DOCSLIB.ORG

Effect of the Minimum Ballast Condition on Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability for INTERCARGO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effect of the Minimum Ballast Condition on Bulk Carrier Manoeuvrability for INTERCARGO A part of BMT in Maritime Transport Effect of the Minimum Ballast Condition on Bulk Carrier 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 Capesize 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 ship 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 Length Overall [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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inclining Test and Lightweight Survey V2.1
    GL Leaflet for Inclining test and Lightweight survey V2.1 Leaflet for Inclining test and Lightweight Survey Version 2.1 dated 2011-08-24 1 GL Leaflet for Inclining test and Lightweight survey V2.1 Version information Version Date Editor Items treated Approved 1.0 2005-05 Fim, TBo, Pei initial version HB 2.0 2011-04 Pei, GLe, SKl, MBst draft readings, status of vessel, FSM, tank fillings AFl 2.1 2011-08 Pei, Jasch BW shifting tanks, amount of additional masses, AFl shifting weights, editorial changes 2 GL Leaflet for Inclining test and Lightweight survey V2.1 Table of contents: 1 Inclining Test........................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Purpose and objective..................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Acceptance of the test..................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Procedure of the inclining test ......................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Notification of the inclining test/lightweight survey.................................................................. 5 1.3.2 Condition of the vessel ........................................................................................................... 5 1.3.3 Mooring Arrangement.............................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Panamax - Wikipedia 4/20/20, 1018 AM
    Panamax - Wikipedia 4/20/20, 1018 AM Panamax Panamax and New Panamax (or Neopanamax) are terms for the size limits for ships travelling through the Panama Canal. General characteristics The limits and requirements are published by the Panama Canal Panamax Authority (ACP) in a publication titled "Vessel Requirements".[1] Tonnage: 52,500 DWT These requirements also describe topics like exceptional dry Length: 289.56 m (950 ft) seasonal limits, propulsion, communications, and detailed ship design. Beam: 32.31 m (106 ft) Height: 57.91 m (190 ft) The allowable size is limited by the width and length of the available lock chambers, by the depth of water in the canal, and Draft: 12.04 m (39.5 ft) by the height of the Bridge of the Americas since that bridge's Capacity: 5,000 TEU construction. These dimensions give clear parameters for ships Notes: Opened 1914 destined to traverse the Panama Canal and have influenced the design of cargo ships, naval vessels, and passenger ships. General characteristics New Panamax specifications have been in effect since the opening of Panamax the canal in 1914. In 2009 the ACP published the New Panamax Tonnage: 120,000 DWT specification[2] which came into effect when the canal's third set of locks, larger than the original two, opened on 26 June 2016. Length: 366 m (1,201 ft) Ships that do not fall within the Panamax-sizes are called post- Beam: 51.25 m (168 ft) Panamax or super-Panamax. Height: 57.91 m (190 ft) The increasing prevalence of vessels of the maximum size is a Draft: 15.2 m (50 ft) problem for the canal, as a Panamax ship is a tight fit that Capacity: 13,000 TEU requires precise control of the vessel in the locks, possibly resulting in longer lock time, and requiring that these ships Notes: Opened 2016 transit in daylight.
    [Show full text]
  • 13.012 Hydrodynamics for Ocean Engineers Reading #3
    13.012 Hydrodynamics for Ocean Engineers Reading #3 13.012 Hydrodynamics for Ocean Engineers Prof. A.H. Techet Fall 2004 Archimedes’s Principle and Static Stability “Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.” “The apparent loss in weight of a body immersed in a fluid is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.” I. Archimedes’s Principle: The force on a body due to pressure alone (in the absence of viscous forces) K F = ∫∫ p nˆ ds (3.1) S where pressure is a function of depth below the free surface: p(z) = −ρgz . (3.2) K F = ∫∫ p nˆ ds = − ρg ∫∫ z nˆ ds (3.3) S S By Calculus the surface integral can be converted into a volume integral (Gauss’s Theorem/Divergence Theorem): K K ∫∫G ⋅ nˆ ds = ∫∫∫∇ ⋅G dV (3.4) SV Thus equation becomes: K FpndsgzndsgdVgVk==−=∫∫ˆˆρρρ ∫∫ ∫∫∫ =ˆ (3.5) SSV version 3.0 updated 9/8/2004 -1- ©2003, 2004 aht 13.012 Hydrodynamics for Ocean Engineers Reading #3 We can see now that the buoyancy force acts to counterbalance the displaced volume of fluid. For a half submerged body the area of the water plane must be accounted for in the integration. II. Moment on a body (Ideal Fluid) The moment on a submerged body follows directly from structural mechanics or dynamics methodologies. K K M = p(x × nˆ) ds ≡ (M ,M ,M ) = (M ,M ,M ) (3.6) ∫∫ 1 2 3 x y z S Figure 1: x, y, z coordinate reference frame.
