FAC IL I

AL T
I
V
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER
A

E
S
N

Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370

ENGIN

TER
EN
E

R
E

IN E
G S RVIC
E
Technical Report
TR-6027-OCN

PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS

by

William N. Seelig, P.E.

NFESC East Coast Detachment

Washington Navy Yard
1435 10TH STREET SE Suite 3000
Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5063

20 November 2001

Prepared for:

Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Engineering Innovation & Criteria Office

Distribution is unlimited .
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

If a moving ship passes a moored ship too close or too fast, then the
moored ship can be subjected to high forces and moments ( Wang, 1975,
Flory, 2001 and many other references). The resulting moored ship
response to the passing ship can cause serious accidents.

Therefore, the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,

Engineering Innovation & Criteria Office tasked the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NFESC) to develop methods for analyzing
passing ship effects on moored ships. These methods can be used to
improve mooring safety and aid in developing rules-of-the-road for U.S.
ports.

The approach taken in this report is to use the deepwater numerical results
of Wang (1975) to evaluate passing ship forces and moments on a moored
ship. Shallow water correction factors are then applied. The shallow water
correction factors are developed by empirically re-analyzing results from a
number of scale physical model studies. The resulting information can be
used in a number of engineering tools including:

PASS-MOOR.xls An engineering spread sheet was developed as part of

this project. This spread sheet uses the ‘mooring efficiency’ approach
(Seelig, NFESC Report TR-6005-OCN, Rev B May 1998) to statically
estimate the number of mooring lines needed to safely secure a ship in
passing ship events. This spread sheet also estimates peak forces and
moments on a moored ship due to a passing ship that can be used in static
analyses. Finally, this spread sheet produces applied force and moment
time histories that can be used in full dynamic analyses.

STATIC ANALYSES. The peak forces and moments on the moored ship
computed by PASS-MOOR can be input into various static mooring
software packages (FIXMOOR, OPTIMOOR, AQWA LIBRIUM, etc.).
These programs can be used to estimate static tensions in various
mooring lines and static offset of the ship from a given position for passing
ship events.

DYNAMIC ANALYSES. The force and moment time histories on the

moored ship computed by PASS-MOOR can be input into various dynamic
mooring software packages (AQWA DRIFT, etc.) to evaluate moored ship
response to passing ships.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS i

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Pg.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... ii

LIST OF APPENDICES........................................................................................ ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE ..................................................................... 1

1.1 Far-Field Ship-Generated Waves........................................................ 1
1.2 Near-Field Effects ............................................................................... 1
1.3 Moored Ship Coordinate System ........................................................ 4
1.4 Definition of the Problem ..................................................................... 5
1.5 Typical Channel Water Depths in the U.S. ........................................ 11

2.0 FORCES AND MOMENTS APPLIED TO THE MOORED SHIP

BY THE PASSING SHIP ........................................................................ 14
2.1 Forces and Moments in Deepwater .................................................. 14
2.2 Shallow Water Correction Factors..................................................... 24

3.0 COMPUTATIONS .................................................................................... 31

3.1 The ‘PASS-MOOR’ Spread Sheet and an Example .......................... 31
3.2 The Influence of Parameters ......................................................... 35

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 38

5.0 POINTS OF CONTACT............................................................................ 40

6.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................... 41

LIST OF APPENDICES

A. NOTATION USED
B. PREVIOUS WORK

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS ii

 PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS
By
William N. Seelig, P.E.

1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE

As vessels move through the water they generate waves and other
phenomena that may influence moored vessels, contribute to coastal
erosion, etc.. Therefore, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFACENGCOM) Engineering Innovation and Criteria Office
tasked the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) to
develop criteria for ship-generated waves.

Two key phenomena of practical interest to engineers are investigated in

recent efforts: far-field wave effects and near-field effects.

1.1 FAR-FIELD SHIP-GENERATED WAVES

As a vessel moves through the water it produces water waves. Detailed

information on how to predict characteristics of these water waves at some
distance from the vessel is presented in Seelig, W. and Kriebel, D., “Ship
Generated Waves”, NFESC TR-6022-OCN, (draft in prep).

1.2 NEAR-FIELD EFFECTS

As a vessel moves through the water there is a pressure field developed in

the vicinity of the moving ship. If the moving ship passes close to a
moored ship, then high temporary forcing on the moored ship may occur.
For example, the moored ship can be violently pulled off the pier or wharf
due to a combination of wave and Bernoulli effects. This problem occurs
even for low passing-ship Froude numbers. In these cases there may be
no obvious surface wave produced by the moving ship. In other cases the
surface wave can be relatively large.

A number of very serious mooring accidents have occurred due to passing

ships. Examples are provided in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the tanker
JUPITER, which was totally destroyed by fire. A passing ship caused the
mooring to fail, fuel hoses broke and unleaded gasoline caught on fire
causing death, injury, total loss of the ship and damage to the pier.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 1

