5

Tug Bollard Pull with Time Tug Bollard Pull with Time

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

T2 Tug 1 T5 Tug 1 0.4 0.4 T2 Tug 2 T5 Tug 2 Bollard Pull Bollard Pull Bollard [%of max.] [%of max.]

T2 Tug 3 T5 Tug 3

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 01:04:48 01:12:00

-0.2 -0.2 Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A4(c): Tug Index for Run T2 Figure A4(d): Tug Index for Run T5

14 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Runs T3 and T6: Wind 20kts, 30 deg, current 1 kt, 225 deg

T3

WIND: 20kts

Current: 1kt 10kts

T3

Figure A5: Track Plots for Runs T3 & T6

ROT with Time Manoeuvring Safety Index

15 1.2

1.0

10 0.8

0.6

5

0.4

0.2 0 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24

ROT ROT T3 °/min]

[ T3 0.0 T6 T6 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24 SafetyIndex

-5 -0.2

-0.4

-10 -0.6

-0.8

-15 -1.0

-1.2 -20 Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A6(a): ROT Plots for Runs T3 & T6 Figure A6(b): Safety Index for Runs T3 & T6

Tug Bollard Pull with Time Tug Bollard Pull with Time

0.8 1.2

0.7 1.0

0.6

0.8

0.5

0.4 0.6 T3 Tug 1 T6 Tug 1

T3 Tug 2 Bollard Pull Bollard [%of max.] T6 Tug 2 Bollard Bollard Pull 0.3 [%of max.] 0.4 T3 Tug 3 T6 Tug 3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.0 0.0 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24

-0.1 -0.2 Time [hh:mm:ss] Time [hh:mm:ss] Figure A6(c): Tug Index for Run T3 Figure A6(d): Tug Index for Run T6

15 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

SIMULATION RESULTS – PONTO DE MADEIRA

Runs M1 and M4: Wind 15kts, 90 deg, current 2 kt, 180 deg

M1

Current: 2kts 10kts

WIND: 15kts

M1

Figure A7: Track Plots for Runs M1 & M4

ROT with Time Manoeuvring Safety Index

10 1.0

0.8

5 0.6

0.4

0 0.2 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24 01:40:48 ROT ROT

°/min] M1 [ 0.0 M1 M4 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24 01:40:48 M4 Safety Index -0.2 -5

-0.4

-0.6 -10

-0.8

-1.0 -15 Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A8(a): ROT Plots for Runs M1 & M4 Figure A8(b): Safety Index for Runs M1 & M4

Tug Bollard Pull with Time Tug Bollard Pull with Time

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

M4 Tug 1 M1 Tug 1

0.4 M4 Tug 2 0.4 M1 Tug 2 Bollard Pull Bollard [%of max.] Bollard PullBollard [%of max.] M4 Tug 3 M1 Tug 3

M4 Tug 4 M1 Tug 4 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24 01:40:48 00:00:00 00:14:24 00:28:48 00:43:12 00:57:36 01:12:00 01:26:24

-0.2 -0.2 Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A8(c): Tug Index for Run M1 Figure A8(d): Tug Index for Run M4

16 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Runs M2 and M5: Wind 20kts, 90 deg, current 2 kt, 180 deg

M2

Current: 2kts 10kts

WIND: 20kts

M2

Figure A9: Track Plots for Runs M2 & M5

ROT with Time Manoeuvring Safety Index

15 1.0

0.8 10

0.6

5 0.4

0 0.2 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 01:04:48 01:12:00

0.0 M2 -5 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 01:04:48 01:12:00 M5 M2 ROT ROT °/min] [ Safety Index M5 -0.2 -10

-0.4

-15 -0.6

-20 -0.8

-1.0 -25 Time [hh:mm:ss] -30

Time [hh:mm:ss] Figure A10(a): ROT Plots for Runs M2 & M5 Figure A10(b): Safety Index for Runs M2 & M5

Tug Bollard Pull with Time Tug Bollard Pull with Time

1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 M2 Tug 1 M5 Tug 1

M2 Tug 2 M5 Tug 2 Bollard Pull Bollard [%max.] of Bollard Pull Bollard [% max.] of 0.4 M2 Tug 3 0.4 M5 Tug 3

M2 Tug 4 M5 Tug 4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 01:04:48 01:12:00 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 01:04:48 01:12:00

-0.2 -0.2 Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A10(c): Tug Index for Run M2 Figure A10(d): Tug Index for Run M5

17 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Runs M3 and M6: Wind 20kts, 30 deg, current 2 kt, 180 deg

M3

Current: 2kts 10kts

WIND: 20kts

M3

Figure A11: Track Plots for Runs M3 & M6

ROT with Time Manoeuvring Safety Index

20 1.0

15 0.8

10 0.6

5 0.4

0 0.2 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36

M3 ROT ROT °/min] -5 [ M6 0.0 M3 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 M6 Safety Index -10 -0.2

