Measuring berthing data

671 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
671
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Measuring berthing data

  1. 1. Measuring of berthing velocities in container berthand applying to fender design Bridgestone Seigi Yamase 7.Feb.2012
  2. 2. Berthing Velocity Standard data 2
  3. 3. Container Vessel size distribution on 4 ports 3
  4. 4. Berthing Velocity on 4 ports 4
  5. 5. Brolsma vs. 4 ports 5
  6. 6. Berthing Velocity on 4 ports 6
  7. 7. Frequency & Log-normal distribution 7
  8. 8. Frequency & Log-normal distribution 8
  9. 9. Wind effect 9
  10. 10. Berthing maneuver Port M Port Y 10
  11. 11. Berthing maneuver 11
  12. 12. Berthing maneuver Port M Port Y 12
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. Fender performance 15
  16. 16. Fender size 16
  17. 17. Strain rate 17
  18. 18. Temperature and speed 18
  19. 19. Experiment result and combined method result 19
  20. 20. Temperature-frequency reducibilityWilliam Landel and Ferry formula 2 T n aT k Ts G1 ( , T ) Gk Ts 2 s Ts k 1 1 aT k Ts T G1 ( aT , Ts ) s Ts T G2 ( , T ) G2 ( aT , Ts ) s Ts WLF formula T s c1 T Ts log10 aT log s T c2 T Ts Ts Tg 50 20
  21. 21. 3.5 -30 degrees 3.0 -1 degrees 0 Reaction Force Rate Temperature vs. 23 degrees 2.5 deflection velocity 50 degrees on experiment and 2.0multiple combined at 70 degrees 25% compression 1.5 deflection 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.E-08 1.E-06 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 aT*strain rate 21
  22. 22. Comparison with Japanese manufactures’ TF & VF Company Company Company Company Company A B C D E CircularSample Shape Circular Rectangle Circular Cylinder - Corn Type Type Corn Type TypeSample Height(Nominal Height) 100mm 125mm 100mm 100mm -Preliminary Compression 10times 3times 10times 5times -Compression Intervalin measuring TF 6 hours 3.5hours - 6 hours - -30℃ -20℃ 50℃ ↓ ↓ ↓ 50℃Order of measurement 50℃ 50℃ -30℃ ↓ - ↓ ↓ -30℃ -30℃ 50℃Performance Hard Soft - - Hard Mid Soft -(Rubber) GradeMax Difference between 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.02TF and VFGlass Transition -41.9 -41.9 -45 -35 -32 -36 -38 -34Temperature (℃) 22
  23. 23. TF & VF for each manufactures -1(After convert to WLF formula) 2 2 Company A - Hard: aT converted to TF Company A - Soft: aT converted to TF Company A - Hard: VF Company A - Soft: VF 1.5 1.5 Reaction Force Rate Reaction Force Rate 1 1 0.5 0.5 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 aT×Strain Rate (%/sec) aT×Strain Rate(%/sec) 2 2 Company B: aT converted to TF Company C: aT converted to TF Company B: VF Company C: VF Reaction Force Rate 1.5 1.5 Reaction Force Rate 1 1 0.5 0.5 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07 aT×Strain Rate(%/sec) aT×Strain Rate(%/sec) 23
  24. 24. TF & VF for each manufactures -2(After convert to WLF formula) 2 2 Company D - Hard: aT converted Company D - Mid: aT converted to TF to TF Reaction Force Rate Reaction Force Rate 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 aT×Strain Rate (%/sec) aT×Strain Rate (%/sec) 2 2 Company D - Soft: aT converted to TF Company E: aT converted to TF Company D - Soft: VF Company E: VF Reaction Force Rate 1.5 Reaction Force Rate 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 aT×Strain Rate (%/sec) aT×Strain Rate (%/sec) 24
  25. 25. 2.0 1.5Reaction Force Rate 1.0 Bridgestone Hard rubber compound TCF Bridgestone Soft rubber compound VCF Company Z TCF Company Z VCF 0.5 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07 1.E+09 1.E+11 1.E+13 aT×v (%/sec) 25
  26. 26. Temperature and Strain rate 26
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. Measured Berthing Angle in 4 ports 28
  29. 29. Berthing angle vs. Berthing velocity 29
  30. 30. Berthing angle vs. DWT 30
  31. 31. Container vessel shape and flare angle Upper Column:Dimension Maersk Post Lower Column:Divided by Panamax E class Panamax dimension of No.3 No. 1 2 3 Length m 397.71 333.60 276.00 Length i /Length 3 1.44 1.21 1.00 Lpp m 376.00 316.30 260.80 Lpp i /Lpp 3 1.44 1.21 1.00 Width m 56.70 45.60 32.20 Width i /Width 3 1.76 1.42 1.00 Depth (from themain deck) m 30.00 27.20 21.00 Depth i /depth 3 1.43 1.30 1.00 Draught m 15.50 14.50 11.50 Draughti /Draught 3 1.35 1.26 1.00 DWT 156907.00 102351.00 63265.00 Figure 3 Fender elevation 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 31 Figure 2: Cross sectional views of No.1, No. 2 and No.3 vessels
  32. 32. How to obtain flare angle 32
  33. 33. Flare angle vs. Berthing Angle 33
  34. 34. Hull radius in horizontal plane 34
  35. 35. Ratio of Parallel Hull at Fender elevation in Port Y 35
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!TAKK FOR DIN STØTTE TIL JAPAN JORDSKJELV OG TSUNAMI 2011. 37

×