 Table 1. SAMPLE ACCIDENTS/EVENTS CAUSED BY PASSING SHIPS
CASE
Two battleships (BB-62
class) moored at the
Philadelphia Naval
Shipyard drydock wharf
1990’s
USNS REGULUS and
USNS POLLUS;
13 June 1998
Tanker U.S. JUPITER
10,900 DWT Length 382
feet;
16 Sep 1990
QUEEN ELIZABETH II
Length 963 feet, Width 105
feet and Draft 32.6 feet;
and AFDM-7
7 Jan 1976 at 2 pm
TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS
NOTES
These battleships were moored side-by-side
with over twenty legs of 2.5-inch chain and
sinkers. The two battleships would surge 12
to 15 feet as larger commercial ships passed
the site causing accelerated wear on
mooring hardware.
Two MSC ships were moored side-by-side at
Berth #5, Violet Dock Port at Violet, LA with
USNS REGULUS the inboard ship next to
the pier. A woman and child visiting this U.S.
Navy ship were both seriously hurt when
they were run over by a rolling 3,000 pound
gangway. The gangway’s sudden motion
occurred when both of the moored ships
surged as large cargo ships passed nearby
in the Mississippi River.
U.S JUPITER was moored and unloading
unleaded gasoline when BUFFALO (17,500
DWT and 635 feet long) traveling at about
4.2 knots passed with a gap between the
vessels of 60 to 65 feet. JUPITER had
mooring lines break, the discharge hose
broke and the resulting fire caused 1 death,
18 injuries, JUPITER was a total loss and the
pier was damaged.
QUEEN ELIZABETH II passed
approximately 1,600 feet from the Norfolk,
VA waterfront at an estimated speed of 15 to
20 knots. AFDM-7 parted three 3.5-inch
mooring chains; the ship in dock shifted on
its blocks. All up and down the waterfront
numerous Navy ships broke mooring lines,
shore cables broke, utilities failed, brows
failed and pier pilings were broken.
2
 Figure 1. TANKER JUPITER TOTALLY DESTROYED IN A FIRE
CAUSED BY A PASSING SHIP

Near-field effects are highly complex, so the work of several investigators

is compiled and re-analyzed in this report. The methods developed in this
report are then used to systematically show the importance of typical
conditions on moored ships in an easy-to-use form.

Appendix A summarizes notation used in this report. Appendix B

summarizes previous work on this topic and provides laboratory
measurements made by various researchers.

An spreadsheet PASS-MOOR.xls is provided to perform preliminary

analyses. This spread sheet can also be used to develop input for static
analyses (using tools such as FIXMOOR, OPTIMOOR, AQWA LIBRIUM,
etc.). The spread sheet also provides force and moment time histories for
input into full dynamic analyses (AQWA DRIFT, etc.).

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 3

1.3 MOORED SHIP COORDINATE SYSTEM

The moored ship, designated as Ship 1, is the primary ship of interest in

this study. The coordinate system assigned to the initial position of the
moored ship is a local right-handed coordinate system (see Figure 1.3-1)
with:

X = distance forward from midships

Y = distance towards port from ship centerline

Z = distance upwards from the ship baseline (i.e. keel) and

L1 = length of the moored ship

Angles are measured positive in a counter-clockwise direction.

See Appendix A for notation used in this report.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 4

 F X+
Pier or
Wharf

M+

L1
FY+

Ship 1
Moored

Figure 1.3-1. COORDINATE SYSTEM FOR FORCES/MOMENTS ON

THE MOORED SHIP DUE TO THE PASSING SHIP AT
AN INSTANT IN TIME

1.4 DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

In this report we take for simplicity the case of a ship moored on its
starboard in still water, as shown in Figure 1.4-1 (moored ship is on the
right). This moored ship can be described as moored in the ‘upstream
direction’.

A moving ship with a speed, V, relative to the world fixed coordinate

system is traveling upstream. If the moving ship passes too close to the
moored ship or at too high of a speed, then moored ship transient motions
and resulting high dynamic mooring forces may occur.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 5

At any instant in time the longitudinal distance between ship midships’ is x,
the lateral distance between ship centerlines is η and the lateral gap
between the ships is G. In the case shown in Figure 1.4-1, x is negative
because the passing ship is behind the moored ship. As the midships of
the passing ship moves forward of the moored ship, then x becomes
positive.

The relative speed, VR, between the ship and current speed, VC, (if any)
is:

VR = V – VC Eq (1)

For the case shown in Figure 1.4-2 the ship and current speeds are the
same magnitude and direction (i.e. current is flood and the passing ship is
moving upstream). In this case the relative ship speed is zero, so the
passing ship effects will be minimal. In the case of the passing ship
traveling at the same speed and direction as the current, the passing ship
has little effect on the moored ship because the passing ship effectively
acts like a slug of water moving by the moored ship.

If on the other hand the passing ship is moving upstream and the current is
ebbing down stream in the opposite direction of the ship motion, as shown
in Figure 1.4-3, then the relative ship speed, VR, effects may be very
significant on the moored ship. In this case the relative ship speed through
the water is higher than the world ship speed, V.

The special case of the passing ship moving upstream at a slower speed
than a flooding current (i.e. the ship has reverse thrust, but still moving
upstream) is not covered in this report, since this case is not likely to be a
problem.

For other cases, such as the moored ship with its port side to the pier, the
passing ship moving in the downstream direction, etc., the engineer can
use methods in this report and change signs and coordinate systems to
meet his particular situation.

Note that the ship speed, V, relative to the world fixed coordinate system is
the velocity that determines how quickly the passing ship encounters the
moored ship.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 6

In this report the surge, sway and yaw degrees-of-freedom are considered.
Heave, roll and pitch are not addressed, because they are believed to be
less important.

In this study it is assumed that a vessel of interest is moving at a constant

velocity in constant water depth. The passing ship is assumed to be
parallel to the moored ship.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 7

 V

η
Ship 2 Ship 1
Moving Moored

Figure 1.4-1 SAMPLE CONDITION FOR THE CASE OF NO CURRENT

( x is negative at this time because the moving ship is
behind the moored ship)

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 8

 VR = V - V c = 0

Vc = current

Ship 2 Ship 1
Moving Moored

Figure 1.4-2 SAMPLE CONDITION FOR THE CASE OF A SHIP TRAVELING

AT THE SAME VELOCITY AS THE CURRENT
(In this case there is little passing ship effect)

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 9

 VR = V - Vc
(Vc is negative in this case)

Vc = current

Ship 2 Ship 1
Moving Moored

Figure 1.4-3 SAMPLE CONDITION FOR THE CASE OF A SHIP TRAVELING

IN AN OPPOSING CURRENT
(In this case there may be significant passing ship effects)

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 10

1.5 TYPICAL CHANNEL WATER DEPTHS IN THE U.S.

The ratio of ship draft to water depth is an important parameter in passing

ship processes. A list of typical water depths of U.S. navigation channels
is shown in Table 1.5-1. The median navigation channel depth is 12 m (40
feet) for this list. However, there is considerable variation in depth, as
shown in Table 1.5-1 and Figure 1.5-1.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 11