-15 -0.4

-20 -0.6

-25 -0.8

-30 -1.0 Time [hh:mm:ss] Time [hh:mm:ss] Figure A12(a): ROT Plots for Runs M3 & M6 Figure A12(b): Safety Index for Runs M3 & M6

Tug Bollard Pull with Time Tug Bollard Pull with Time

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

M3 Tug 1 M6 Tug 1

0.4 M3 Tug 2 0.4 M6 Tug 2 Bollard Pull Bollard Pull Bollard [% [% max.] of [% max.] of M3 Tug 3 M6 Tug 3

M3 Tug 4 M6 Tug 4 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36

-0.2 -0.2 Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A12(c): Tug Index for Run M3 Figure A12(d): Tug Index for Run M6

18 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Runs M7 and M10: Wind 15kts, 90 deg, current 2 kt, 000 deg

M7

Current: 2kts 10kts WIND: 15kts

M7

Figure A13: Track Plots for Runs M7 & M10

ROT with Time Manoeuvring Safety Index

15 1.0

0.8

0.6 10

0.4

0.2 5 0.0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 -0.2

0 -0.4 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36

-0.6 M7 ROT ROT °/min] -5 [ -0.8 M7 M10 M10 -1.0 Safety Index

-1.2 -10

-1.4

-1.6 -15 -1.8

-2.0

-20 -2.2

-2.4

-25 -2.6

Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A12(a): ROT Plots for Runs M7 & 10 Figure A12(b): Safety Index for Runs M7 & M10

Tug Bollard Pull with Time Tug Bollard Pull with Time

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6

0.6 M10 Tug 1

0.4 M10 Tug 2 M7 Tug 1 Bollard Pull Bollard [%of max.] M10 Tug 3 0.4 M7 Tug 2 Bollard Pull Bollard [% max.] of M10 Tug 4 M7 Tug 3 0.2

M7 Tug 4 0.2

0.0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12

0.0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 00:57:36 -0.2 Time [hh:mm:ss] -0.2 Time [hh:mm:ss] Figure A12(c): Tug Index for Run M7 Figure A12(d): Tug Index for Run M10

19 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Runs M8 and M11: Wind 20kts, 90 deg, current 2 kt, 000 deg

M8

Current: 2kts 10kts WIND: 20kts

M8

Figure A13: Track Plots for Runs M8 & M11

ROT with Time Manoeuvring Safety Index

15 1.0

10 0.8

0.6 5

0.4 0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24

M8 0.2 ROT ROT °/min] -5 [ M11

0.0 M8 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24 M11 -10 Safety Index -0.2

-15

-0.4

-20 -0.6

-25 -0.8 Time [hh:mm:ss] -1.0

Time [hh:mm:ss] Figure A14(a): ROT Plots for Runs M8 & 11 Figure A14(b): Safety Index for Runs M8 & M11

Tug Bollard Pull with Time Tug Bollard Pull with Time

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

M8 Tug 1 M11 Tug 1

0.4 M8 Tug 2 0.4 M11 Tug 2 Bollard Pull Bollard [% ofmax.] Bollard Pull Bollard [%of max.] M8 Tug 3 M11 Tug 3

M8 Tug 4 M11 Tug 4 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 00:50:24

-0.2 -0.2 Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A14(c): Tug Index for Run M8 Figure A14(d): Tug Index for Run M11

20 Report No: C12145.1R

INTERCARGO Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability

Runs M9 and M12: Wind 20kts, 30 deg, current 2 kt, 000 deg

Current: 2kts 10kts WIND: 20kts

M9

M9

Figure A13: Track Plots for Runs M9 & M12

ROT with Time Manoeuvring Safety Index

5 1.0

0.8

0 0.6 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12

0.4

-5 0.2

M9 ROT ROT °/min]

[ 0.0 M9 M12 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12 M12 Safety Index -0.2 -10

-0.4

-0.6 -15

-0.8

-1.0 -20

Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A14(a): ROT Plots for Runs M9 & 12 Figure A14(b): Safety Index for Runs M9 & M12

Tug Bollard Pull with Time Tug Bollard Pull with Time

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

M9 Tug 1 M12 Tug 1

0.4 0.4 M9 Tug 2 M12 Tug 2 Bollard Pull Bollard [% ofmax.] Bollard Pull Bollard [%of max.] M9 Tug 3 M12 Tug 3

M9 Tug 4 M12 Tug 4 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:00:00 00:07:12 00:14:24 00:21:36 00:28:48 00:36:00 00:43:12

-0.2 -0.2 Time Time [hh:mm:ss] [hh:mm:ss] Figure A14(c): Tug Index for Run M9 Figure A14(d): Tug Index for Run M12

21 Report No: C12145.1R