FLETCHER

Cl

REPLY TO: 218 W. CHURCH STREET

JACKSONVfLLE, FLORfDA 3:!Z02
.TELEPHONE 354.0922

or
ACHIEVEHi;liTS Al'Il

DgVELOF~Et-rrS

CCTOBSR - 1970

by

Edwin H. Fletcher

ARTIJOt-1-(

F" A R

P. 0. Ou>: 1 201l

EAST

Co., L TO.

ARTUDAR EUROPE N.V.

CDDLiliNOCL 57
RnT r c noAM. I COL.1. A.NO

Liccrucd Projmiowzl Fllltillfcr .

NCW YOrtK. FLOitiDA .

J.Otli ~ I.\ N A

. VERMONT

'.

ARTUBAR ACHII::VSJ.ENTS AS OF OC'T03BR 20, 1970

ARTUBAR is nothing IOOre than an articulated tug/barge system for

ocean operation.
This ocean-going, push tug system is the accumulation of five
years of intensive engineering and research; and represents a
remarkable advance~nt in the State of the Art for efficient
high-speed, tug/barge operations.
To date ARTt~~ represents ~ analysis of approximately 15,000 ft.
of film, 5000 ~ hours of model basin scientists and tecPJdcians,
. and 8000 hours of engineering design and research. Covering, tug
and baree de~ign connection syste~~ ie fixed energy, adjustable
energy absorption, and free-slot, in addition, variations in
spacing between tug and barge v!ere also analyzed.
In reference to all the above, the estimated emottnt. of recorded
data, in regard to readings taken, was appi'o:dJr.ately 750,000
readin~s.
}bst of these readings were taped and the data
computerized.

vndle ARTL~ut is a patented design, it contains no novel or

untried eqUipment or principles.
Tugs have been pushine and tmdne barges for years and it is an
established fact that pushing is the ~st efficient and safest
arrangement of the tug and barge combination.
l "'l'he ecohomcs of push tow has lead to mmy types of tug-barge connec.tions. All '-!ere developed llith the hope that the tug vroUld be
able to rer~n in the push position throughout its voyage.
To date no tug barge combination \dth independent motion \rhich is
considered as t\10 distinct ves sels each able to operate s eparately
has been able to achieve this goal, 'dth the exception of AR'IUBAR.
Tugs pushing barges \od.th or \otithout notch are OO.aicl!lly designed
for sn:ooth \:a ter operations; hO\:ever, this can only be achieved
W'ith present z:ot.hods in rcn:x::iJ::lum seas of 6 1 - 8 1 cr to 10 1 Hith
larger units -- then the tug I::iUSt corr.e out of the bo..rge stern
notch ~d co~e onto the h~~3er. This systGm hus many ve17 serious
dis~vanta~s.

First of o.ll, it is bro:lkir..e loose the c01me ctions to cor~ out of

the barge notch, the loosening up of tho cables, setting the
adjustabla skegs for towine, etc., can be vc17 do.naerous to

Ed\.r.l..n li. fl etcher & Assoc., 218 H. Church Street 1 Jacksonville , Flo..

-2

equiyllnents, and very h!!.zardot~t:J to the safety of cre\..r a:nd tug.

In fact, h:o tuas bo:1.ts v!ere lo~t in 1969 - o!"le in the Gulf of
l;~:rlco :::.nd one in Va.tlcot.'Ver, Britr..ish Colur.bia, under basically
similm c.irc'I..Unsto.ncoes .
The one in the Gulf of }r,;,x:tco we lmow. Yr.ore about. The adjustable
skegs we 'tmdersk.r!d \.'~ro not properly set - the bs.ree Rw.me
a.round and capsized the tug 'Jith :-esultant loss of life o
Dr o E,. C,. D. Corlett,. :i..n his paper on 11 I."1.tt::crrated Cargo Units"
showo sor.e various adva.>1taees C'.nd d:i.sadv!!.nt::t~es of o. f ew sys-tcm3.
Hmo~ever, he h!ts rmde no conpa=i;:;on \l ith !;.Tt'l'L"TI;.r-:. 't:hi~h - ~gain
is even superior to 2-ny he has considered (proven tank tests o.re the
basis for this fact). See Page 2a.
Dr. ' Corlett's Figure 1 also inclt~~es other concepts which
on1y point out the superiority of' the f..RTl!B1~ concept. Tlrl.s
superiority is also recorded in tank test results.
~lith .ARTU3!.R there is no such problem as previously noted. There
are no acljustable sker5s. l! y p!!.tented '.t ine lt.:!ll skegs aro n :most

highly efficient ( 11re!:lm'kll.ble 11 ) trncl:i.nB method yet. devised for a

barge. The adjective 11 rem.;.rkable 11 is not rey uord , but that of
f oreiTnst scientists after exter.sive model basin test~ in Et~ope.
The direc-tors and lending scientists at both NSllB and HarnbtU'g ha11e
made most favorable re!l"..ark:3 about /JlTtJr:Yill in tbeir report:!, excerpts
of ,.,hich are attached. Netherlands Ship lbdcl Basin Ha:,1Ci1ingen
Report ~lo. 68 - 103 - m:r Page 3 states as follous:
nThe '-<j.nr;o,:aJ.l ski?. I!

!t

C ncl 8 C all

v~rsions

."3_..?_?-6-2 C, 3....Q.s,
Hell,

t~=:cJ:'::!d re~!'.~l~r-..bJ.v

while fc1ccd co1:rc z

ckt.rj.~-':'.5.oJJ S

,.:cr.:! ch3qke:d.

~asilv , 11

S!Ui'nY:

One of the
in secor..Qs
have to '00
do.ngercus,
tension on

main points of consideration is S!'.fcty disconnecting

o.nd also I::::!.king o. conn-:: ction in seconds. \!hen cables
disconnected un~cr present methods, it c:1n be very
as th~ tug is i'rec to n:-ove in any directionn as the
the cable s is slacked off.

Ed\dn H. Flotcher 8c Assoc ., 210 H. Chmch Street, Jecksonville, FJ.a.

C'

v8SSlOn:

Integrated C2rgo Units

Paper No. 2

/ =-/<:;. J'
l l ldfO!..LJ.L
fllllttl

- -- --- -

Sill!

c uo rs

t I I I u

-.. _

llltf

IIIII

IISIIJIJII

11 l

fA'\

J:t!s:j.-:.i?I<J/t;?_C.pN~/...~7.: ~
TU tj - - - 1 Jo'

BR.fc.=;E- 32o'
...

. t I I Cl

N ! lr I

C Ml I S I I 1 I NII

_5,&/'l ..~- - L llv/~--- - -

-- ---------- - - -t II

Cf

-.

UllfSI II IH II

--

-N~!--'l'-'1_,_1___;1~1 ! II I I r II

_jJ

-----------

r========[::::;;;~~.. - _ - - _ - : - - - - -- -.-___
__.,_

---G-_--~--

J . ~~~-~~~~~~~~~--~

UJ.\....

-J-

\-!hen the .l:..t1TUSA.R concept disconrwcts, it is guided free of the .

barge through the o..djoinine par3.llel sm-faces.
Froro a pure stand? oint of safety, there c~ be no comparison of
present wethods with A.'\TU.?.AR, as .1\RTU3A..~ is for superior.
The evolution of Art'l'ffi");\.-q, as uell as other designs referred to,
is .prcdico.t3d on various f~ctors, such as econoi:"d.cs, safety, etc o
The tug barge col':'lbinn.tion bas economic advantages in the following
ttee.s Hh~m co!:!p3.red to conventional ships:

1. Construction cost
2.

H:l.intenance and crew cost

3. Greater cargo capacity

4. Shorter

yard ti.Ite for repairs, lm-rer maintenance costs, etc.

