Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Probabilistic model for predicting deep-draught channel design:

Savannah, GA entrance channel
M.J. Briggs a,n,1, P.J. Kopp b, A.L. Silver b, W. Wiggins c
a
Briggs Group LLC, Vicksburg, MS 39180, United States
b
Surface Ship Hydromechanics Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700, United States
c
Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, GA 31402-0889, United States

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A vertical ship motion study was conducted to evaluate three proposed channel alignments S-1, S-3, and
Received 5 June 2013 S-8 in the Savannah, GA entrance channel. These alignment changes (doglegs) are proposed to allow
Accepted 22 July 2015 ships to reach deeper water in less distance, with reduced dredging costs. The Channel Analysis and
Design Evaluation Tool (CADET) was used to predict the underkeel clearance and annual days of
Keywords: accessibility. The clearance and accessibility results were calculated for each channel option and include
Vertical ship motions vertical ship motion allowances based on the wave-induced coupled heave, roll, and pitch. This provides
Underkeel clearance a risk-based method of determining channel project depth based on two ship loading conditions for the
Deep draught navigation three channel alignment options.
Entrance channel design
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Numerical models
Risk-based design

1. Introduction DUKC deterministically assesses the UKC of a vessel with a

The new third locks of the Panama Canal in the $5.25B
modernization are expected to open in 2016. This increased
capacity will be a boon to U.S. ports, especially on the East coast.
The new expanded locks will double existing canal capacity and
allow three times the cargo by allowing larger ships in the canal.
The “New Panamax” ships will have lengths up to 366 m, beams to
49 m, and draughts to 15.2 m. Today, Post-Panamax (i.e. larger
than existing Panama Canal) containerships make up 16 percent of
the world's fleet. By 2030, these larger ships are expected to carry
more than 60 percent of all containers (Booth 2013).
Port designers have historically relied on deterministic
approaches with large safety factors for channel design. Although
these designs resulted in 100 percent accessibility of a channel,
they were overly conservative and relied upon extensive dredging
which was expensive. Risk-based models are now recommended
to provide a more realistic and cost-effective design based on a
useful service life with an acceptable level of risk of mishaps or
groundings. Existing probabilistic design tools include DUKC
(Dynamic Underkeel Clearance), UNDERKEEL, and CADET (Channel
Analysis and Design Evaluation Tool).
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: briggsm1@cablelynx.com (M.J. Briggs).
1 clearance (UKC) from ship motion allowances for different wave,
Former Affiliation: Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., CEERD-HN-HH, Vicksburg,
MS 39180-6199, United States.
known load condition, speed and track under specific met-ocean
conditions (Atkinson and O’Brien, 2008; O’Brien et al., 2012). By
simulating vessel movements over many years, it assesses the risk
of bottom touching, waterway capacity, and optimized depths
through statistical analysis of the simulated UKC data.
UNDERKEEL (Spencer, et al., 1990) was developed for the study
of ship motions and wave forces on ships in shallow water. It
employs linearized wave theory with potential flow applied in the
frequency domain (i.e. regular waves) to represent the behavior of
waves and water flows in the vicinity of the ship. Strip or slender
body theory treatment of boundary conditions at the hull are
modeled to allow for flows underneath the keel. All components of
wave force and moment and vessel motions are computed. A
typical application is the estimation of vertical motions of ships
underway in a navigation channel to estimate the likely minimum
dredged depth needed for safe transit in waves.
CADET is a numerical model to aid in determining the ‘opti-
mum’ dredge depth for the offshore portions of entrance channels
that are subjected to waves (Briggs et al., 2012). This ‘optimum’
dredge depth is defined as the depth that provides the maximum
accessibility for the minimum amount of dredging. It predicts
channel accessibility for acceptable levels of risk based on Gaus-
sian and Rayleigh distributions and an Ochi prediction of the
extreme value of a random process (Ochi, 1973) of underkeel
ship, and channel combinations. Note that UKC used in this paper
means static underkeel clearance and is equivalent to the project

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.07.047
0029-8018/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 M.J. Briggs et al. / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286
depth minus ship draught. The CADET predictions allow the
designer to choose a channel depth that requires the least amount
of dredging for the maximum amount of accessibility assuming an
acceptable level of risk. CADET has recently been accepted on the
Corp's Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Coastal Community of Practice
Preferred List of numerical models.