    [Show full text]
  • Course Objectives Chapter 2 2. Hull Form and Geometry
    COURSE OBJECTIVES CHAPTER 2 2. HULL FORM AND GEOMETRY 1. Be familiar with ship classifications 2. Explain the difference between aerostatic, hydrostatic, and hydrodynamic support 3. Be familiar with the following types of marine vehicles: displacement ships, catamarans, planing vessels, hydrofoil, hovercraft, SWATH, and submarines 4. Learn Archimedes’ Principle in qualitative and mathematical form 5. Calculate problems using Archimedes’ Principle 6. Read, interpret, and relate the Body Plan, Half-Breadth Plan, and Sheer Plan and identify the lines for each plan 7. Relate the information in a ship's lines plan to a Table of Offsets 8. Be familiar with the following hull form terminology: a. After Perpendicular (AP), Forward Perpendiculars (FP), and midships, b. Length Between Perpendiculars (LPP or LBP) and Length Overall (LOA) c. Keel (K), Depth (D), Draft (T), Mean Draft (Tm), Freeboard and Beam (B) d. Flare, Tumble home and Camber e. Centerline, Baseline and Offset 9. Define and compare the relationship between “centroid” and “center of mass” 10. State the significance and physical location of the center of buoyancy (B) and center of flotation (F); locate these points using LCB, VCB, TCB, TCF, and LCF st 11. Use Simpson’s 1 Rule to calculate the following (given a Table of Offsets): a. Waterplane Area (Awp or WPA) b. Sectional Area (Asect) c. Submerged Volume (∇S) d. Longitudinal Center of Flotation (LCF) 12. Read and use a ship's Curves of Form to find hydrostatic properties and be knowledgeable about each of the properties on the Curves of Form 13. Calculate trim given Taft and Tfwd and understand its physical meaning i 2.1 Introduction to Ships and Naval Engineering Ships are the single most expensive product a nation produces for defense, commerce, research, or nearly any other function.
    [Show full text]
  • Tendency Toward Mega Containerships and the Constraints of Container Terminals
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article Tendency toward Mega Containerships and the Constraints of Container Terminals Nam Kyu Park 1,* and Sang Cheol Suh 2 1 Department of International Logistics, Tongmyong University, Busan 48520, Korea 2 Institute of Port & Logistics Industry, Busan 48520, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-010-3575-1004 Received: 25 February 2019; Accepted: 17 April 2019; Published: 6 May 2019 Abstract: This paper focuses on the coping ability of the existing container terminals when mega containerships call at a port. The length of 30,000 TEU (Twenty Equivalent Unit) ships are predicted to be 453 m and occupy 498 m of a quay wall. As a result, the length of berth should be more than a minimum of 500 m. If a 25,000 TEU ship or 30,000 TEU ship call at a terminal, the outreach of QC (Quay Crane) should be a minimum 74.3 m or 81.0 m respectively. As mega ships are calling at the port, the ship waiting time, the available stacking area, and the number of handling equipment can be limited. The analysis reveals that larger ships wait for longer than the smaller ones because they have difficulty allocating the proper seat on berth. As a result of the survey in a terminal, the average occupancy is shown to be 60.4%, the minimum is 52.4%, and the maximum is 73.3%. Surveying the monthly equipment operation rate for 3 years, the average is 85.8%, the minimum is 80.1%, and the maximum is 90.1%.