 Table 1.5-1. WATER DEPTHS OF REPRESENTATIVE
MAJOR CHANNELS

Dmin (m) Dmax (m) Dmin (ft) Dmax (ft) DATUM

Port Location State

Port of Anchorage AK 9.14 21.34 30 70 MLLW

Canaveral Port Authority FL 11.89 39 MLW
Port of Coos Bay OR 11.28 37 MLLW
Port of Everett WA 12.19 40 *
Port Everglades FL 14.33 47 MLW
Port of Galveston TX 12.19 40
Port Authority of Guam 10.36 34.14 34 112 *
Port of Gulfport MS 10.97 36 *
Port of Houston TX 10.97 13.72 36 45 *
Port of Hueneme CA 10.67 35 MLLW
Jacksonville Port Authority FL 11.58 38 *
Port of Kalama WA 12.19 40 *
Port of Long Beach CA 23.16 76 *
Port of Los Angeles CA 13.72 15.24 45 50 *
Port Manatee/Tampa Bay FL 12.19 40 MLW
Maryland Port Administration MD 15.24 50 *
Massachusetts (Boston) Port Authority MA 12.19 40 MLW
Port of Miami FL 12.80 42 *
Port of New Orleans LA 10.97 13.72 36 45 *
Port Authority of NY and NJ (New York) NY 10.67 13.72 35 45 *
North Carolina State Ports Authority (Wilmington) NC 12.19 13.72 40 45 *
Port of Oakland CA 12.80 42 *
Port of Olympia WA 9.14 30 MLLW
Port of Orange TX 9.14 30 *
Port of Palm Beach District FL 10.06 33 *
Panama City Port Authority FL 9.75 32 *
Port of Pascagoula MS 11.58 38 *
Port of Pensacola FL 10.06 33 MLW
Port of Philadelphia/Camden PA 12.19 40 *
Port of Portland OR 12.19 40 *
Port of Richmond CA 11.58 38 *
Port of Richmond VA 7.62 25 *
Port of Sacramento CA 9.30 30.5 *
San Diego Unified Port District CA 12.50 41 MLLW
Port of San Francisco CA 16.76 55 *
Port of Seattle WA 16.76 55 *
South Carolina State Ports Authority (Charleston) SC 12.19 13.72 40 45 MLW
Port of Stockton CA 10.67 35 MLLW
Port of Tacoma WA 13.72 16.76 45 55 MLLW
Tampa Port Authority FL 13.11 43 *
Port of Vancouver WA 12.19 40 MLW
Virginia Port Authority (Norfolk) VA 15.24 50 *
Port of Wilmington DE 11.58 38 MLW
* DATUM NOT GIVEN

Reference: American Association of Port

Authorities, 1999 AAPA Directory, "Seaports of the
Americas", Compass North America, Inc., 1999

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 12

 25

20

60

55

15 50

45

40

35
10
30

25

5 DEPTH (ft)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY (%)

Figure 1.5-2. CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF MINIMUM

CHANNEL DEPTHS
(Major Channels in the U.S.)

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 13

2.0 FORCES AND MOMENTS APPLIED TO THE MOORED SHIP
BY THE PASSING SHIP

Deepwater: For the deepwater case (i.e. T/d is small for both the passing
and the moored ship) forces and moments applied to the moored ship by
the passing ship are computed using the method of Wang (1975).

Shallow Water: Most cases of interest to designers are for relatively

shallow water (i.e. T/d large). Wang (1975) provides a method for
determining shallow water correction factors. However, the Wang method
does not cover the zone of interest to most design situations. Therefore,
physical scale model laboratory test results from previously conducted
studies are re-analyzed to develop shallow water correction factors. These
correction factors are applied to the predicted deepwater forces and
moments to determine values used for realistic shallow water cases.

2.1 FORCES AND MOMENTS IN DEEPWATER

Wang (1975) develops a numerical method for determining forces and

moments applied to the moored ship by a passing ship in deepwater (i.e.
T/d = 0). Figure 2.1-1 shows the results of Wang’s work in dimensionless
form.

Physical model tests show a pattern very similar to that of Figure 2.1-1.
Also, physical model and other numerical model simulation methods give
results similar to Wang (1975) for cases of small T/d, so Wang (1975) is
used for deepwater.

In this report Ship 1 is taken as the moored ship and Ship 2 is taken as the
passing ship (see Appendix A for notation used).

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 14

 1.0
0.9
X
0.8 X+ = ship forward
0.7 Y+ = ship to port Y
0.6 M+ = ship counterclockwise
.

0.5 M
DIMENSIONLESS FORCE / MOMENT

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
X- = ship backward
-0.7 after Wang (1975) Y- = ship to starboard
-0.8 Fig. 2 M- = ship clockwise
-0.9
-1.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
x/L

Figure 2.1-1 DIMENSIONLESS PASSING SHIP FORCING

ON MOORED SHIPS FOR DEEP WATER
(after Wang, 1975)

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 15

Figure 2.1-2 shows the effect of a passing ship (Ship 2) moving upstream
on a moored ship (Ship 1), where L is the average of the two ship lengths
L1 and L2. The forces and moments on the moored ship at various stages
of ship passage are discussed below.

a) At a distance of 2 ship lengths (i.e. x / L < -2 ) there is little

passing ship effect (Figure 2.1-2).

b) At a distance of approximately negative one-third a ship length

(i.e. x / L = -0.35 ) there is maximum negative longitudinal force
and negative moment on the moored ship (Figure 2.1-3).

c) There is maximum positive Y force on the ship when the ships

are adjacent (i.e. x / L = 0.0 ) (Figure 2.1-4).

d) At a distance of approximately positive one-third a ship length

(i.e. x / L = +0.35 ) there is maximum positive longitudinal force
and positive moment on the moored ship (Figure 2.1-5).

e) The passing ship effect on the moored ship is once again

negligible by the time the moving ship is two ship lengths past the
moored ship (i.e. x / L > 2 ).