Briggs et al. (2006) compared CADET predictions of channel
accessibility with both a numerical model based on Poisson and
Bernoulli probability distributions for ship arrivals and groundings
from a laboratory dataset. In the latter model, recurrence intervals
were estimated for the number of years between mishaps or
groundings. Comparisons between both methods were presented
with good agreement.
Briggs et al. (2010, 2013b) performed a validation study with
CADET for six ships during inbound and outbound transits in
Ambrose Channel, NY. Comparisons between field measurements
and CADET predictions agreed reasonably well in the three
reaches. Additional validation comparisons between field and
laboratory measurements and CADET predictions for the World
Utility bulk carrier were performed for Barbers Pt, HI (Briggs et al.,
2014b). The agreement between CADET predictions and field and
laboratory measurements was reasonable. Finally, CADET was
recently applied to study the potential effects of a subsurface
mound on ship transits in Ambrose Channel, NY (Briggs et al.,
2014a). Wave-induced ship motions for transits over the mound
were compared to transits in the entrance channel to select a
minimum dredge depth across the mound to prevent grounding
and insure navigation safety.
In this study, CADET was applied to the modification of the
entrance channel at Savannah, Georgia (Briggs and Henderson,
2011). The goal of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP)
was to evaluate three proposed channel options to accommodate
the “New Panamax” class of ships. The project depth is restricted
due to environmental, buried utilities, dredging costs, offshore
reefs, economic, and political considerations. Ship speeds in the
offshore portions of the entrance channel are restricted to 10 knots
during the right whale season. Some of the channel options are
more direct and would require less ship maneuvering to reach
deep water. Environmental concerns require a minimum amount
of dredging through the offshore reefs and disturbance to the
whale habitat. Thus, it was necessary to minimize dredging and
construction costs, while still insuring navigational safety, operat-
ing efficiency, and minimum environmental damage.
In this paper, brief descriptions of CADET theory and risk
analysis are presented in Section 2. The Savannah project site,
design ship, channel options, and wave and tidal forcing are
described in the next section (Section 3). Results from the days
of accessibility analysis are presented and discussed in Section 4.
Section 5 contains results of the ship motion analyses and net
underkeel clearance predictions. Finally, a summary and conclu-
sions are presented in the last section (Section 6).
2. CADET numerical model
2.1. Background
The CADET numerical model is based on technology initially
developed for the Navy's Environmental Monitoring and Operator
Guidance System (EMOGS) (Silver, 1992, Silver and Dalzell, 1997).
EMOGS provides real-time operational guidance on the expected
UKC of a ship, given wave and water level measurements or
observations at a particular port for a transit at a particular time
and direction. For each UKC prediction, it calculates the uncer-
tainty and risk of touching the channel bottom for those condi-
tions. EMOGS has been used successfully for over 20 years. CADET
277
is the design tool equivalent of EMOGS, since it calculates effective
UKC and bottom touching risk probability for any number of ships
and loading conditions over a range of channel project depths.
CADET also assumes an equal probability of a transit in either
inbound or outbound directions at any time of day or night.
2.2. Underkeel clearance
The effective UKCj at location j (i.e., jth control point on hull
surface usually corresponding to bow, stern, rudder, or sides) is
given by
UKCj ¼ Dc þ Et  ðT j þ Sj þ Aj Þ ð1Þ
where Dc is the nominal channel project depth, Et is water level
due to tides, Tj is static draught and trim of the ship at rest, Sj is
underway sinkage and trim (i.e., squat), and Aj is the wave-
induced, vertical motions allowance due to heave, roll, and pitch.
Note that EMOGS explicitly includes the tidal water level compo-
nent, Et, while CADET does not.
2.2.1. Ship squat
Ship squat Sj is typically estimated within CADET using the
Beck–Newman–Tuck (BNT) algorithm. The BNT prediction is based
on early work by Tuck (1966) investigating the dynamics of a
slender ship in shallow water at various speeds for an infinitely
wide channel and for a finite width channel such as a canal (Tuck,
1967). This work was expanded to include a dredged channel with
a finite-width inner channel and depth and an infinitely-wide
outside channel of shallower depth (Beck et al., 1975). Briggs et al.