~~Tml~ as a tug ~_rge combination has not only the above advantages

but also the follol-dng:

1..

H:meuverabili ty .and sea keeping

J. Discormect

in any sea. state frotl pilot house or local station.

4. Connect up with

up to 18 inches vertical misalignment of

pin and bearing.

5.

Tug with ~Tua~~ pin, does not have to be considered

dedicc.ted as it can tm.,r '-'lith hi~rser or push in convention:D. cable lash up, or the tug can be used as a
conventional tug.

6.

Barge lvith l.RTUBAR ster:1 can oo to\Ted rr.ore efficiently

by any tur:: and also pushed by conventional tug ldth

cable lash up.

7o
8~

ARTUB.~..R

units have hieher ::;pecds uhen cor::pared with other

designs on instoJ.J.cd horsepmvar m;rr basis.
Incre ased cre\r comfort in all s'=lc. states as pitch is
roll is tlut of b.:lrge.

~ a~d

In stnmr.:iU'Y, tho lJ?.'l'lB'\.R system has in its sir.:plicity none of the

objectional fc~tures of the other systemso
AR'l'UBt....~ has had COf.o/lete plan inspeqtion in the United States by
ABS ar~ USCG as t~o separate units.

E<hdn H. nctcher l'L Assoc., 218 Ho Church St., Jacksonville, Fla.

-4In reference to safety 1 ono of tho key con3idcrutions is com-so

stn.bllity 1 if you ever ~u to use the oorga on the hn.u~er wi.~h
another tu!_!. In this reenrdo, the att..1.ched sketch shouine
Tv3ta 1 and 11 indicates the e:<t'3nnivo c.dv:tnt.:~.::;os of the patented
\tincr w~l skego in lieu of the adjuGt=tble lftri!m::lble" slwss '.lith,
of course, rc~ulting in loos resi s~nce.
I have achieved directi~n sta.bili ty uithout the usu~ okeg looses 1
a.rrl lrithout the cot:plicuted errar.13crr.ent of bo.r rubbers, etc. In
a.ddition, r;;y desien l!ill perfom '.rltn a ship type bow, resulting
in greater speed, especially under adverse we~ther conditions.
Follouing table shovm n:ooel resistances in support of above st..atoments to follou:
E.H.P.

MC
C
C
C

4C

1968

E.H.P.

2MB Skeg

31 ft . Draught (9.45 m.)

Conventional 5kegs (Adjustable)

2 B Skeg

3 B Skeg

4 Skcg

Speed Knots

2 MC

2C

3C

646

721

605

571

766

1300

866

888

954

1135

939

887

1217

2004

1334

1367

1386

1644

1383

1328

1801

2885

1965

1992

1954

2326

1942

1908

2531

3977

2809

2821

10

2683

3217

2668

2661

3446

5448

3864

3859

10

11

3636

4359

3625

3635

4584

7248

5160

5154

11

12

4945

5863

4832

4938

5951

9409

6652

6761

12

13

6626

7711

6353

6600

7739

11852

8384

8670

13

14

8658

10164

8309

8750

10212

14831

10488

10952

14

Speed Knots

2
2
3
4

TEST RESULTS 31 rt. Draught (9.45 m.)

Wing-Wall Skegs

Std. barge bow and modified stern with Fletcher's wing-wall skegs
modified barge bow and original stern with Fletcher's wmg-wall skegs
modified spoon bow and modified stern with Fletcher's wing-wall skegs-raised forecastle
Fletcher's lull ship's bow and mod1fied stern with Fletcher's wing-wall skegs-This bow form was designed for 12 knots-(Heav~
seas-entrance very fuii)-Heavy bow flare 10cluded to keep water off container deck.

2MB Skcg}
Same bows as above but with modified stern and conventional skegs set to minimum resistance for towing and proper tracking
2 B Skeg
3 B Skeg
Displacement 3 C - 35.800 tons
NOTE: Just barge resistance in above tabulated results.

I do not make e.n att.:m:pt in this p:.1per to e"!alun.tc the detailed

econo;;dcs' for it is eus:tly estn.bJJ.shed thn.t the art:!..cul:.lted
ARTtmi:Jl concept is highly cconord.cul. The specific economics of
the operation are de;:r:mdcnt up:m c:tch ir:<lividuul oper.:::.tiono.l
pror;rm. This incl'l:d'1s size, hor:Jepo,m r, routes , tY'.-.a of loc.ding
an:l dischoree 1 foreir::n or Ar..ericnn l!re\TS, sirt;:.-licit:r and/or
sopf>..istica~ion of the opcrution includin~ o.ut,orr..:::.tion, sell-docking
requirer:lento, etc. P.mrcv~r 1 a portion of Professor J. A. Teasdale's .
paper on th.:ls subject is included on Pages 2J &. 24.

F.d\rin H. Flc tchcr & Asooc., 218 H. Church St., Jacksonville, Fla.

TEST I

COURSE
DRAFT

TESTS

S Tt,BILI TY

31 1 -0 ''
TRIMMABIE SECTIONS OF SKEGS SET J,T 27 OUTWARD AFT

MAX + :: )2 M
MA.X - :: )6 M
SPEED
0

.500 M

= 8 o .5 KNCY.rs

1000 M

1.500

lt\

'

2000 M

2.50

TEST IT
!RAFT JlY-011
}!AJ.

-----------c::

SPEED

,500 M

... .

=8 . 0

1000

+ :: .5

~ ... ::r

lt.'ING WALL SKEGS

-=

*==-

M
10 M

- - - - - - - -3- - -=r

Kriots

M.

. 1.500 M.

...

2000 M

25(

-6-

I have done extreme extensive ~odc1 ~esting - in f~ct, completed

nrJ l n::;t tests on September 2, 1970 at Jb.Ir.burc, Gcrm,!:ny. The
&'1Tli~~;.n.

concept - in all seas tested in every direction - hns

never 3Ubmereed at the stern, nor has it ever taken heavy green
water ~1er the stern.
Tests to determine seakeeping, tracking and p~n forces have been
conducted at St-::vens Institute of Toclmolog:.r, University of
lj_chiGan, USl-8,-Ho.eeninccn, r..olland as well as the latest tests
at the Ho.mburg H:>del Ba.sin.
?he rco.son for tcstine at so Il1.any recognized tanks l-Ias to have
complete comparative data and to utilize all the latest techniques
in the marine model test field, as well as the expertise of each
major test facility.
Phase I Tests
These tests ue::-e coneucted for resistance and tracld.ng characteristics . These tests shmred that the .ARTUBt~...Tt loring \-!all skeg had a
reduction in added resis~nc~ of up to 50% as compared with
conventional fixed or adjustable skegs, and even more t.rhen comparing full ships bows.

Ph-3.se II Tests
Ths Dreyfus tests vrere conducted from the Phase I lines usine a
tug and barge to deter~e both forces in reavy sea states and
operational characteristics iJ:l extremely heavy seas.