    [Show full text]
  • Us Tonnage Regulations Application for Formal Measurement Services
    U.S. TONNAGE REGULATIONS MTN 01-98 APPLICATION FOR FORMAL MEASUREMENT SERVICES as amended I. APPLICABILITY A U.S. flag vessel is eligible to be measured under the Convention system (46 CFR 69 subpart B) if it is 79 feet or more in overall length. Also, any U.S. flag vessel, regardless of length, may be measured under the Standard system (46 CFR 69 subpart C) or Dual system (46 CFR 69 subpart D). Some vessels, including those that are less than 79 feet in overall length, are eligible to be measured under the Simplified system (46 CFR 69 subpart E), without the need for formal measurement. Refer to section 69.11 of 46 CFR 69 for complete measurement eligibility details. II. APPLICATION INFORMATION *1. REQUESTED SERVICE (see instructions on reverse) 12. OVERALL HULL DIMENSIONS Length = ________ ft Breadth = _______ ft Depth = ______ ft INITIAL MEASUREMENT (indicate measurement system(s)) Subpart B - Convention system ( GT ITC / NT ITC ) Subpart C - Standard system ( GRT / NRT ) Subpart D - Dual system ( GRT / NRT ) REMEASUREMENT (indicate reason(s)) Configuration changes Change in passengers or draft 13. ADDITIONAL VESSEL INFORMATION Correction of measurement errors a. PROPULSION: Self-Propelled Non-Self-Propelled Other (describe in remarks) b. NUMBER OF PASSENGERS: OTHER (describe in remarks) Total: _____ Accommodated in cabins for 8 or fewer: _____ *2. REQUESTED TONNAGE CERTIFICATE(S): US ITC69 c. NUMBER OF CARGO SPACES: ______ *3. VESSEL NAME ____________________________________ d. NUMBER OF PORTABLE ENCLOSED SPACES: ______ e. DRAFT RESTRICTIONS: Load Line Other *4. VESSEL NUMBER ___________________________________ Stability Letter 5. HAILING PORT _____________________________________ f. INTENDED VOYAGES: Domestic Great Lakes 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Mega-Ships
    The Impact of Mega-Ships Case-Specific Policy Analysis The Impact of Mega-Ships Case-Specific Policy Analysis INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT FORUM The International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 54 member countries. It acts as a strategic think tank with the objective of helping shape the transport policy agenda on a global level and ensuring that it contributes to economic growth, environmental protection, social inclusion and the preservation of human life and well-being. The International Transport Forum organises an Annual Summit of ministers along with leading representatives from industry, civil society and academia. The International Transport Forum was created under a Declaration issued by the Council of Ministers of the ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport) at its Ministerial Session in May 2006 under the legal authority of the Protocol of the ECMT, signed in Brussels on 17 October 1953, and legal instruments of the OECD. The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States. The International Transport Forum’s Research Centre gathers statistics and conducts co-operative research programmes addressing all modes of transport. Its findings are widely disseminated and support policy making in Member countries as well as contributing to the Annual Summit.
    [Show full text]
  • Containerization of the Baltic
    CONTAINERIZATION OF THE BALTIC SEA - A COMPETITIVE PERSPECTIVE inspired by challenges of rivalry and interchange between the gateways of Kattegat/The Sound and Gdansk Bay Centre for Regional Analysis (CRA) School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg Sten Lorentzon www.cra.handels.gu.se Working Paper 2014:1 CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Approach 2 Background 5 Containerization; development of ships and ports 9 Main ports of northern Europe – an overview 10 Main ports of the Baltic Sea – an overview 12 Gateways of the Baltic Sea – competitive perspective 18 Ports of Gothenburg and Gdansk/Gdynia – 23 competition and cooperation Functions of the ports 23 Competitive challenges 25 Cooperative challenges 27 Concluding remarks 29 Appendix A: Baltic Link 34 Appendix B: Cargo ships in movement to destinations 35 in the Baltic Sea Appendix C: Ships of more than 200 metres length in the 36 Baltic Sea in movement northwards to Baltic destinations Appendix D: Flows of traffic of cargo ships with marking of 38 number of passages in both directions in 2011. References 39 Preface The introduction of new big container ships sends waves on established transport systems and illustrates the need to satisfy the demand for ports enabling efficient loading and unloading. This study is an attempt to throw light on the impact of containerization on the accessibility of ports at the Baltic Sea with attention paid to the changing conditions after the fall of the Wall. Former locked in areas have become hinterlands of ports serving the international market. EU has strengthened this integration in efforts made in Interreg-programs exemplified by the Baltic Link stretching from Trondheim in the North via Gothenburg to Adriatic ports in the South.