(2013a) compared CADET BNT predictions with PIANC (World
Association for Waterborne Transport, formerly Permanent Inter-
national Association of Navigation Congresses) and Ankudinov
(Ankudinov and Jakobsen, 1996, Ankudinov et al., 2000) empirical
formulas for the prediction of ship squat with measured DGPS
squat data from the Panama Canal for four ships. All of the
predictions fell within the range of squat measurements.
In the BNT model, the fluid is assumed to be inviscid and
irrotational and the hull long and slender. The underwater area of
the hull is modeled and the dynamic pressure is obtained by
differentiating the velocity potential along the length of the hull
for each Depth Froude Number Fnh defined as:
Vs
F nh ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi ð2Þ
gh
where Vs is ship speed in m/s, g is gravitational acceleration in m/
s2, and h is water depth in m.
The sinkage and trim predictions are obtained from the
dynamic pressure by calculating the vertical force and pitching
moment. The midship sinkage SMid and trim angle TR are given as a
function of Fnh, where sinkage and trim are positive for downward
movement and bow down, respectively. Squat at the jth control
point Sj is calculated as:
Sj ¼ SMid þ X j sin ðT R Þ ð3Þ
where Xj is the longitudinal distance from the center of gravity of
the ship to the jth control point (positive forward of midship).
When the control point is vertically offset from the ship baseline,
there is an additional correction to Sj.
2.2.2. Vertical motions allowance
The vertical motions allowance Aj is estimated from the vertical
wave-induced, rigid body motion transfer functions of heave, roll,
and pitch. The magnitude of the vertical displacement at a point
on the ship is dependent upon the height and period of the waves
in the channel, the ship speed, the relative ship heading to the
waves, channel depth, and the position of the point relative to the
278 M.J. Briggs et al. / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286
ship center of gravity. For the coupled heave, roll, and pitch
motions at a critical point j on the hull, a complex-valued vertical
displacement transfer function Hj(f,θ) is calculated as:
H j ðf ; θÞ ¼ Zðf ; θÞ þX j Θðf ; θÞ þY j Φðf ; θÞ
where Z(f, θ) is the complex vertical heave motion transfer
function; Xj and Yj are the longitudinal and lateral distances,
respectively, from the ship's center of gravity to the jth control
point; and θ(f, θ) and Φ(f, θ) are the complex pitch and roll
transfer functions, respectively. The Response Amplitude Operator
(RAO) is defined as the square of the amplitude of the transfer
function at each frequency.
This vertical motion transfer function, Hj, is then used in the
calculation of the σj RMS (root mean square) displacement at
critical point j given by
qffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
XX  2
σ j ¼ σ 2j ¼ Sðf ; θÞH j ðf ; θÞ Δf Δθ
f θ
 2
where S(f,θ) is the directional wave spectrum, H j ðf ; θÞ is the
square of the modulus of the vertical motion transfer function, or
RAO, and Δf and Δθ are the increments in frequency and direction,
respectively.
Since this σj is calculated from individual wave conditions with
phase differences, it may not provide the largest vertical excursion
the ship may experience during a transit. Therefore, Ochi (1973)
proposed higher order extremal statistics to define an expected
extreme motion allowance Aj during a given transit as:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
T d σ vj
Aj ¼ σ j 2 ln ð6Þ
2πασ j
where Td is exposure time in the channel (i.e., reach length/ship
speed) in seconds, σvj is the vertical velocity of the vertical motion
(i.e., time derivative of σj) at location j, and α is a risk parameter. If
α ¼0.01, then the ship has a risk of 1 in 100 that the predicted
motions allowance Aj will be exceeded for the given set of wave
conditions.
2.2.3. Directional wave spectra
As shown in Eq. (5), directional wave spectra S(f,θ) are the
driving mechanism in CADET to predict vertical ship motions.