The models used in these tests are 1 to 30 scale, the following

is a to.bulation of the tucr and barge particulars:
Ves:;el Data
~trt: t

.0 .A .

lU.d Beam
Hld. Depth

Draft
Displace~nt

Propellers to be:

= 126 -1
= 31'-10"
20 -5n (Sta..
=
16
-6
=
1

11

Uo. 5)

11

= SlQ ST

B-4-44 - 12 1-011 Dia.

Edttin H. Fletcher & Assoc., 218 H. Church St., Jacksonville, Flao

-7- .

12 .ooo nmll'.

B,;trr.re

L.O.A.
1-fi.d. Bee.t1
la.C. Depth
Drnft
Displacetr.ent

16,000 DDH'l'.

.J95'-0"
70'-011
35 '-O"

= 25
= 1!; .610 ST
1

B~rge

L.O.A.
l~d.

Beam

Hl.d. Depth
Draf't
Displacement

68'-9"
= .470
-0
= 35 -0
=
= 25 '

11

11

l9~200ST

As the Phase I tests 1.:ere not conducted to record forces, we "Will

refer to the se.me tug a..11d barge usin:J the HSH3 test r eports for
this inforrration. These \>!ere conducted in sea conditions considerably n:ore serioU3 th.an hurricane conditions in the Gulf of ~exi co.
In fact, the significant "'ave heieht v:a.s 505~ higr.er, of course,
resulting in for~es of 50P greater average, and higher peak values.

On any basis of application, hot-:evor, we must first outline the

iorcos - loneitudinal is the thrust both positive and neGative as
indicated as plus and minus, the positive force acting a head and
the negati'Te acting as reversal force. These forces reached a
peak of 770 kips.
The vertical forces are also tabuluted end ~e indicated as plus
and minus, or up and do\m forces, all forces independently taken
on starboard and port pins. The plus is a vertical force acting
up and the minus force is the vertical force acting dol-m . The
:m.a.xi.mum forces indicated vertically "totere 3'90 kips. 'l'he e.xia.l
forces are those acting on the pin athHartsbip and i'..re indicated
also as plus or minus and here the peak force indicated, Has
650 kips.
From these forces, 1-re Hould indicate t!lR.t the forces indicc.ted
above, o.re ::;trictly peale forces tha:~ Ir.ight ha~pen o. fet.r times in
evory 1 ,000 readings. 'l'hese are of noro~nt?.ry dmt;l.tion, nnd f'or
cl.J. pract ical purposes fall under one second periods of actual
applied forc'3.
It s hould b0 pointed out ft~ther that they clo not have any allowance, wh::ttsoever, for nny absorption due to rub!)er bearines.
'Ihaqe arc str;ctly r--:lt~l to r.-a t~J ~or.tr..ct r~ ::dinr~3 and, t~1ercfore 1
t .he:r 3hould be pror::erly evaluated first "fro::-~ the sU.ndpotnt. that
\.re ill"e evaluo.tin~ the nbove peak forces to considP.r th"-l rr.:-.:drnum

Ed.Yin ~lo Fletcher & Assoc., 218 H. Church St., Jucksonvill3, Fla.

-8-

encount.l)rcd stress; secondly, theGc forces c>.le m0r.ent3.!'Y fo!'ctJn;

ru-:d. third, \.Je havo tukcn into accou..'lt nn Cv'1SiL~.crnt io!'1 for ennr:!
ab"orption. The acJ~ua.l ener~ absorption \d t h th~ A..k.'iUJ:..l\. rubber
bc:o.rinGs is e~rer-Bly hi[!;h as cor.iporeJ to the model results.
The Johnson nubber Cor:T':Xtny has redc the f ollmring speciflc statement in referenc/3 to n:otr.entary insta.."ltaneous loudin~, l!e est:L."'1ll.te
a n:.:i.nintii!l of 25-35 ~~ of initial shock load to be absorbed.
You must keep in mind that the tests for Phase II Hero conducted
in a sea state condition covering 98:6 of the seas of the \-lorst
conditionn betuecn !\0rth .tl.i'ricn and Hort.hern Europe . T!-leB"J
tc::;tf: \.'eTe co~(lucted to t he e.bs01ut:3 l:i.~it of the rno(1el b3.sin
capc.bili t~.
In reference to forces, they are extremely low in relationship
to bearing e.nd structure loading. AllO\:able loading as recommended by rn::mufacturi:lr ...,Ti th bull t-in safety factor allo\lance,
without grease lubrication consideration is as follous:
'
Constant Stationary loading for periods of 20 to 25 seconds
2CO P .s. I. Act.U2..l '\!Oridng area of bearin~s 6000 sq. inches.
Allo...,rable loading l2CQx o:- 600 tons. Of course, at sou there
can be no consta.."lt loudin~ on a (Stationary) bearinrr area as tho
units (Tug-Barge ) mov~ independentl y of ea~h other,-no ~tter
hoW SI:'.a.ll e. sea sto.te they operate in. t>SOp in m:td that in
hurrico..ne seas operating under tho 1.rorst co:r.di tion.s in ql.IDJ:'tering seas, the averaQS forces are only 94 tons longitudinally,
51 tons vertically and 9 tons ~~ally operating under a
hypothetical speed of 10 knots.
Instantaneous allovTable loading is 1500 P.S.I. or 900 lC or
4500 tons.
From the above, we can readily see that the allO\rabl,r lo~ing
is sows 4500 ton3
2750 per pin and bearing or 2750
7 to 1
over recou:.~enda tions, o.nd recor::rr.~nded lo::~.din[;S also have a
built-in factor of safety, even bv.sed on h1.rrrica.ne conditions.
In ae.di tion, the Dreyfus test forces are t otal. They include
but not linited to:

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Have forces
Pitch and Roll forces
Baree & Tug Resis~~nce forces
Rudder forces
P:-opeller thrust forces

--

It should also be r.oted tho.t these forces r~e registering some

25% to 35% hieher than v!'ill be realized because these are mota.lto-n:etn.l readin~s, r.;nch hi~hGr th!ln l.:ill bo c:qJeri~nc~Jd Hith the
11
1...t'I.1'U3!.;l.11 rubber bearings, 2lso forces r ecorded a.re point lo!l.din~s
in lieu of desiened bce.ring surf~ce loudings so as to record the
worst thcoretico..l codition3 .as e.dditional s!lfoty fo.ctor.

Ed"rin 1I. Fletcher & Assoc., 218 H. Church street, Jacksonville, Flo..

..1)-

Again ~..... these forces o.re to"t<tl and include rudder

-forces, reaction forces from the w.1ves, roll and pitch attitudes,
etco Again, 'He used that peak force \..:hich miGht h'l.ve been recorded
only once in thousands of readings. This is taking into consideration every remote possibility in the generation of theoretical forces.
Another point in reference to the peak forces, these ~e totally
hypothetical, as they cannot be reached . He are basing these forces
on hurricane sea conditions in a quartering bml sea., driving the
vessel at .lQ l::notso Of course, vle do not have the capability in
reference to tho propulsion pOl.fer to achieve any s peeds such as this ..
Ue also considered quart.erine stern seae. ~!e took the tuo 1:1orst
possib"le conditions at theoretical speeds to obtain the vJorst
possible forces.
Incidentally, in these forces, ue have also added considerable
misalignment (difference in draft relative to pin centers) between
the tug and barge. This -again - is just an additive force,
though aga_in small, ue note it here to inc.icate that eve!""'J possible
unfavorable condition tha.t could be considered, is incltrled in the
calculations no r.atter how far-fetched or improba ble the condition.
With this introduction, we list the tabular forces for the ARTUBAR
~TANT

FORCE*

DIHECTION

.390 Kips

Verticl
Transverse
Longitudinal

650 Rips
780 Kips

HULL STRESS

FR.

