Measuring of berthing velocities in container

berth and applying to fender

designBridgestone

Seigi Yamase

7.Feb.2012

Berthing Velocity Standard data

2

Container Vessel size distribution on 4 ports

3

Berthing Velocity on 4 ports

4

Brolsma vs. 4 ports

5

Berthing Velocity on 4 ports

6

Frequency & Log-normal distribution

7

Frequency & Log-normal distribution

8

Wind effect

9

Berthing maneuver

Port M

Port Y

10

Berthing maneuver

11

Berthing maneuver

12

Port M

Port Y

Conclusion in Berthing velocity measureing

• Berthing velocity distribution is peculiar to each berth.• In these ports, there seems to be no correlation between

vessel sizes and berthing velocities against Brolsma chart.• In these ports, wind effect doesn’t have significant influence.

Wind doesn’t make the difference of berthing velocity distribution.

• Tug boat and thruster seems to have equivalent ability to control berthing.

• The main cause of difference of berthing velocity distributions shall depend on berthing principle of each port.

13

Berthing velocity and fender performance

1990’s Trellex element fender swept fender market. But their fenders broke very early.

Reason 1

The recess for fixing bolt had the strong stress concentration.

Reason 2

Trellex gave the big speed factor to element fender.

Higher berthing velocity generated higher reaction force and bigger energy absorption.

But speed factor and temperature factor are same characteristics in visco-elastic materials.

Which has bigger reaction force, higher berthing velocity in tropical or lower berthing velocity in the winter in Norway ?

14

Fender performance

15

Fender size

16

Strain rate

17

Temperature and speed

18

Experiment result and combined method result

19

Temperature-frequency reducibilityWilliam Landel and Ferry formula

20

),(),(

),(

1),(

22

1

2

2

11

sTss

sTss

sk

sks

n

kk

ss

TaGT

TTG

TaGT

T

Ta

TaTG

T

TTG

T

T

s

ss

sT TTc

TTc

T

Ta

2

110 loglog

WLF formula

50gs TT

21

Temperature vs. deflection velocityon experiment and

multiple combined at 25% compression

deflection

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1.E-08 1.E-06 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02

aT*strain rate

Rea

ctio

n F

orce

Rat

e

-30 degrees

-１0 degrees

23 degrees

50 degrees

70 degrees

Comparison with Japanese manufactures’ TF & VF

22

CompanyA

CompanyB

CompanyC

CompanyD

CompanyE

Sample Shape Circular Corn Type

Circular Cylinder

Type

Rectangle Type

Circular Corn Type

-

Sample Height (Nominal Height) 100mm 125mm 100mm 100mm -

Preliminary Compression 10times 3times 10times 5times -

Compression Interval in measuring TF 6 hours 3.5hours - 6 hours -

Order of measurement

-30℃↓

50℃↓

-30℃

-20℃↓

50℃

50℃↓

-30℃↓

50℃

50℃↓

-30℃-

Performance (Rubber) Grade

Hard Soft - - Hard Mid Soft -

Max Difference between TF and VF

0.03 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.02

Glass TransitionTemperature ( )℃ -41.9 -41.9 -45 -35 -32 -36 -38 -34

TF & VF for each manufactures -1(After convert to WLF formula)

23

1E-03 1E-01 1E+01 1E+03 1E+050.5

1

1.5

2

Company A - Hard: aT converted to TFCompany A - Hard: VF

aT×Strain Rate (%/sec)

Rea

ctio

n F

orce

Rat

e

1E-03 1E-01 1E+01 1E+03 1E+050.5

1

1.5

2Company A - Soft: aT converted to TFCompany A - Soft: VF

aT×Strain Rate(%/sec)

Rea

ctio

n F

orce

Rat

e

1E-03 1E-01 1E+01 1E+03 1E+050.5

1

1.5

2Company B: aT converted to TFCompany B: VF

aT×Strain Rate(%/sec)

