Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SUMMARY
Since May 2008 Dockwise gathers weather and ship motion data. The Octopus motion and weather database includes
now casted weather data and motion data along the sailed route. Up to 1.6 million nautical miles of data is currently
available. This research describes a suitable method to implement Octopus weather data into the design process resulting
in more consistent operational margin over the whole range of design wave heights. The basic aim is to increase the
margin at lower design sea states <5.0 [m] and to reduce the margin for higher design sea states. This Operational Based
Method (OBM) uses a Joint Probability Density Function combining a marginal 3-parameter Weibull distribution for the
significant wave height with a conditional log-normal distribution for the zero crossing wave period to extrapolate the
wave data to the 10-year return design contour. Herewith, the weather routing capacity of the captain is included.
NOMENCLATURE 1. INTRODUCTION
BWA Bad Weather Avoidance This paper describes the development of a new
CoGH Cape of Good Hope calculation algorithm which reflects the conclusions of
CSM Cargo Securing Manual the data collected with the Octopus motion monitoring
DW Dockwise project on the Dockwise fleet of vessels. It is shown
Dosuite Dockwise design wave program where the Octopus data can be implemented in the design
GWS Global Wave Statistics process and how the data can be used to evaluate the
HMT Heavy Marine Transport design sea states. This Operational Based Method leads
HTV Heavy Transport Vessel to a more accurate and representative design wave
JPDF Joint Probability Density Function calculation, when compared to the standard Dosuite
LoNoWe Log Normal Weibull method [1].
OBM Operational Based Method The limiting design accelerations in the Heavy
POT Peak over Threshold Marine Transport (HMT) are often based on the severe
RAO Response Amplitude Operator weather conditions around the Cape of Good Hope
SPOS Ship Performance Optimization (CoGH), though depending on the route of the vessel.
System This particular region is area 90 in the Global Wave
WFE Wave Forecast Error Statistics (GWS). Therefore the results presented in this
paper are based on area 90, although the method is also
ai, bi Distribution fitting parameters (-) applicable to all other GWS areas, depending on the
α, β, γ Weibull distribution parameters (-) amount of sailing time available.
d Water depth (m) The operational margin is defined as the
E Mean value (-) difference between the design wave height and the now
g Gravitational constant (m/s2) casted wave height along the route of the vessel.
Hmax Maximum wave height (m) Regarding the results shown in this paper, focus is given
Hs Significant wave height (m) to reducing the operational margin of the higher design
Number of observations within class wave heights.
number i (-)
Sum of total number of observations in 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
preceding class, plus one (-)
Total observations (-) Whereas the OBM is meant to replace the Dosuite
Cumulative probability (-) method for calculating the design sea states an overview
Ss Wave steepness (-) is given in [1], [2] on the methods used within Dockwise
Tz Zero-up crossing period (s) to calculate the design wave height for heavy marine
µ Mean of natural logarithm of zero transports.
crossing period (ln[s]) Various papers already include a detailed
σ Standard deviation of natural logarithm description of the Octopus system of which one can refer
of zero crossing period (ln[s]) to [3] and [4]. From the Octopus data a weather database
λ Wave length (m) has been built. In here, the operational insights and
Wave frequency (rad/s) conclusions of the motion monitoring program are
described. The Operational Based Method is based on the
data collected by the Octopus system. Detailed
information of the data can be found in [2], [3] and [5].
Figure 1: Wave scatter diagrams Octopus vs. Dosuite 3.3 FROM SCATTER DIAGRAM TO DESIGN
WAVE HEIGHT
This paper focuses on how to implement this Octopus
weather data in the design process for heavy transport First, a short description of the determination of the
engineering. Dosuite design wave height is given. Hereafter, the
difference with the OBM design wave height
3. IMPLEMENTATION OF OCTOPUS DATA determination is explained.
Ref. [1] and [2] describe that Dosuite uses a
3.1 OCTOPUS SCATTER DIAGRAMS Gumbel cumulative probability distribution function for
the distribution of the wave height classes in the wave
The time records of the SPOS-NOW wave data, as scatter diagrams of GWS. In formula:
described in [5], are converted into wave scatter
diagrams. This conversion makes the comparison with
( )
the GWS scatter diagrams, as used in Dosuite, much √ (Eq.1)
easier. Furthermore, both methods use scatter diagrams
as basis.