128

FR.

112

226
1390

PSI
PSI
PSI

1100
1100

PSI
PSI
PSI

765

765

if?rom 1-bdel Basin Test DQ,t!!,

You can see the forc~s of the ~~Tt~1 connection are far l ess than
any actual forces '"hich \muld be experienced on a norm?..l tow boat
from ha\lser forces alone. '!'he atta.clurr-nt of a to\:in~ vrinch on
tho deck \IOuld indica.te hleher stresses than those He have indicated
for the total AP..'l'U3A..ll bearing connection. 'Drl.s is due to the
Dnssive size of the oonxing rubber housing, the parallel m.ting
surface b3tvTeen tug and b-:trge J etc.
As a point of cor.:parison, also, the actw::.l force of just
tug pushing in the usual notch (uhich is concentrated on
area of the bol-r), this would be conside:::-a.bly high12r thnn.
are experiencing here" Here, we have an equivoJ.e nt area

Edwin IIo Fletcher & Assoc. ,

2H~

a standard
the si:'.all
\!hc.t \ie
of the tvro

ll. Church St. , Jacksonville, Fla. o

-10-

,.

pins '\orhich are each 5 ft. 1-onl7 in a bearing uith projected bearing
of four by five feet, for n t~t~l contact st~face of (40) sq. ft~,
all mou."ltcd in rubber, totally flexible and self-centering. '!hen
we consider a tug pushing in the notch, and putting tho rudder
ha.rdovor, the structurd of the tug, norlil!llly, comes up against
the structure of the barge. These for9es, l.fhich 1Jould be encountered,
would be several tilr.es that which lle mve proven here by calcula-tions.
The structural analysis of the pin '\.Te have indica ted belm-r. This is
a simple single shear calculated evaluation, as the pin itself is
so rigid, it will not be put in a. bending posture. You can see the
strength of one pin in itself is 5420 tons '\.ti th a. factor of safety
of 28 times the total peak force ever recorded on this unit under
analysis.

t\n Data
49 in.
2 Stiffereners . - 1~' X 1011
ID
45.75 inc.
Sa - 40,000 PSI .
Force - 390 Ydps - From ~bdel Test Data
J.~tal Area - 274 sq. in.
S : ~90,000 = 1440 PSI
274
Factor of Safety ~ AO,OOO ~ 28
Pmax : AO.OOO x 274 : 5480 tons
2000
1440
<D

The tug structure is the next poin't 'to be cons.ld.ered..

Here again,

1.... streg3 l:eccnes infinitesim.lly snnll. '~e have avoided including a:ny
repetitious analysis, as vTe have done for the other ARTUB:m

connections, but have shown the tug connection in its designed state
of compression.
You must reo.lize that -due to the limited ciearance betvTeen the tug
and the baree - we have a limited roll differential of the tug-barge
combination usually less than a i of a degree, but this differs
with each design. This produces a couple on the ~eting surfaces
of the tug and barge. These are self-aligning due to a n ex...:bearing
plate on the ba.rge. For evaluation purposes, '-re actually transmit
the forces of the couple throueh the col\.lliJl structure of the ...'>.P..TUBAR
pin structure connection in the tug. These are tabulated balm::
BARGE TUBS
CD - 57.333 in.

lD - 54.188 in.

Area ( H3tal) - 300 in2

Sect. H:xi.
- 20,000 in3

See arrangement sketch on follovdng page.

Ed'rtin H. FletchfJr &. Ar.soc., 218 \.J. Chtuch St., Jacksonville , Flo..

-11-

.. .

TYPICAL TUG-3!1.."1GS FIEX IIITEP.FACE CC!mECTION

PL~N

. --

~----

BARGE

~ Ii~G

VIEH

,-

\.fALL

- !r----et
n
11

--- ~

PIN

, _ _ _ _ S'!'3EL PlATE

\'------RUBBEH

--

Eduin H. Fletcher & ;.ssoc

21B H Church
0

st. I

Jacksonville' Fla 0

-12-

As3uminJ b~rge tube to be a beam fixed both ends (16 ft. long)
and the pin inserted 5 ft. acting as a lever to transnut the load
(780 YJ.ps).

S - J.'~x. lnr-~nt
5. 9 x 105 1 iiL: 26. PSI
Sect 1:.00.
= 2.2 x 10'+
S (compression) - For~o - ?SO.OCO # m 2EOO PSI
2
1-et.?.l Area - .300 in
The above do not t~~e into consideration and strensth obtained
!'rom franing and plating uhich secures the AR'l'UBAR pin tube to
the tug.
The structure in the tug has been hiehlY reinforced to account
for any possible eventualities, and allows a tremendous factor
of safety. Yet the forces to be experienoed \doth the ARTUBAR
connection \d.ll be fzuo less than existing forces no\1 being
experienced uith present tug e-lld bo.rge operations.. The reason
is si.Ir.ply the tu3 is being basically held in the proper relationship to the bearing surfaces - theoretically floating in rubber coming up against a parallel contact surface, with the barge, 'Hi th
considerable energy beine absorbed in the rubber bearings and
Uexiblo be~ing plates.
All of these contact surfaces e.re lubricated \l ith Hater and/or
grease, thus providing dissip.l.i:.ion of forGes over R le..1ee designed
urea. Under present conditions of pushing in the notch, the forces
nre highly concentrated, and no provision h..as been Iil!lde on existing
tug designs for properly absor!:>ing this ene;gy, although this, no
doubt, is probably due to the fact that th3 structure of tugs in
general ia extren:ely heavy in regard to actual required norrr.al
structural strength.
The subject tug has been heavily constructed - not because it is
necessary for the AF.TUTh\R conn0ction - but so this tuf, muy operate
as an independent so.lvc.:~-e tug, or for ha'trser tm./ine of deep sea
barges, or us a eencral all-around serv:i.co tug. \-!e ho.ve, ther e fore,
incltrled additional f actors of safety far beyond anything !Eaeinable,
designe~ t o date.
One . of the points of consideration that should 1~ kept in mind to
a misconception of the mo.gnittrle of forc e is t o note the
tug has a displacor.cnt of approY~r.~t e ly l/20th of the loo.ded barse.
In past discussion!:>, I h3.va had considerable coii:lr.ent on th9 distribution of generated forces, e.nd ~ost people have considered this
'b-J comparinG it to vc.rious studies made on ships Hhich 'trere hineed
in the middle. For CX!'~le, here \re have n to'.o:bo<!.t of approxiJr..ately
allevia..t~

Ed"Tin H. !letcher & Assoc., 218 H. Church St . , Jacksonville, Fla.

-13-

1 1 000 tons displacement, propelling a baree of approximately 20,000

tons displace~nt. the effect of this force is neglicfble if you

'\-rare to compare the ~'lrge as a hin~d unit; pinned at the center .