Note that distance, x , between the passing and moored ships can also be
expressed in terms of time, t , since the passing ship has a velocity, V,
relative to the world fixed coordinate system.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 16

 Pier or
Wharf

L1

Ship 1
Moored
x
< - 2.0
L

L2 Ship 2
Moving

Figure 2.1-2. APPROACHING SHIP

(Little Passing Ship Effect at this Point)

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 17

 Ship 1
Moored
Pier or
Wharf
V

M-
FY+
x

Ship 2
Moving F X-

x
= -0.35
L

Figure 2.1-3. APPROACHING SHIP AT x/L = -0.35

(Maximum Negative X Force at this Position)

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 18

 V Ship 1
Moored
Pier or
Wharf

FY+

Ship 2
Moving

x
= 0.0
L

Figure 2.1-4. APPROACHING SHIP AT x/L = 0.0

(Maximum Positive Y Force at this Position)

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 19

 V

Ship 1
Moored
Pier or
Wharf

x FX+

M+
FY-

Ship 2
Moving

x
= 0.35
L

Figure 2.1-5. APPROACHING SHIP AT x/L = 0.35

(Maximum Positive X Force and Moment at this Point)

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 20

Wang’s numerical work shows that in deepwater with no current the
magnitudes of the peak forces and moment on the moored ship are
functions of the ship sizes, relative distance between the ship centerlines
and speed of the passing ship.

Figures 2.1-6, -7 and –8 show predicted peak non-dimension forces and

moments in deepwater. Note that these values have been made non-
dimensional by Wang (1975) using the parameter, Q, where:

Q = ρV2 (L1)2(S1/L12)(S2/L22) Eq (2)

Figures 2.1-6, -7, –8 and Eq (2) are used to find peak forces and moments
on moored ships due to passing ships in deepwater for the case of no
current. The computed peak values are then applied to the curves shown
in Figure 2.1-1 to calculate time histories of forces and moments acting on
a moored ship due to a passing ship.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 21

 10
2.0
pass-wang.xls
9

8 1.6
After WANG (1975) Fig. 3 Left
7

6 1.2
Fx/Q

5
1.0

4 0.9

0.8
3
0.7
2 0.6
0.5
1
L2/L1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
η/L1

Figure 2.1-6. NON-DIMENSIONAL PEAK FORCE IN THE SURGE

DIRECTION ON THE MOORED SHIP (after Wang, 1975)
FOR DEEPWATER

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 22

 35
2.0
1.6 After WANG (1975) Fig. 3 Middle
1.2
30

25 1.0

pass-wang.xls
0.9
20
Fy/Q

15 0.8

10 0.7

0.6

5 0.5

L2/L1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
η/L1

Figure 2.1-7. NON-DIMENSIONAL PEAK FORCE IN THE SWAY

DIRECTION ON THE MOORED SHIP (after Wang, 1975)
FOR DEEPWATER

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 23

 10

9 2.0 After WANG (1975) Fig. 3 Right

8 1.6
pass-wang.xls

1.2
6
1.0
M/(L1*Q)

0.9
5
0.8

4 0.7

3
0.6

2 0.5

1
L2/L1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
η/L1

Figure 2.1-8. NON-DIMENSIONAL PEAK MOMENT IN THE YAW

DIRECTION ON THE MOORED SHIP (after Wang, 1975)
FOR DEEPWATER

2.2 SHALLOW WATER CORRECTION FACTORS

A majority of projects involving passing ship effects on moored ships are

for a finite water depth, such as shown in Figure 2.2-1 (i.e. 0 < T/d < 1).

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 24

 LHA-1
T/B = 0.245

End View

Figure 2.2-1. SAMPLE OF A SHIP IN SHALLOW WATER

The approach taken in this report is:

Use Wang’s (1975) method for deepwater. A shallow water correction

factor is then defined as the ratio of a force or moment measured in the
laboratory, (Fx)lab , in finite water depth to the value predicted by Wang
(1975) in deepwater, (Fx)0 . For example the shallow water correction
factor for the peak force in the X-direction is defined as:

CFx = (Fx)lab / (Fx)0 Eq (3)

The shallow water correction factor is defined in a similar manner for the
force in the Y-direction and moment, M, in the yaw direction.

Appendix B, Table B-2, includes the correction factors determined from

each laboratory experiment. Note that some researchers performed a
large number of experiments. However, all efforts to find a complete data
set have failed suggesting that the detailed results are no longer available.
Only those tests with complete information known are used in this report.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 25

Fortunately there are some with numerous parameters fixed. Then a key
parameter was systematically varied. This allows detailed study of the
effects of a single parameter. For example Remery (1974), Muga and
Fang (1975) and Cohen (1983) performed certain tests over a common set
of parameters where (T/d ) was the key parameter varied.

Figure 2.2-2, for example, shows the shallow water correction factor for the
force in the sway direction. Laboratory data is shown as points. A curve
has been fit through the data showing that the ratio of ship draft to water
depth (T/d ) has a strong influence on passing ship peak sway force. Note
that the curve fit to the data was selected to have a value of 1.0 at (T/d ) =
0.0, so the peak sway force approaches the deep water value as (T/d )
becomes small.

35
PASS.XLS

30

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Remery (1974), Muga and Fang (1975) &
25 Cohen (1983)
with:
G/B = 1.5
20 T/B = 0.4
CFY

15

CFY = 1 + 30 * (T/d)4
10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
T/d

Figure 2.2-2. SAMPLE SHALLOW WATER CORRECTION FACTOR

FOR THE PEAK SWAY FORCE

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 26

Unfortunately, several of the researchers did not report the peak force
measured in the surge direction, so the range of conditions tested is not as
wide. Inspection of the data suggests that the finite water depth surge
force correction is not as strongly dependant on the ratio of ship draft to
water depth, (T/d ), as shown in Figure 2.2-3.