Rea

ctio

n F

orce

Rat

e

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00 1E+01 1E+020.5

1

1.5

2Company C: aT converted to TFCompany C: VF

aT×Strain Rate(%/sec)

Rea

ctio

n F

orce

Rat

e

TF & VF for each manufactures -2(After convert to WLF formula)

24

1E-03 1E-01 1E+01 1E+03 1E+050.5

1

1.5

2Company D - Hard: aT converted to TFCompany D - Hard: VF

aT×Strain Rate (%/sec)

Rea

ctio

n F

orce

Rat

e

1E-03 1E-01 1E+01 1E+03 1E+050.5

1

1.5

2Company D - Mid: aT converted to TFCompany D - Mid: VF

aT×Strain Rate (%/sec)

Rea

ctio

n F

orce

Rat

e

1E-03 1E-01 1E+01 1E+03 1E+050.5

1

1.5

2

Company D - Soft: aT converted to TF

Company D - Soft: VF

aT×Strain Rate (%/sec)

Rea

ctio

n F

orce

Rat

e

1E-03 1E-01 1E+01 1E+03 1E+050.5

1

1.5

2

Company E: aT converted to TF

Company E: VF

aT×Strain Rate (%/sec)

Rea

ctio

n F

orce

Rat

e

25

1E-07 1E+00 1E+07 1E+140.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Bridgestone Hard rubber compound TCF

Bridgestone Soft rubber compound VCF

Company Z TCF

Company Z VCF

aT×v (%/sec)

Re

act

ion

Fo

rce

Ra

te

Temperature and Strain rate

26

Conclusion of the relation between velocity and temperature

• The velocity factor and temperature factor of fender reaction force are expressed as unity by WLF formula. Temperature-frequency reducibility can be applied to fender reaction force.

• Temperature and speed factors of some companies can not be applied to WLF formula. They might make some mistakes in experiment or data handling. PIANC WG145 will define test procedure for temperature and speed factor in detail to avoid making wrong data.

27

Measured Berthing Angle in 4 ports

28

Berthing angle vs. Berthing velocity

29

Berthing angle vs. DWT

30

Container vessel shape and flare angle

31

Upper Column:DimensionLower Column:Divided by

dimension of No.3

MaerskE class

PostPanamax

Panamax

No. 1 2 3

Length m 397.71 333.60 276.00

Lengthi/Length3 1.44 1.21 1.00

Lpp m 376.00 316.30 260.80

Lppi/Lpp3 1.44 1.21 1.00

Width m 56.70 45.60 32.20

Widthi/Width3 1.76 1.42 1.00

Depth (from themain deck) m 30.00 27.20 21.00

Depthi/depth3 1.43 1.30 1.00

Draught m 15.50 14.50 11.50

Draughti/Draught3 1.35 1.26 1.00

DWT 156907.00 102351.00 63265.00

DWTi/DWT3 2.48 1.62 1.00

TEU 15500.00 9200.00 4100.00

TEUi/TEU3 3.78 2.24 1.00

Table 1 Container vessel dimensions

No.1; Maersk E class No. 2; Post Panamax No.3; Panamax

Figure 2: Cross sectional views of No.1, No. 2 and No.3 vessels

Figure 3 Fender elevation

How to obtain flare angle

32

Flare angle vs. Berthing Angle

33

Hull radius in horizontal plane

34

Ratio of Parallel Hull at Fender elevation in Port Y

35

Conclusion in berthing angle

• Actual berthing angles are rather small than design conditions.

• In this study, flare angles are bigger three times than berthing angles in minimum.

• In horizontal plane, the contact point of vessel hull to fender has big hull radius. Many fenders were installed on every 15 to 20m in container berth. Multiple fenders could absorb berthing energy.

• Container vessel upsize rapidly and container vessel shape change greatly. The shape of the latest container vessel cannot be obtained. There may be a big difference in the present status with this study.

36

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

TAKK FOR DIN STØTTE TIL JAPAN JORDSKJELV OG

TSUNAMI 2011.37