Here, you are hinging tocether tva areas tot.a.line 20,0CO tons, each
unit displacing 10,000 tons each. You initially started off with
a tremendous variance due to the difference in flotation, either
light or loe.ded. You then encounter t:::-emendous forces due to the
len{;th and displacement potentin.l of the ::r.nsses. You Hould have
each unit approxirlately (240) ft. long being encotmtered by dif'ferent Have for::t::!.tions, different periods of roll, different loading,
etc., resulting L~ trcreendous bearing pr~ssures - nod, of course,
could only be harnessed b; massive ruu'Cl\~are, the cost and \!eight of
same impractical.
llot too long arro on a hineed Unker study, shoHed a connection
utilizine t\o~o (2) 20 ft. die.Ireter pins,
each pin transmitting
shearing forces of apr..roxi.lr.ately 26,000 tons. This Has 1L"1der
moderate asstmptions. The hinge i tseJ.f . . rould \r eigh appro:ciJr..3. tely
1500 to 2000 tons or nearly double the weight of the tue, giving
resultant design with a questionable facto:::- of safety, based on
all conditions.

A comparison of the GULF

CQ~ST Transit CQ. tests (June,

.,,.,,'l +'ho
P'h .... o TT
_.,.-,, ---- .6----

Pn.R
__ c:
_A
_ T.. +. <?c:_+_._<> f't.~a..,.
10'7n'
-.,~
-

1968),

,rY"'"''
disclosed the design predictability for ARTUBAR units of ~ying
si:zeo

,.

+v_...,...,...,
..... ... + ... tv
... ~
,,....,..J,

..J-,/IVJ,

In analyzing the data from these reports, it is important to note

that the relative pin forces and tug barge motions r ecorded as
afford~ conservative 1C~l5 to 1 f actor .of
safety in the design.

maximum values still

A fourth test series conduct-ed at stevens Institute, soleJy for the

purpose of obb.inine .AR'l'L'J.'L'q pin loading forces u.'1der varying sea
and. loading conditions , corroborated the de.ta \!hich was used for
comparison evaluation.
The Stevens test is cited ns n reassurance to the Netherland Ship
model basin test comrr~nt relative to the use of forces obtained
from the test as design criteria.
There is theoretical r~rit only to their statenent based on the
s'W.tistic.:U approach outlined; hmcver, if tho stc..tistic.:U a~proa~h
is accepted and thc..t the one in several miJlion cycle condition
occurred in \o:hich all recorded r..rud..r:l un forces uere doubled, the unit
as designed could '\-ti thsto.nd these forces.
The Stevens Institute tests verified the cy.l~bnce of pee..~ (above
norli..::.l) forces but tho forces \:oro basically consistent 'rrith the Hila
nrrl Dreyfus uo.ta.

Ed\otin 1!. Fletcher &. P.ssoc o, 21S Ho Church St. 1

Jc.cJ~sonville,

Flo..

-14""
TESTS Til Ifi.REGULAR SF.AS

Follo\ti."lG tests ~ra in irrocular seas - from o.ll dircctions o

Tug is self-propell ed and gyTo controlled.
- 6 1-2 11 L.O.A.
Barge lJ:del is - 23 1-0 11 L. 0 .A.

Tug lhlel is

Calibrated forces und moti ons vmr e tabulated llt the approxilr..:1te rate
of 1 r e::>.ding per socond on tape.. Detailed anal ysis of al l readings
were checked and computed by the rr~st advanced State-of-the-t~t
procedures.

IR~GULAR

Significa..nt
Have !f,')~L crht

HAVE PARTICUL.t\RS

Avg. Period
in Seconds

5.4 I

6.9

5. 7'

7.2
7.2

5:~ I

s.o
10.4'

Peak Have
Hei rrht in Feet
12.0 1

12.4'

f.. ..(,

1.2.7'
17.8 1

s.s

23.1 1

EdHin H. Fletcher & f..ssoc., 218 U. Church St. , Jacksonville, F1.a.

-15~.

TABLES 11 & 111 "ARTUBAR"

Following is explanation of Tables 11 & 111 attached.

WAVE OIR ECTION 2 70

/

/
WAVE DIRECTION

:2-= --- -3S A RGE

SPEED

ooooq

WAVE DIRECTION ISO<'

~DIRECTION
Mean=Mean value of Motions and Forces
a~MJ =Significant Value of Motions (double ampliture, crest to trough)
~Y~+ :-Significan t Value of Motions (amplitude, crest to mean value)
~ YA- .= Si~nifir.an r Value of Motion s (amplitude, tough to mean value)
max =Maximum Value of Moti ons (double amplitude, crest to t rough)
Max+ = Maximum Value of Corces (amplitude, crest to starting value)
max-=Maximum Value of Forces (amplitude, trough to starting value
M =Motion Pictures Records Are Made Of The Test Involved

't'~= Positive

'f>=

s=

"

'f =

"

fa=
F'4 =

"

f t=

"

F~

"
,.

Bow Down
Roll to Starboard
Bow In
Bow Down
When Force 2 Pushes The Barge Forward
When Force 4 pu shes The Barge Forward
When Force 1 Moves Stern Of Bargo Upward
When Force 3 Moves Stern Of Barge Upward

Echdn Ho Fl ctclwr & Assoc., 218 l! o Church St~, Jacksonville, Fla.

Revie\or of the Tents

Results c.f the Tests

\!o.ve Ch.o.racteristics

Loneitudina1 Force
on Starbno.ro Pin

Test No. Speed After

in

( r-)

(Forces in Short Tons )

Lonffitudina1 Force
on Port Sido Pin

Verticc.l Force
on -Port Side Pin

Body

Knots

Vertica.l Force
on Starboard Pin

Fl in Short Tone

F2 :l n Short Tons

F1 in Short

Ton ~

..c
tl)

F'1 1n Shor t. '1' ons

.....~

(b

c+
;:r

Ill
G)

ti

Q)

Q)

..... ~Cl
..-I,.<!Q

a>

.....H

r.o

0..-1

:>

~~

Q)

al

()

.....

~hx.

~~ H11ve
~rl~ Ht. Ft.
fb::t<.
.>n
4l H
Cl

(/) :X: rt

~an

>C)~

<

HlX

~!lX

C'C\

-:::-.

~u..
(.\)

>l.rt

C4
C4

t-ax

~ban

t-nx

t-ax lhx

t-~an

""
?lL
::--

?11.

.f.

cO
:;:-...

l'1

tv

:-rue

lean

~ax

jg

"f
d

.E
g
-<H

lll..
(\)

::::

8838

10.2H

lll

180

5.4

6.9

12.0

.32 104

154 85

'.37 107 142 80

17 38 44

22

28

28 53 2

11

8!347

7.0
10.11'-!
13 . 2

1V

180

5.4

6.9

12.0

22
39
58

9.3
88
56

12.3 8.~
128 4;
136 21)

12
24
.37

91 130 !37
82 119 54
46 105 38

13 38 51
20 34 54
37 .37 64

32
10
...3

12
1R
.30

29 42 15
J1 49 10
.30 6?. ~2

10
10 . 5
10

26 138
43 145
66 S9

19.3 14'7
189 lJ)
185 .3:)

15 137 198 131

25 14? 196 116
40 75 153 58

15 69 76
23 57 78
35 52 79

51
35
13

15
26
.32

41.