20

18

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
16 Remery (1974), Muga and Fang (1975)

14

12
CFX

10 REMERY

MUGA
8

2
PASS.XLS

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
T/d

Figure 2.2-3. SAMPLE SHALLOW WATER CORRECTION FACTOR

FOR THE PEAK SURGE FORCE

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 27

 Inspection of available data suggests that the correction factor shown in
Figure 2.2-4 is reasonable for the maximum surge force. This figure
shows that as the gap between the passing ship and moored ship
becomes large and as (T/d ) becomes small, the surge force approaches
the value in deepwater.

18
PASS.XLS
CFX=1 + 16 * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.5)2)
16

T/d =
14 1.0
0.9
0.8
12 0.7
0.6
0.5
10 0.4
0.3
CFX

0.2
0.1
8
0.0

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
G/B

Figure 2.2-4. SHALLOW WATER CORRECTION FACTOR

FOR THE PEAK SURGE FORCE

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 28

The shallow water correction factors found for peak sway force and
moment are similar, so the recommended values are shown in Figure 2.2-
5. This figure illustrates the case for T/B = 0.4. The sway and moment
corrections are very sensitive in shallow water, as was shown in Figure
2.2-2, so two versions of Figure 2.2-5 are provided to cover the range of
interest.

45
-0.35 4
CFY= CFM = 1 + 25 * (T/B) * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.3)2)
40
T/B = 0.4

35
T/d =
1.0
30 0.9
0.8
0.7
CFY and CFM

25 0.6
0.5
0.0
20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
G/B

Figure 2.2-5. SHALLOW WATER CORRECTION FACTOR

FOR THE MAXIMUM SWAY FORCE AND MAXIMUM YAW MOMENT
FOR T/B = 0.4

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 29

 8.0

7.5 -0.35 4 2
CFY= CFM = 1 + 25 * (T/B) * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.3) )
7.0
T/B = 0.4
6.5

6.0
T/d =
5.5 0.6
0.5
5.0 0.4
CFY and CFM

4.5 0.3
0.2
4.0 0.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
G/B

Figure 2.2-5. cont. SHALLOW WATER CORRECTION FACTOR

FOR THE MAXIMUM SWAY FORCE AND MAXIMUM YAW MOMENT
FOR T/B = 0.4

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 30

3.0 COMPUTATIONS

3.1 THE ‘PASS-MOOR’ SPREADSHEET AND AN EXAMPLE

A spread sheet is provided that performs the computations described in

this report. The spread sheet:

(1) Has an input section.

(2) Calculates peak forces and moments for deepwater using Wang
(1975).
(3) Determines shallow water correction factors using methods
presented in this report.
(4) Calculates peak forces and moments for finite water depth.
(5) Uses the ‘mooring efficiency’ approach (Seelig, 1998) to estimate
the number of mooring lines required.
(6) Outputs time histories of applied forces and moments on the
moored ship.

The peak forces and moments in Item (4) can be used with various
software packages (FIXMOOR, OPTIMOOR, AQWA LIBRIUM, etc.) to
perform static mooring analyses. These static programs can be used to
estimate line tensions and moored ship offsets from initial position.

The force and moment time histories applied to the moored ship, Item (6),
can be used as input to dynamic simulation software packages (AQWA
DRIFT, etc.) to calculate dynamic response of a moored ship to a passing
ship.

EXAMPLE

The use of this spread sheet is illustrated with the example shown in
Figure 3.1-1.

INPUT

Figure 3.1-2 shows the input screen. Cells in yellow are for input. Cells in
green are output. Totally black cells are blank.

Note that the methods described in this report were developed for a
specific range of conditions. If a user inputs a value that results in a case
outside the valid range, then the message ‘Error !!!’ is displayed in the
“Error Flag” column E. For example, if the length of Ship 1 is input as a

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 31

 Pier or
NO CURRENT Wharf

Ship 1
V = 7 knots Moored
L=843'
B=121'
T=52'
d=59'

Ship 2
Passing
L=991'
B=153'
T=52'.5 223'
d=59'

Figure 3.1-1. EXAMPLE

negative number then the message ‘Error !!!’ is displayed, as shown in

Figure 3.1-3.

The user should not proceed if any of the ‘Error !!!’ flags are turned on,
because output results will be incorrect.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 32

 Figure 3.1-2. PASS-MOOR INPUT FOR THE EXAMPLE OF A MOORED
TANKER AND PASS TANKER MOVING AT 7 KNOTS
(Note that Input Cells are Yellow)

Figure 3.1-3. ILLUSTRATION OF AN INPUT ERROR,

A SHIP LENGTH OF NEGATIVE 100 FEET IS INPUT FOR SHIP 1

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 33

OUTPUT

Figure 3.1-4 shows a sample output screen. Output is shown in green.

For the sample problem the predicted peak loads are:

Longitudinal Peak Force = 232,800 pounds force

Lateral Peak Force = 1,295,700 pounds force
Peak Yaw Moment = 200,731,000 foot*pounds

Figure 3.1-4. OUTPUT FOR THE EXAMPLE

The quick ‘mooring efficiency’ analysis for this example, Figure 3.1-5,
suggests that on the order of 16 parts of breasting line and 6 parts of
spring line would be required for this case to maintain a factor of safety of
2 on mooring lines.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 34

 Figure 3.1-5. MOORING EFFICIENCY OUTPUT

The PASS-MOOR spread sheet also provides plots of force and moment
time histories, as illustrated in Figure 3.1-6. In this spread sheet time ‘0’ is
the point where the passing ship just starts to have an influence on the
moored ship (i.e. at x/L = -2).