In Figure 1 the Octopus wave scatter diagrams of area 90 The Gumbel formula was chosen because it should give
are visualized. For comparison, the yearly GWS wave the probability of exceedance of a certain wave height
scatter diagram is also added. The difference between the without ever reaching a probability of non-exceedance of
conventional design wave climate and the observed wave one.
climate is clearly visible, especially in wave height. In the design wave height calculation of Dosuite the
The Octopus wave scatter diagram confirms the probability of exceedance of the 3-hour design wave
conclusions in [2] and [5], in which it was obtained that height is calculated, given the season and transit time
the highest wave encountered is about 5.5 [m]. through the area. To account for calm periods, the
calculation is corrected for waves smaller than 4.0 [m].
3.2 IMPLEMENTING OCTOPUS SCATTER Together with Eq.1, the Dosuite method results
DIAGRAMS in a design wave height which is always lower than the
maximum observed wave height in the GWS diagram.
The Octopus data could be implemented in the design Whereas the new operational design method makes use
process as a new weather database, as indicated by the of the weather database built up from the sailing vessels,
dotted line in Figure 2. This is the most obvious location, it means it is entirely based on weather which is already
as the Octopus wave database is converted into wave encountered.
scatter diagrams and both Dosuite and OBM use scatter For a design method, it is often required to design for sea
diagrams as basis. Because the weather database is states which have a very small probability of encounter.
changed, both methods calculate different design sea If the Dosuite method would be used for obtaining the
states. Note that the calculation of the non-environmental design sea states and only the weather database is
part of the design values like RAOs, response spectrum, changed, the resulting design sea states will be
spectral moments, etc. will not be changed. unrealistically low.
Figure 6: Standard deviation of ln(Tz) of Octopus and The fitting to the mean of ln(Tz) gives a good fit for the
GWS wave data Octopus wave data. Some other functions have also been
tried to fit the data, but none of them provided a better
For each bin of the significant wave height, the fit.
parameters and of the conditional Log-Normal
distribution of the zero-up crossing wave period are 4.4 (b) Standard deviation of ln(Tz) as function of Hs
estimated.
The modelling of the parameters is done by empirical The result of fitting the standard deviations is shown in
regression functions. First, the fitting of the -parameter Figure 6 for the Octopus wave data and the GWS wave
is shown. data. The DNV recommended fit of the standard
deviation of ln(Tz) as a function of Hs is given by Eq.6.
4.4 (a) Mean value of ln(Tz) as function of Hs
( ) (Eq.6)
The method’s recommended fit of the mean value of
ln(Tz) as a function of Hs is given by Eq.3. The result of This formula is in good agreement with Eq.4 with the
the fitting with this formula for the Octopus wave data is original b1 parameter set at 0.07.
visible in Figure 5. For the Octopus wave data the dotted red line represents
For clarity, the fit to the GWS is also included. The the methods recommended fit. This represents in Eq.7.
fitting of the GWS data has been done with the DNV However, the scatter of the Octopus standard
recommended practice formula: deviation data is bigger than the scatter of the mean
ln(Tz) data. Therefore, it is more complicated to fit this
( ) (Eq.5) data.
Several distributions have been fitted, which are listed
Eq.5 is a simplification of Eq.3 because the original below (for clarity, the recommended fit is also included
parameter is set to 0.70 for all areas. in the form of Eq.7):
( ) (Eq.7) (Eq.13)
( ) (Eq.8)
(onl fitted for m) Eq.13 is valid for non-significant wave heights.
Throughout this paper, the significant wave height is
( ) (Eq.9) used. The wave steepness is then written as:
(Eq.14)
( ) (Eq.10)
(Eq.11)
( )
(Eq.12)
WFE) is close to the maximum now casted wave height As can be seen in Table 2 and 3, both the
for above mentioned seasons. transverse- and vertical design accelerations differ only
Because the trend in severity of the seasonal scatter (maximum) 1-2% when comparing the 50% POT value
diagrams of area 90, compared to the GWS scatter with the 10% POT value.
diagrams of area 90, is not yet well understood and the
yearly scatter diagrams contain more data it is advised to 6.2 FITTED STANDARD DEVIATION
use the yearly OBM for doing design calculations for
voyages that will pass the CoGH. Especially the fitted standard deviation has a big
influence on the resulting contour lines of the Octopus
6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS wave data, as can be seen in Figure 10. The different
design sea states obtained from the 10-year return
Within the development of the new design method, contour lines are visualized in here.
several assumptions have been made for the OBM. For
instance, the significant wave height is fitted with a POT
value of 10%. But different POT values could result in
different design wave heights. Furthermore, the standard
deviation of the wave period could be fitted in various
ways. Finally, the sensitivity of the wave forecast error is
shown.