41, 63 15
1.4 71 4

20
19
22

].7 329
43 .354
60 .36.3

.358 26:'
370 266
.393 25,i

22 340 295 302

.38 3M .326 285
64 .376 377 275

2 70 66
1? 72 76
.32 76 89

64
51
35

1P.
32
48

47 72 19
54 79 8
54 97 0

9
12
16

19 301,
.34 .317
57 314

285 25:i
.3.35 250
.370 23!i

19 .322 290 21,8

3.3 332 .310 255
47 330 326 260

ll

85 89
21 74 98
36 ?1 1CY7

41
19
6

10
22
34

.31 1,5 .38

31. 56 19
)8 6') 9

12

14.5

760

21 l t..3 152 ll5

14

71 113 60

25 . 5

5 39 57
16 37 62
27 36 75

30
19
6

12
26
44

37 51 19
38 63 2
32 68+10

6
8
9

50 57
51 7.3

32
16
6

12
20
3.3

37 1.5 38

6
7
6.5

32

27
24

120 53
e1 113 38

8848

1V
7.0
10. 4}-! lV

u.a

88).3

8845

8853

8835

8844

6.9l'
10.0 .
13.1

II

lll

7 .2!!

II

It

180
180

8.0
R.O

7.2
7.2

II

II

II

225

5.7

7.2

II

II

II

II

225

5.7

7.2

II

II

II

II

II

7.1 . 1V
10.1M II
13 . 0
"
1V

225

7 oH 1ll
10:1~! II
n
13 .1

270

7.1 1V
10:1M II

270

13.1
8836
8246

"

It

II

10.1 }~ 111
10.41-! lV

17oS
It

12.7

II
II

..

12.7
II
It

8.~

23.1

.38 505

51,()

8 551 530 660

5.6 6.6

12.4

-2 123
185 1 8~;
13 117 . 200 18~ ;
.39 127 210 17C

34 132 227 150

54 136 271 140
74 145 293 llO

5 146
18 140
43 150

178 17~.
190 160
201 l?C

25 139 217 )}..1

36 141 230 1?.5
54 145 271 108

7
17
32

56

L.6 270

337 18!
247 21t.

27 32.3 27/. 321

9 281 29!3 ~03

14
26

54 105
60 82

10.4

II

II

II

II

It

II

II

II

II

45
45

6.6
5.6
II
II
II

II

5.7 7.2
5.7 7.2

12.4
II
II

12 .7
12.7

54 255

f)f?.

1-

25

5(, 26

1.1 53 20
42 u 5

c
I

!:evic

1 c~

'!~sts

1he

~!ve t::h:-.r~ctr,d~tt~~

Test '>reed
r;o.
in
;:not::

:.r~.c r

Pitch .\rwli!!! Q!' t .hc Dergo P.oll AnlP.S of the !3nr'(:

o!.

~"'
o.:.

:!t:
v
(.o

~ 1-l

"'

rl

Cl rl

.....

m-

~ 2... ,i!!Jl9T.IO!C!J

1:

r-'?1.7

f'B45

~f!.53

8835

cW.

in

D0"'l't!'J!l

-1 +'

--. 0

-4

Q)

-1

r:::

t~

U).,-1

~3

~rl~

""'

>a>!::

1-b!xo
Hc.ve
!lt.Ft

1-~nn

,...

-::::-

~P....-1

l::l-

en

-!2

::;-..

~3-

l3-

t-:ea."l

lhx.

;!!.

l9-t'l

l-hx. llenn
~
:;::-...

~9-

....

cC\

::;:...

?9I

((\

:::N>

1</l

(\.)

t\.1

en

!nx.

}ha~

>

?111

c(\

::-

?~

~3--

~3--

("lJ

:-ax.

~ ::-

lV 1BO 5.1. 6.9

II

12.0

0,01 0.1.5 o.21. 0,21. 1.1 0,0t 0.56 O.JO 0.29 1.2 2.46 13.0 6.9 6.5 25.0 I) .l ] 2,r?.(. 1.1.<1 1.51 5.0
0.02 0,4; 0.~5 0.22 1.1 o.c~ 0.59 0.32 0,33 1.2 I.,()(, lJ,(, 7 .~ 6.<? 21 ~ 0.2( 2,70 l.JI 1.1.5 !.,4
0.04 0.36 0.2~ 0.15 1.0 o.o.!, o.P-7 0,46 o.u. 1.5 ~.26 13.2 7.0 7.2 ?.1 0 0.1.3 - .,, ,..'-. 1.17 1.2( 3.~

7.0~,

7.0
10.4lf

II

"

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

lV 1eo o.o 7.2

n

II

II

"

II

II

II

11

12.7

7 .1 ,, lV
10.1 '' II

12,7

II

7 .2~-~ 1'1

225 5.7 7.2

n

II

'

':

It

II

II

II

225

10.~ 8. ~

23.1

7 .c"; 111 270

II
10.1 . II
II
II
13.1

5.f f:.h

12 .(

7.1,. 1V
10.1 . n
n
13 .1

,..

1o.4H j 1v

II

11

II

II

II

II

270

5.(-.

~.E-

"

II

II

"

II

II

45
45

5.7 ' ?.2

5.7 7.2

4.7

'

'll
0.07 o.E-o C.35 0.27 1.1 0.;:!2. o.E-1 0.1.1 0,)2 1.1. 2.26 lJ.l' 7.0 7.0 :n.o 0.1~ .I . ......
0.07 0.50 0.30 0.21 0.9 0,2:> 0,76 0.46 0.36 1.- 1,.70 14.1. 7 .1, 7.) 22.0 0.2) J. ':15
0,11 0,/,0 0.25 0.15 0.8 0.17 0.~5 0.]6 0.2(> 1.3 7.f!.6 13.~ 7.0
20.5 0 . )5 J .(.C
''7
O,C9 3 .73 1.% l.f!.5 5.5 0.07 2,]{- 1.17 1.16 4.1 2.50 )0.0 lJ;o 1 11,,2 43.0 0,]0 9.)5

0#

1:.~

6.;

2.20 2 .)1 (..7

1.97 2. ('j !1.1
J..B5 1.90 5.7
t..f::.f!.

4 .~0 ~-5

o.c1 0.12 0.08 0,(18 0,3 0.27 5.95 3.01 3.00 2.2 2.25 7.2 J .~ 3.5 12,0 0.15 3.25 1.93 2,C.C 5.?
0,01 O.ll. 0.1C 0.06 0 , 1, o.~?. 5.41 2 ,77 2.75 '3,2 1.1:0 8.(- 4.1. 1+.3 13.0 C'. 30 ).5~ 1. 7<) l.f5 5.3
o.c~. 0.32 0.21 0.13 0.5 0,1 q 5.Jfi 2. 68 2.75 ~.2 7.56 8.7 1,.'2 4. 5 13 .0 0,51 ),)l ].(<? 1.7) 5.1

II

12 ~?

12 .7

l.lS 1.~1

0.11 0,93 0.54 0,.(6 1.6 2 . ]C) 13.6 7.2 6.? 2?..0 0,]:-' ~ .:?1 ?. .15 2.21 G.5
o.o2 0,55 0.31 0.26 1.0 O.lJ 0.8.3 0,46 0.50 1.7 4.20 13.9 7 . l 7 . l 2~.0 C.35 3.75 l,BC 1.95 5.~
0.04 0,1,6 0.27 0,21 1.0 0.17 0.61 0,39 0,30 1.6 7.~3 11,.2 7.(1 7 .I. 22.0 0.5!. ).5? 1..130 1.91 5.4

12.4
'

2.~

0.01+ o.E9 0.33 0.)7 1.1

11

11

4,$0 12.7 6,9 6.4 21..0 0.33

0.02 0 !'1- 0.1.1 0.41 1.6 O.l:' o.E-6 0,1,8 0.37 1.5 2 ,.(R lH,9 10.] Q...n 35."0 0.2( /, .(-G 2.41. 2.1.1
0.01 o.~4 0,45 o.u 1.6 0.13 0.71 0 .(0 0,33 1.1. 5.63 i9.7 10.7 1C.5 35 .0 0 . ~1. ,] ( ' 2.11 ?. .1 :~
0.02 0.67 o.:n 0.32 1.5 o. 0(, 0.51. 0.26 0,31 1.4 7.f:o 19 .l 10,2 10.2 31.0 0.51 J, 71, l.?J 2.02

II

II

1.~

")

17.S

II

(.9 111 225 5.7 7.2

10.01= II
" II nn
II
II
13.1
"

er3C 10.1 -1 111

Ieru.-

~.