For this example the moored ship is pushed onto the pier with maximum
forces (negative) at times of 100 and 210 seconds. The highest force
pulling the ship off the pier occurs at 155 seconds. The maximum force
pulling the moored ship in the aft direction occurs at 130 seconds and the
maximum force pushing the moored ship in the forward direction occurs at
180 seconds. The highest moments also occur at times of 130 and 180
seconds.

3.2 THE INFLUENCE OF PARAMETERS

Parameters can by systematically varied in PASS-MOOR to show their

various effects.

SHIP VELOCITY

Figure 3.2-1 shows that as the passing ship velocity increases, the peak
sway force dramatically increases for the example.

WATER DEPTH

Figure 3.2-2 shows that a small decrease in the water depth causes a
large increase in peak sway force for the example.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 35

 1500

1000

APPLIED FORCES TO THE MOORED SHIP (kips)

Fx (kips)
500
Fy (kips)

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

TIME (sec)
-500

-1000

250000

200000
APPLIED MOMENT TO THE MOORED SHIP (foot * kips)

150000

100000
M (ft*kips)

50000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-50000
TIME (sec)
-100000

-150000

-200000

-250000

Figure 3.1-6. APPLIED FORCES/MOMENTS ON THE MOORED SHIP FOR

THE EXAMPLE

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 36

 1400
PASS.XLS

1200

PEAK SWAY FORCE (thousands pounds)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PASSING SHIP VELOCITY (knots)

Figure 3.2-1. INFLUENCE OF PASSING SHIP VELOCITY

ON PEAK SWAY FORCE FOR THE EXAMPLE

2000

1800

1600
PEAK SWAY FORCE (thousands pounds)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200
PASS.XLS

0
50 55 60 65 70 75
WATER DEPTH (ft)

Figure 3.2-2. INFLUENCE OF WATER DEPTH ON

PEAK SWAY FORCE FOR THE EXAMPLE

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 37

CURRENT SPEED

Figure 3.2-3 shows that an ebb current opposing a passing ship causes a
dramatic increase in peak sway force on the moored ship. A flood current,
on the other hand, causes the peak sway force on the moored ship to
decrease.

DISTANCE BETWEEN SHIPS

Figure 3.2-4 shows that the peak sway force increases as the passing ship
gets closer to the moored ship.

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A passing ship may have a major influence on a nearby moored ship due
to a combination of wave, pressure, Bernoulli and other effects. The
moored ship may be pushed in the fore and aft directions, pushed into the
pier, pulled off the pier and forced to yaw in response to the passing ship.

In this report forces and moments on the moored ship due to the passing
ship are estimated by:

(a) Using the method of Wang (1975) to estimate values for the deepwater
case.

(b) Correcting for realistic finite depth effects using correction factors
developed from re-analyses of scale model laboratory data.

(c) Using the spreadsheet ‘PASS-MOOR.xls’ to estimate the peak forces

and moments. These forces vary as a function of time, so the spread
sheet outputs time series.

The mooring efficiency approach (Seelig, 1998) is incorporated into the

spread sheet to give a preliminary estimate of the number of mooring lines
that would be required to secure the moored ship in a passing ship event.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 38

 3000
PASS.XLS

2500

PEAK SWAY FORCE (thousands pounds)

2000

1500

1000

500

EBB FLOW FLOOD FLOW

0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
CURRENT VELOCITY (knots)

Figure 3.2-3. INFLUENCE OF CURRENT VELOCITY ON

PEAK SWAY FORCE FOR THE EXAMPLE

2500

PASS.XLS

2000
PEAK SWAY FORCE (thousands pounds)

1500

1000

500

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
DISTANCE BETWEEN SHIP CENTERLINES (ft)

Figure 3.2-4. INFLUENCE OF SHIP SPACING ON

PEAK SWAY FORCE FOR THE EXAMPLE

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 39

Some of the methods that can be used to estimate passing ship forces and
moments on moored ships are:

• The PASS-MOOR spread sheet discussed in this report.

• The reader can perform his own inspection of previous model test
results summarized in Appendix B, Figures 2.2-2 and -3, etc.

• Flory (2001) provides an empirical method.

• Wang (1975) provides a method based on computations.

• Pinkster (2000) provides a computational numerical model.

• Specific laboratory scale models can be conducted.

• Full-scale tests can be conducted.

Forces and moments on moored ships can then be used as input to

various mooring software packages, such as FIXMOOR, OPTIMOOR,
AQWA LIBRIUM, AQWA DRIFT, etc., to determine ship offsets from its
initial position, mooring line tensions, moored ship motions, velocities,
accelerations, etc.

5.0 POINTS OF CONTACT

Points of contact are provided in Table 5.

TABLE 5. POINTS OF CONTACT

NAME PHONE EMAIL

Frank Cole (NAVFAC) 757-322-4203 ColeFB@efdlant.navfac.navy.mil
Bill Seelig (NFESC) 202-433-2396 SeeligWN@nfesc.navy.mil
fax -5089

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 40

6.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cohen, S. and Beck, R., "Experimental and Theoretical Hydrodynamic Forces on

a Mathematical Model in Confined Waters", Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 27,
No. 2, June 1983.

De-bo, Huang and Yunbo, Li, “Ship Wave Resistance Based on Noblesse’s
Slender Ship Theory and Wave-Steepness Restriction”, Ship Technology
Research, Vol. 44, pp. 198-202, 1977.

Flory, J., “A Method for Estimating Passing Ship Forces”, ASCE, Proceedings
Ports 2001, 2001.

Grollius, W., Muller, E., Lochte-Holtgreven, H., and Guesnet, Th., “Results of
Model Tests with Fast Unconventional Ships in Shallow Water”, Proceedings, 3rd
Int. Conf. On Fast Sea Transport, FAST ’95, Vol. 2, Schiffbautechnische
Gesellschaft (STG), Berlin, 1995.

Husig, A., Linke, T. and Zimmermann, C., “Effects from Supercritical Ship
Operation on Inland Canals”, ASCE, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and
Ocean Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 3, May/June 2000, pp. 130-135.