    [Show full text]
  • Ship Types & Sizes
    The Source for Maritime Information and Insight Chris Pålsson, Director, IHS Fairplay Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc. All Rights Reserved. 1 Size matters Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc. All Rights Reserved. 2 Endorsed by the IMSF 2011 Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc. All Rights Reserved. 4 Basis for size categories • Dimensional limitations – Passages, straits, canals, bridges, locks….. • Operational – Rate setting mechanisms – Cargo batch sizes – Type of service – Range of service – ….. Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc. All Rights Reserved. 5 Lingo • Handysize, small/large • VLCC • Handymax, large • ULCC • Supramax • VLGC • Panamax, sub/post/new • Feeder • Kamsarmax • ULCS • Capesize, mini • Seawaymax • VLOC • Chinamax • MR, small/large • Q-max • Aframax • Säfflemax • Suezmax • …. Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc. All Rights Reserved. 6 Dimensional limitations Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc. All Rights Reserved. 7 Panama Canal Panamax – L 294.1 m – B 32.3 m – D 12.04 m – H 61.3 New Panamax – L 366 m – B 49 m – D 15.2 m Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc. All Rights Reserved. – H 61.3 8 Suez Canal Suez Canal Bridge Shohada 25 January Bridge Egyptian-Japanese Friendship Bridge Max draft: 20.1 m, Max height: 68 m Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc. All Rights Reserved. 9 The Strait of Malacca Depth 25 m. Max draft 21 m. Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc. All Rights Reserved. 10 St Lawrence Seaway • L 225.6 m (740 feet) • B 23.8 m (78 feet) • D 7.9 m (26 feet) • H 35.5 m (116 feet) Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc. All Rights Reserved. 11 Qatar: Q-max • L 345 m (1,132 ft) • B 53.8 m (177 ft) • H 34.7 m (114 ft) Copyright © 2011 IHS Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Angle of Loll Calculation by Cubic Spline
    JOURNAL OF MARITIME RESEARCH Vol. X. No. 2 (2013), pp. 21 - 26 ISSN: 1697-4040, www.jmr.unican.es Angle of Loll Calculation By Cubic Spline I. Basterretxea1,2,*, I. Sotés1,3, A. López1,4 and I. Alcedo1,5 ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: Several years ago the Basque Government supported the programming of the software ARKITSAS in order to provide Received 28 February 2013; all existing vessels with a specific software to calculate stability, cargo and longitudinal strength data. The aim of this in revised form 12 March 2013; article is to present the part of that research concerning the definition of the static stability curve by cubic spline in its accepted 25 May 2013 initial end when the metacentric height is negative. Taking into account that the slope at initial end is known, the pre- cision of the results for low heeling angles may be improved and, in this way, the accuracy in the calculation of loll should be enhanced. This method of calculation is compared to other traditional methods used for wall-sided ships by Keywords: the application to three different ships. Static stability curve, Cubic splines, Free and fixed end, Angle of loll. © SEECMAR / All rights reserved 1. Introduction within the initial stability more precise and, taking into ac- count that the angle of loll is usually small; its calculation The static stability curve represents the values of GZ arms for would be suitable by means of non-free end cubic spline the different heeling angles. However, the stability booklet method. usually provides GZ arms for every ten or fifteen degrees of When the ship is ‘wall-sided’ the approximate formula in heeling angles.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT: 2018/2019 Update to Inventory for Ocean-Going Vessels: Methodology and Results
    Update to Inventory for Ocean-Going Vessels DRAFT: 2018/2019 Update to Inventory for Ocean-Going Vessels: Methodology and Results January 15, 2019 AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1 Update to Inventory for Ocean-Going Vessels Contents 1. Summary and Background...................................................................................... 5 2. Ocean-Going Vessel Background and Description ................................................. 6 2.1. Ocean-Going Vessel Marine Engines and Operations ................................ 9 2.2. Geographical Areas..................................................................................... 9 3. General Emissions Inventory Methodology and Sources...................................... 12 3.1. Base Year Vessel Visits and Time At Berth............................................... 13 3.2. Vessel Visit Length .................................................................................... 15 3.3. Effective Power (EP) ................................................................................. 19 3.4. Emission Factors (EF) ............................................................................... 22 4. Future Year Forecasts........................................................................................... 22 4.1. Freight Analysis Framework ...................................................................... 23 4.2. Mercator Forecast for Ports of LA/LB ........................................................ 27 4.3. Engine Tier Availability and Introduction...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Facts About Freigh T
    o u s Ab t F c t re a ig F h t 5 1 T h s e t c n e u x d t o s r t p a r g u e i o n t o f he journey Matching traded cargo to the right vessel takes flexibility, meticulous planning and highly specialized knowledge. Louis Dreyfus Company (LDC) invests in world-class logistics and tracking technology, and continually upgrades its port facilities and chartered fleet around the world, to deliver the most efficient Freight services to our customers and partners. A brief history of maritime trade: 1450 - 1815 - 1950 - tomorrow 1815 1950 today Global trade blossoms after voyages Empires make use of new steam With the rise of bulk shipping, companies A greener and more of discovery reach the New World engines and steel hulls to further their turn to oil - and diesel-fueled machinery responsible shipping business model across the globe and welded steel hulls, enabling a new, notably through low-cost model emission reduction Maritime trade accounts for 11 BILLION TONS Today, the world’s main of goods traded annually shipyards are in around the world 90% 50% China Japan dry bulk, of which 15% of global trade is agri-products S.Korea Philippines It takes approximately Common life span of a cargo vessel is Right now, there are as many as 12 MONTHS to build a cargo ship 20-30 YEARS 60,000 VESSELS ON THE JOB Dry bulk carriers can carry grains, Wet tankers are for vegetable oils, Liners carry containers packed Refrigerated ships transport oilseeds, sugar, rice and minerals ethanol and biodiesel with coffee and cotton orange juice The QUANTITY A VESSEL
    [Show full text]