.ii'!..J.'~Ct

0,04 0.43 0.25 0,20 1.J 0.25 0.':'5 0,53 O.L;l,

lJ,O
~
p

f:J.tch Andes of Tu..,

12.0

12.~

~833

Per~'

10,21.: lll lP.O 5.1. 6.9

10.1 "
13.2

~I'J.8

~ :J.n De rr.rec

cJ

lhtion of'
~

~,

::::

i'.o1~t.ive

.s::t :

~1]

:': ::, ;l J:

S:~3S

(t.mro r.ll

ncm:l t.s ';)-f the 'l'C,!;'t.s

0.02 0,26 0,]2 0.17 0.5 0,15 6,30 3.12 J,2R f',8 2.40 7.1 3.~ ).5 13 .(1 0,1( I. ,0!. 1.97 2.1(:O,O(, 0,23 o.IJ 0,10 0.45 !>.35 6.f-o J."J7 3,)2 9.2 4.74 7.7 3.9 3.9 13.0 0, 25 3.52 1.79 1,7$
0.('9 0.23 0.1~ 0,09 0.45 0.4~ 6.94 3,1,$ 3.53 C) .I; 7.89 7.9 4.1 1..2 13.5 0.}~ 3.11 l.H 1.55
o.oJ 0. 50 0.2<:'1 0 ~ 25 1.2 0.14 4e '54 2 . 27 2 &33 6.1.; /.o.JO 7.2, 3.7 3.7 14.0 o.J4 I..Y 2.23 2 .J')
o.o1 o. 5J o.29 jo.2s j l~C' 0.2? 4.~ 5} 2"l9j 2. 37 7.3 4.~ ?.f ~ .9 4oOt J.J.5 0.21 4.ll. 2..15 2cl 5

6.0
5.6
1 ~

C.. . P.
6.,7
'

In the Dreyfus tent (&o.keepine) in H~.rch 1970, in sienificant. sea.

heichts of 15.63 feet nt Beatuort 9 (si~on~ eale forces) the peak
wa.vcs genere.ted -..:ere in excess of 25 feet. 'l.'he se seas represent
ver;j ~evere conditions. In fact , \-:hen you con::::ider ~o~e ere driving
this vessel into quartering bow seas an...4. quartering follouine seas
at npploy.in:'\.tely 10 lmots - here n(F..in, see that the Zl.!Jpro~ch has
been a most extreme abnorr.al assUli.ption to croate the ultirr.:l.te force
which can be experienced, for even ut !'u.l.l poHer, the subject
ARTUB:.R concept could hardly n:aintain an estirr.a ted 6-} knots under
theso e~e~e conditions.
In addition, in no:rr..el practice, no vessel \.JOuld head into such
quartering seas at 45 an~le to cren.te the vlorst motions arxl -...m.ve
impact forces. In fact, all vessels under such conditions would
norrr.a.lly take the seas basically head-on.
Hov!ever, with all of this, the resultant motion of the barge stern
is Ir..oving up and dov.rn approx:i..Ir:ately som 20 ft~ to 25 ft. vrhile the
astern motion of the tug is restricted to per~ps three to four feet
of actual motion - not accountine for the \lave profile.
This is one. of the m-rmerous a.dvant.~C!es of the 1mTUBl:.R concept. The
capability of the tug to remin free frotl being inundated by a rieid
connection to the ba.rge, to remain free to seek the most effective
point of flotntion , for propulsive efficiency. This restuts in greater
comfort for creu - greater propulsive efficiency - and much greater
steering capability.
All in all, all photographs and motion pictures are com~lete laboratorv fil f.I.S t.h~t. hq_vc not h~Eln edt t.~d in t'.nv 1o1ev, \: hn.tsc:ever, and
sho~l the ex.:1ct results as they occurred.
Very little uater broke over the tug stern, even in stern quarterine seas, with extreme conditions, at a significant wave heights
50~~ hi !!her th~n ht,..r-ric::1ne se:1s in the Gnl f of l~::ico.
Also, no
uater under any conditions~ broke over the tug bou.
.

,~.,

The results achieved a.re certainly extraordinary uhen compared \lith

standard tug and bc.rce operations. Even on a hm-:scr, a tuc operating
in these seas could not r:..Llintain stcer::1ge - it \,'ould have to hold to
a speed of about 3 knots ll.l1d its deck at the stern l;ould be practically undervratBr both in n quarterine bm1 sea::; and a quartering
follo.1ing sea. In fact, in this sea condition created for the
Dreyfus tests, it is doubt.f'ul if the tug \lith the bar ge on .:1. ha\oJSer
could even rnintain a station:u-y he::1dins \!hich, of course, 1-:ould
r esult in the cre,J evcntua.lly cuttine the baree loose, rather than
jeopardize the safety of the crevl and tug.
I don't believe there is any doubt froo these tests that the results
are certainly extraordinc.ry, and Itost successful.

Ed,rln H. Fletcher ~ .As::;oc., 21$ U. Church St., Jacksonville, Fla.

-19-

Hi\.U3UP.G TESTS -

Septemb~r

1970

lle now cor.e to the ultilr.ate tests in 4S f't. seas, the results in
the larger sea keepin[! tank in lhmburg - allo\-red much greater
t.reedolllS in overall seclceep tests.
The. follo\dng do.ta ore laboratory results cor.:pleted in Septcnber 1970
and are direct statem-3nts from the Hrunburg roodel tank, including
pertinent ds.ta, o.s folious:

lo

Particul~rs

of B!U',e s Tu~

length PP (Lp~ )
Brendth mld (B,
Draft .
Forv1ard
l~an

Ai't

Baree

Tug

738 1611

140'0"
40 1011
15 t
17 1
19'

106 1011
15'
15'

15'

2. 1-easuri:g ;technigue
The tug model connected to the barge model Has self-propelled
and equipped with a steering engine.

The ~TURAJR unit ~as remotely hand-steered from a sub-carriage

travelling across the oosin in front. of the main carriage.
The electric current to feed both the propelling motor am the
steerine engine H:!.s supplied by metms of e. 11fishine;-llne"
. cable connecting the model Hi th the sub:-carriage. This cable
also served to tr~nsmi t the :x:::ee.sured values from the model to
the recorder on the c~iage. The man-operated main and subcarric.ge follm-: ed the model in such a WJ..y that the flexible
cable susper~ed perpendicularly to the model to avoid constraint.

The tests ...:ere performed in the folloHinr; irregular sea

conditions :
. Sea condition

}ban \-lave heicht

significant \:ave hei ~ht
:mean of the 1/10 h.ichest \:aves
mo.xi.Inum \nl.Ve height

mean wave period

significs.nt \:ave period
mean of the 1/10 zreatezt t-rav e periods
mnxinn.un \.!D.vc peri od

10.4'

16.5'
21.7 1
25.5'

7.00 s

9.06 D
7.46 s

10.46 s

E<hrin H. Fletcher & .t.s30Co 1 218 Ho Church St., JncksonviD.e 1 }J..a.