King, G.W., "Unsteady Hydrodynamic Interactions Between Ships", Journal of

Ship Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, Sep 1977.

Kizakkevariath, S., “Hydrodynamic Analysis and Computer Simulation Applied to

Ship Interaction During Maneuvering in Shallow Water”, Ph.D. Dissertation,
VPISU, May, 1989.

Kurata, K. and Oda, K., “Ship Waves in Shallow Water and Their Effects on
Moored Small Vessel”, Proceedings Coastal Engineering Conference, pp. 3258-
3273, 1984.

Lean, G.H., and Price, W.A., "The Effect of Passing Vessels on a Moored Ship",
The Dock and Harbour Authority, Nov. 1977.

Muga, B. and Fang S.,”Passing Ship Effects from Theory and Experiment”,
Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. 2368, 1975.

Muga, B., Overton, M. and Sidiropoulos, “Effects Induced by Passing Ships on

Waterfront Facilities”, Dept. of CE, Duke University, Report for NAVFAC,
Contract No. N00025-76-C-0026, March, 1978.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 41

National Transportation Safety Board, “Explosion and Fire Aboard the U.S.
Tankship Jupiter, Bay City, Michigan, September 16, 1990”, Marine Accident
Report, PB91-916404, NSTB/MAR-91/04, Adopted Oct. 29, 1991.

Occasion, L. K., “The Analysis of Passing Vessel Effects on Moored Tankers”,

Directed Research PTE-490x, 616-03-8123, Dec. 10, 1996.

Pinkster, J. (description of the program DELPASS provided by email), MARIN,

2000.

Remery, G.F.M., “Mooring Forces Induced by Passing Ships”, OTC 2066, 1974.

Seelig, W., “‘EMOOR’ - A Quick and Easy Method of Evaluating Ship Mooring at
Piers and Wharves”, NFESC Report TR-6005-OCN, Rev B May 1998.

Seelig, W. (ed.), “Mooring Design”, MIL-HDBK-1026/4, 1999.

Spencer, J., McBride, M., Beresford, P. and Goldberg, D., “Modeling the Effects
of Passing Ships”, Proceedings, International Colloquium on Computer
Applications in Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Kuala Lumpa, June 1993.

Wang, Shen, “Dynamic Effects of Ship Passage on Moored Vessels”, ASCE,

Journal of the Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Division, WW3, pp.
247-258, Aug. 1975.

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 42

 APPENDIX A - NOTATION USED

The following notation is used in this report:

Variable Description Units

B Ship width L
Cb Ship block coefficient -
Cm Mid-ships coefficient, Cm = maximum ship end-on -
submerged cross-sectional area divided by ship
width times draft
CFX, CFY, CFM Finite depth correction factors for peak forces in -
the X direction, Y direction and yawing moment.
d Water depth L
fx, fy, m Dimensionless forces and moments on the -
moored ship
Fx, Fy, M Forces and moments on the moored ship F, F*L
G Gap distance between ships L
g Acceleration due to gravity L/T2
L Mean ship length = 0.5 *(L1 + L2) L
L1, L2 Lengths of ships 1 and 2 at waterline L
Q Demonimator Q = ρV2 (L1)2(S1/L12)(S2/L22) F

S1, S2 Cross-sectional midship submerged areas of L2

Ships 1 and 2
T Ship draft of moored Ship 1 L
t Time T
VR Passing ship velocity relative to the water L/T
V Passing ship velocity relative to the world L/T
VC Current velocity L/T
X X-coordinate L
Y Y-coordinate L
η Lateral distance between ship centerlines L
Subscripts
0 Deepwater (i.e. T/d = 0)

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 43

 1 Moored ship (the subscript may be omitted) -
2 Moving ship -
Lab Experimental measurement in the laboratory
x Peak force in the x-direction
y Peak force in the y-direction
M Peak moment in the yaw direction

UNITS:

- = dimensionless
L = length
T = time
ANG = ang
F = force

TR-6027-OCN PASSING SHIP EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS 44

 APPENDIX B - PREVIOUS WORK

The interactions between a moored and a moving ship nearby can be

highly complex. Therefore, several investigators have used scale model
studies and/or theoretical calculations to examine these phenomena. The
various studies are discussed below.

REMERY (1974)

Remery (1974) performed a systematic set of laboratory studies. He fixed

the ship draft to water depth ratio at T / d = 0.87 for the moored ship.
Moving ships were tests at three speeds. Three different moving ships
were tested, which had masses 30%, 110% and 160% of the mass of the
moored ship.

The moored ship was initially held rigidly and forces/moments on the
moored ship were measured. Then linear mooring systems with various
amounts of stiffness were installed on the moored ship and experiments
re-run.

Remery (1974) concluded:

The loads induced by a passing ship on a moored vessel are proportional

to the square of the speed of the passing vessel for no current and are
related to the relative position between both vessels.

The stiffness of the mooring system has a considerable effect on the

mooring forces. When only small excursions are allowable, a stiff system
tends to result in the smallest mooring forces.

Muga and Fang (1975)

Muga and Fang (1975) performed 47 laboratory tests with identical moored
and passing ships (250 000 DWT tankers). Tests were conducted over a
range of conditions with and without a current. Most of the data from this
research appear to be lost. Some data can be taken from figures in this
paper. However, it appears the data was plotted with an error of 2 or the
y-axes of the figures were mis-labeled. Corrected data is used in this
report.
Lean and Price (1977)

Lean and Price (1977) performed 135 laboratory tests. Only a fraction of
the data are reported. These authors concluded that pressure gradients
associated with the passing ship are important because the observed
waves had small height at low ship speed and the length of the observed
surface waves were short in comparison with the size of the moored ship.

The authors conclude that slack lines are to be avoided and that some
relief in maximum line loads can be achieved by increasing the line
pretension.

King (1977)

King developed a numerical model and performed selected model tests.

Only sway force and yaw moment were measured. The surge force was
not reported.