Design life predictions of channel accessibility require a good
statistical representation, on the order of a 20-year design life. The
Wave Information Study (WIS) is a good source of 20-year
hindcast data for the U.S. coastline (http://chl.erdc.usace.army.
mil/wis). Since it is rare to have predictions or measurements of
S(f,θ), empirical formulas for the frequency spectrum S(f) and the
directional spreading function D(f,θ) are typically defined as:
Sðf ; θÞ ¼ Sðf ÞDðf ; θÞ
subject to the constraints
2π
X 2π
X neous minimum clearance for a given condition is obtained by a
Sðf Þ ¼ Sðf ; θÞΔθ; Dðf ; θÞΔθ ¼ 1
0 0
Since entrance channels are typically in shallow water, it is
appropriate to use something like the TMA (Texel, MARSEN, and
ARSLOE) shallow-water spectral form (Bouws et al., 1985) for S(f).
The TMA characterizes waves generated in deepwater which have
propagated into shallow water and reduces to the JONSWAP (JOint
North Sea WAve Project) spectrum (Hasselmann et al., 1973) in the
deepwater limit. It is defined as:
αg 2
Sðf Þ ¼ Φð2π f ; hÞea γ b
ð2π Þ4 f
5
where α is Phillip's constant that is a function of the wave height
and usually is obtained from an iterative procedure, and γ is the
peak enhancement factor that controls the width of the S(f) where
sea (swell) components are broader (narrower) in frequency space
using smaller (larger) values of γ. The function φ(2πf,h) may be
approximated as:
ð4Þ
(
0:5ω2 ωr1
Φð2π f ; hÞ ¼ ð10Þ
1  0:5ð2  ωÞ2 ω 41
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where ω ¼ 2π f h=g . The functions a and b are defined as:
2
!4 !2 3
f  1 f
a ¼ 1:25 ; b ¼ exp4 2 1 5 ð11Þ
fp 2σ f p
where fp ¼ peak spectral frequency and σ is given by
(
0:07 f r f p
σ ¼ 0:09 f 4f ð12Þ
p
ð5Þ
The directional spreading function D(f,θ) can be approximated
using several different empirical formulas. One of the simplest is a
cosnθ directional distribution (Smith et al., 2001). It is defined as:
 
1 θ  θm
Dðf ; θÞ ¼ cos n ð13Þ
C 2
where C is a conversion constant to insure that the constraint in
Eq. (8) is satisfied, θ is direction of the spectral component, θm is
the peak or dominant direction of the spectral component, and n is
an even-numbered exponent that determines the width of the
spreading with a small (large) n equivalent to broad (narrow)
directional spreading.
2.3. Uncertainty and risk analysis
The primary objective for calculating uncertainty is to provide a
measure of risk of a ship touching the various project depths. The risk
of touching the channel bottom is defined as that proportion of all
possible transits under statistically constant conditions in which the
minimum channel clearance would be zero or negative (i.e., adverse
outcomes). To compute the risk under this definition, it is necessary to
compute the probability density of the minimum clearance. The risk
model accounts for the uncertainty in each of the contributing
parameters by assuming (a) Gaussian distribution for static ship
draught, (b) Gaussian distribution for underway sinkage and trim,
and (c) Rayleigh distribution for the vertical motion and velocity
variances. Since wave height is characterized by the Rayleigh dis-
tribution, it is a reasonable probability distribution to describe the
wave-driven vertical motion and velocity variances.
To calculate the risk of touching project depth, it is required to
determine the probability density function of the largest motion
ð7Þ excursion in a given duration of transit considering the uncer-
tainty in the estimates of channel depth, and ship motion and
velocity. The probability density of all possible values of instanta-
ð8Þ numerical convolution. Then, the risk of touching the project
depth is the integration of the negative portion of the instanta-
neous minimum clearance probability density.