To better show the influence of above mentioned
variables relative to the assumed base case, the design
accelerations of 22 voyages are calculated from the
design wave heights.
Difference Difference
[10-2] vs [10-3] [10-4] vs [10-3] 7. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Minimum 0.00% -4.67%
Mean 2.66% -1.44% 7.1 CONCLUSIONS
Maximum 14.96% 0.00%
An operational based design method, which takes the
Table 4: Sensitivity of transverse OBM design avoidance of bad weather into account, is developed and
accelerations, [10-2] and [10-4] vs [10-3] analysed through modelling, calculations and
comparisons with measurements. The following
conclusions are drawn on basis of the results and are
Difference Difference valid for all DW vessels and for GWS area 90 only:
[10-2] vs [10-3] [10-4] vs [10-3]
Minimum 0.60% -1.90% For the higher design wave heights the operational
Mean 1.11% -0.83% margin, defined as difference between the design
Maximum 1.88% 0.00% wave height and the now casted wave height along
the route of the vessel, is decreased.
Table 5: Sensitivity of vertical OBM design
accelerations, [10-2] and [10-4] vs [10-3] The significant wave height of the Octopus wave
data is Weibull distributed, except the tail of the
6.3 WAVE FORECAST ERROR distribution. The seasons in which the highest
waves have been encountered show a clear
To account for the WFE, it is assumed that both the deviation from the assumed Weibull distributed
maximum error of 1 [m] in wave height and 1 [s] in wave significant wave height data towards lower
period will occur at the same time. probabilities of exceedance. This is a direct effect of
A sensitivity analysis is performed when the wave the weather routing capacity of the Dockwise
forecast error is taken into account. The difference in captains.
yearly transverse design acceleration when compared to
the base case (POT value 10% for the Weibull When the waves will grow in amplitude, the wave
distribution of the significant wave height, standard periods will hardly increase. The relation between
deviation fit number ‘3’ for the wave period) is the mean, taken of the natural logarithm of the wave
calculated. Tables 6 and 7 shows these differences. period per wave height, and the significant wave
Clearly, the wave forecast error has a large influence on height is very well described by the
the resulting design accelerations. function ( ) . This function
Recently a new research is started to investigate the local shows only a minor increase in wave period when a
wave forecast error and to account for the error in the vessel will encounter higher waves.
design program.
The wave forecast error which is currently included 10. M. Deelen, ‘An operational based method for
is a conservative assumption. Sensitivity analysis determining the design sea state of heavy
shows that this value has a large influence in the transport vessels’, MSc thesis, Delft University
resulting design wave height. Furthermore, the of Technology, 24-05-2013.
WFE might be different when only a specific area is
investigated. Knowing the error per area will 11. Tucker M.J., ‘Waves in ocean engineering,
improve the accuracy of data. measurement, anal sis, interpretation’. London:
Ellis, Horwoord, 1991.
The amount of data present in the database near
area 90, the Cape of Good Hope, includes about one 9. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY
year of continuous measurements. To increase the
reliability of the data, it is advised to keep Michael Deelen holds the current position of transport
continuously monitoring the wave environment and engineer at Dockwise. He is responsible for support to
ship motions. answers and alternatives on engineering issues of clients
and Dockwise projects. This will include feasibility
8. REFERENCES studies, design of solutions and project support in the
execution phase.
1. DOCKWISE GC.ENG101, ‘Routing and Design
Environmental Conditions’, Guidelines and Jan de Jonge works as a senior marine engineer at
Criteria, November 2008. Dockwise and is involved in all kind of hydromechanics
topics like ship motion behaviour, float over analysis,
2. M.J.A. van Exsel and J.B. de Jonge, mooring analysis, environment and model testing. In
‘Developments in heav transport design addition daily work involves leading a fleet wise motion
calculations’, Marine Heav Transport & Lift monitoring project, processing and analysing of the data.
III, 2012.