Cohen and Beck (1983)

These authors developed a numerical model and performed selected

model tests. Only sway force and yaw moment were measured. The
surge force was not reported.

Kizakkevariath, S. (1989)

Kizakkevariath, S. (1989) performed various numerical simulations of

passing ship and other effects.

Flory, J. (2001)

Flory developed an empirical method for estimating passing ship forces

and moments on a moored ship based on a re-analysis of existing
information.

Table B-1 summarizes the previous model tests reanalyzed in this report.
 Table B-1. SHALLOW WATER CORRECTION FACTORS DETERMINED
FROM LABORATORY SCALE MODEL STUDIES OF PASSING SHIP
EFFECTS ON MOORED SHIPS

Data Pt # d/L L2/L1 eta/L1 T/d CFX CFY CFM GAP/B1 T/B Source
1 0.07 0.712 0.239 0.870 8.027 10.675 9.308 0.815 0.402 REMERY (1974)
2 0.07 0.712 0.356 0.870 10.274 14.694 14.762 1.630 0.402 REMERY (1974)
3 0.07 0.712 0.589 0.870 12.75 20.345 23.220 3.261 0.402 REMERY (1974)
4 0.07 0.973 0.267 0.870 8.871 12.075 10.261 0.815 0.374 REMERY (1974)
5 0.07 0.973 0.384 0.870 11.348 15.469 10.787 1.630 0.374 REMERY (1974)
6 0.07 0.973 0.617 0.870 13.190 9.584 3.261 0.374 REMERY (1974)
7 0.07 0.973 0.928 0.870 9.699 10.355 7.604 5.435 0.374 REMERY (1974)
8 0.07 1.175 0.279 0.870 9.636 11.910 11.899 0.815 0.344 REMERY (1974)
9 0.07 1.175 0.396 0.870 15.530 15.386 1.630 0.344 REMERY (1974)
10 0.07 1.175 0.629 0.870 11.146 16.306 14.550 3.261 0.344 REMERY (1974)
11 0.07 1.175 0.94 0.870 9.308 10.908 9.592 5.435 0.344 REMERY (1974)
12 0.068 1.000 0.292 0.909 10.9245 18.865 11.580 0.900 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
13 0.068 1.000 0.385 0.909 13.623 24.364 15.248 1.500 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
14 0.068 1.000 0.477 0.909 17.4565 24.737 18.278 2.100 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
15 0.08 1.000 0.385 0.769 9.9455 11.666 21.046 1.500 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
16 0.068 1.000 0.385 0.909 13.623 24.364 15.248 1.500 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
17 0.066 1.000 0.385 0.943 15.009 27.707 33.184 1.500 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
18 0.066 1.000 0.292 0.943 11.831 20.608 25.158 0.900 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
19 0.062 1.000 0.292 1.000 10.179 29.903 32.067 0.900 0.402 MUGA (1975)*
20 0.075 1.000 0.167 0.833 6.736 6.415 0.336 0.500 COHEN (1983)
21 0.075 1.000 0.229 0.833 8.157 8.879 0.832 0.500 COHEN (1983)
22 0.075 1.000 0.292 0.833 10.595 8.618 1.336 0.500 COHEN (1983)
23 0.075 1.000 0.354 0.833 12.450 10.114 1.832 0.500 COHEN (1983)
24 0.05 1.000 0.167 0.833 8.412 9.661 0.336 0.333 COHEN (1983)
25 0.05 1.000 0.229 0.833 11.057 11.303 0.832 0.333 COHEN (1983)
26 0.05 1.000 0.292 0.833 15.666 11.350 1.336 0.333 COHEN (1983)
27 0.05 1.000 0.354 0.833 16.357 13.663 1.832 0.333 COHEN (1983)
28 0.094 1.000 0.167 0.667 4.272 4.311 0.336 0.500 COHEN (1983)
29 0.094 1.000 0.229 0.667 5.220 5.223 0.832 0.500 COHEN (1983)
30 0.094 1.000 0.292 0.667 6.248 6.601 1.336 0.500 COHEN (1983)
31 0.094 1.000 0.354 0.667 6.874 6.616 1.832 0.500 COHEN (1983)
32 0.063 1.000 0.167 0.667 4.663 4.402 0.336 0.333 COHEN (1983)
33 0.063 1.000 0.229 0.667 5.928 5.911 0.832 0.333 COHEN (1983)
34 0.063 1.000 0.292 0.667 7.478 6.674 1.336 0.333 COHEN (1983)
35 0.063 1.000 0.354 0.667 8.950 8.831 1.832 0.333 COHEN (1983)
36 0.1 2.000 0.625 1.000 10.246 1.500 0.400 KING (1977)
37 0.1 1.333 0.417 1.000 14.408 1.500 0.600 KING (1977)
38 0.1 1.000 0.313 1.000 16.176 7.687 1.500 0.800 KING (1977)
39 0.1 0.667 0.208 1.000 18.038 1.500 1.200 KING (1977)
40 0.1 0.500 0.156 1.000 25.098 1.500 1.600 KING (1977)
* AUTHOR MADE AN ERROR OF 2.0 WHEN PLOTTING
 18

16

14

12

.
PREDICTED CFX
10

4 CFX=1 + 16 * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.5)2)

2
PASS.XLS

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
MEASURED CFX

Figure B-1. MEASURED VS. PREDICTED CFX

35

30
-0.35 4
CFY= 1 + 25 * (T/B) * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.3)2)

25
.
PREDICTED CFY

20

15

10

5
PASS.XLS

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MEASURED CFY

Figure B-2. MEASURED VS. PREDICTED CFY

 35

-0.35 4
CFM= 1 + 25 * (T/B) * (T/d) * EXP(-0.08 * ((G/B) - 3.3)2)
30

25
.
PREDICTED CFM

20

15

10

5
PASS.XLS

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MEASURED CFM

Figure B-3. MEASURED VS. PREDICTED CFM