-20-

These sea condition tests uere performed in hoad sca, stern

sea and beam sea.
Ses. condition B

:t-han \rave height

significant l:av~ height
mean of the 1/10 hiehest waves
t'll!Ximlllil \rave height

12.6'
20.0'

mean wave period

significant ~w.ve period
mec.n of the 1/10 greatest vre.ve periods
~ wave period

8.29
9 . 75
10.62
11.20

25.9'
31.0'

s
s
s
s

These se~ condition tests were performed in head sea, stern sea
ani beam sea, in HSVA Hamburg, Sept. 1970.
Sea. condit.ion C
l~e.n

Have height
significe.nt l:ave height

~t:.U

..1"11

OJ.

'

\Jflt:l

, ... ""

.J.f.J.V

21.4'
31.8'

Ul.g.tl~::JIJ

\'IQ.V~S

4}..7:

maximum vrave height

47.8'

mean 'Have period

significant \!ave period
mean of the 1/10 greatest \<rave periods
maximum wave period

10.03
11.75
13.15
13.40

s
s

s
s

These sea condition tests vrere performed in head sea and stern sea.

In particular, tests uere carried out for the model t ravelling in

a 0 dees . head sen, abt. 15 dees. head sea and abt. 30 degs.
head sea, furthermore (sea cor.dition A nnd B only) for the model
travelling in 0 dogs. stern sea, abt. 15 dc~s. stc~n sea and
abt. 30 degs. stern. sea; for the model at rest also in abt. 0 degs.
stern sea.
l'.oreo:vor, tests \-Iere carried out for the model at rest in beam sea.
'In one of the head sea tests (sea ccrnition B) the model '\otas stopped
at the end of the run ar.1 \-l:LS ITC.do to broach to by nppropriate
action of the rudder and propelling motor.

All tests uith tho tro.velling r:cdel were c:~.rried out at a propellei'
speed cquivalE!nt to that o.t l! hich o. corresponding ship's speed of
11,7 lmots Yas at taincd in srnooth \-to.ter.

Edwin H. Fletcher & Assoc.,

218 H. Church St., Jacksonville, Fla.

-21-

A
be

deli~rate reduction of the propeller speed, as ~y probably

c~ploycd by ship's officer~ in~ heavy se~ to protect the

propelling eng-lne, was not t.:!.ken into accotmt durine; the tests.

4e

~e::rults

The speed of this ship ~as depending upon the speed of the
c~i~ge lrhich was continuously recorded and of the rr:Odel
course.
As propulsion tests lTith unconstrained, i.e. f reely propelled,
models are to be carried out ltd thout friction correction and,
moreover, the c.ddition lrind forces cannot be taken into account,
the speed values c~n only be considered as essential valueso
Beca.us~,

the \d.r:dforces for the rr.odcl at mean Beaufort numbers

are about equal the friction corrections, the difference
betl.reeu the InOdel speed and the real speed of the ship is not
large.

The follmring page is a photostat reproduction from the Hamburg

model ba.sin .- it's con:ments are self-e::q>lane.tory.

Edwin H. Fletcher & ansoc. 1 218 H. Church St., Jacksonvlll13, Fla.

- 2.3 -

I havo J'i'.ade various economic studies on the ARTUB.'\.R concept, ani

the rosults nhou ARTUBAR f:lr superior to ei thor the tug/b:.tree
h3.\7ser and/or standard oce:mgoing bulk vessels o However, before
I be con~idered prejudiced , I quote fr~~ Prof. J. A. Tea~dale, of
the University of Net-rcc.stle, U.Ko paper as published in London,
October, 1969.

These are nmr un.usual. s t 9.t i stics an::l, of com-se, they are based on
European construct;ton. The same relationship holds true for
American construction.
TASIE 1 - - QT.Jar::O FROH PROFESSffi TF..ASDALE

SHIP
Cargo capacity per
component

151 000 tons

15,000 tons

One way trip time

2 days

1 day

Loading time

1 day

1 day

~o&Ungtme

lday

l day

Operational time per annum

.360 days

360 days

Annual

1,350 1 000 tons

1,.350,000 .

tonnage transported

Capital cost of b-:l.I'ges {3)

Capital cost of

(1)

tue

Capital cost of complete

system
TAB~

5 1 250 1 000 dollars

1,ooo,ooo

dollars

6,250 1 000 dollars

S, 000,000 dollars

1 shows just the basic cost of a system without

.considering '\-rarehouse capabilities, cargo accumulation,

planning, etc.

Eduin H., Fletcher & Assoc., 218 Ho Chttrch Street, J~cksonville, FlR..

-24 -
TABlE lJ. - - OUO!t:O FRON PllOFSSS(R '!'EASDAIZ
1TE1~

!31'~~GE

of Components
in sy:::.teli1.9

N~r

Capital cost of (3)

barges at 1 .3 m.
dollars
Capital cost of
Capital cost of

1 tug
1 s~tp

3 burges nt 7,200 t.d.~.

& 1 tug a~ 3,500 h.p.

Capital cost of warehotl.Se, vrharf &

miscellaneous
Thus, overall
capital cost

1 ship

3,900,000 dollars
1 1 500,000 dollars
'

Thus capital co3t of

transpOl..t sector

SHIP

1o,ooo,ooo dollars
1o,ooo,ooo dollars

5,400 1 000 dollars

1,100,000 dollars

6,500,000 dollars

3,500,000

doll~s

13,500,000 dollars

TABIE ll shows the same system considering the vrarehousing

function, the time cycle for cargo accufirulation, etc.

Edwin H. Fletcher U. Assoc., 21S H. Clnn-ch Street, Jacksonville, Fla. .

.. ...

The current status of

ARTUR~~

as of October, 1970 is as follows:

1. Ni1 o &.rr;e Lines

Request for con=;truction bids for J.6,ooo mrr Barge and

u.s. shipyards at present.

126 foot twin screu tug are \rith

DESIGNS
Barge

O..mer.

Dimen:;tons

12ill1!

IYPE

T'Gc;} DIN,

TarAL IIP

Nassau Towing

610xll2Y.47 u,ooo Salf unloading JSOy4Qx22 '-O"

Nilo

468x70x35

16,000 Bulk

~x20'-5

4300

Olin l'.athieson

570x80-~ -

47,500 Bulk

J26xJ3x2QY5

5goo

i'-Gul.fcoast
Transit

545-85-45'3 29,500 Bulk

J$x40x 22 '-5

7200

Undisclosed

750x1.06x50 Co~tainer Barge

J46 x40x22-t611

6200

6000

Two tug-barge unit designs for undisclosed European interests.

tfGulfcoast Transit tug twin screw have propellers of 15'-811 in
diameter.

All tugs have positive riehting arms o.t vrell over 90.
lines appear on the next page.

Typical tug

It is interesting to note that '1-rhen consj.dering b:lrgcs up to 45:000

h.:lrd~mre and installation cost are onJ y approxir.-..c.tely
e35,0GO EC>re than that required for conventional havrser towing equipmsnts.
'

DD\l':i.', the ARTU3.'.R

On pages 14 to 17 is data \..rhich is typice.l of that uhich is received

from the l!odel B:1sin for each series of tests conducted.

Edwin II. Fletcher Assoc., 218 \1. Church St., Jacksonville, Fla.