A risk analysis is performed to determine the probability of any one
of the critical points of the deep draught ship touching the channel
bottom for inbound and outbound transits. The risk analysis is
performed for each of the wave conditions in a wave climatology for
the port. The result of the risk analysis provides a probability of the
ship touching the channel bottom under each of the wave conditions
for a specified project depth. It is assumed that if the risk is greater
ð9Þ than some threshold value (normally 1 in 100), then the channel is
inaccessible by the ship. The days of accessibility of the channel are
calculated by determining the persistence of the wave condition that
produces the risk of 1 in 100 or less. The risk calculation is performed
 M.J. Briggs et al. / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286
for each wave condition and range of project depths. Of course, it is
never going to be possible to have the required number of days of
accessibility and the “least” amount of dredging as these are opposite
ends of the continuum of possibilities. What is selected is a compro-
mise between these two: pick a number of days of accessibility that
will provide reasonable efficiency and a depth that will require
dredging costs that are within the project budget and safety
constraints.
3. Project site
3.1. Savannah entrance channel
The Port of Savannah, GA, is an important deep-draught commer-
cial harbor on the U.S. Atlantic coast with containerships comprising a
major part of its commercial fleet. The Entrance Channel consists of
two sections: an Outer Channel (Fig. 1) subject to waves, and a
sheltered Inner Channel. The existing Outer Channel has a length up
to 18.3 km and was modeled in this study as an “open” or unrest-
ricted cross-section with a width of 183 m and depth of 13.4 m MLLW
(Mean Lower Low Water). The 31-km-long Inner Channel has a width
of 152 m and depth of 12.8 m MLLW. Since it is not exposed to waves,
it was not modeled in this study, but was considered in the
calculation of required transit times. Harbor pilots routinely use the
2.4 m tide and overdredge allowance as necessary to accommodate
larger draught ships. Although CADET includes the overdredge
allowance, it does not consider shoaling between dredging events.
Of course, these tide heights only occur for variable time windows
each day during the year so that the pilots have limited sailing
windows during any given day of a year. Thus, the days of accessibility
predicted by CADET for a fixed depth need to be adjusted to account
for the variability in this depth as a function of the tides. This is
discussed in Section 4.6 (Discussion).
3.2. Design ship
The design ship for the Savannah study is the New Panamax
(formerly Post-Panamax) Susan Maersk containership (Fig. 2). It
was completed in 1997 with a TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units)
capacity of 8680, length overall LOA ¼347 m, length between
perpendiculars Lpp ¼331.6 m, and beam B¼ 42.8 m. The light- and
Fig. 1. Savannah Entrance Channel proposed channel alignments showing existing channel to Station 60 (60 þ 000), option S-1 extension of existing channel to Station 123
(123þ 000), option S-3 from Station 60 (60 þ 000) to Station 82 (82 þ000) to Station 98 (98 þ000), and option S-8 from Station 60 to Station 98.
279
fully-loaded ships have draughts of T ¼14.0 and 14.5 m, respec-
tively. Of course, these draughts represent “worst” case scenario as
ships rarely are loaded to their full design draughts due to
differences in cargo density and scheduling. Also, traffic conges-
tion and two-way traffic are not a factor for the Savannah channel
as ships of this size are expected to call on this port on only a
weekly basis. Ship speeds range from 8 to 14 knots in the Outer
Channel, with restrictions to 10 knots during right whale season.
Heave, roll, and pitch transfer functions (RAOs) are estimated
using a frequency domain, shallow water, strip-theory program
SCORES (Kaplan, 1996). It uses hull geometry, draught and trim,
ship speeds, water depths, roll damping coefficient, and wave
frequencies. Fig. 3 shows an example heave, roll, and pitch RAO for
the fully-loaded Susan Maersk with a speed of Vk ¼10 knot and a
channel depth of h ¼15.8 m. The non-dimensional amplitude RAOs
are plotted as a function of wave frequency in Hz. The coastline is
aligned roughly WSW/NNE along this portion of the coast and the
channel alignment ranges from 901 to 1171 (approximately E/W to
ESE/WNW). The most common wave direction is nearly parallel
with the entrance channel with a mean direction of 112.81;
representing 22.8 percent of all waves (see Section 3.4.1). Waves
within a 601 sector on either side of this mean direction represent
nearly 80 percent of all waves. Thus, example RAOs for the
outbound ship are shown for head (01) and bow quartering seas
(301 and 601) and for the inbound ship, corresponding seas include
following (1801) and stern quartering (1201 and 1501).
Fig. 2. Susan Maersk design ship for Savannah Entrance Channel.
280 M.J. Briggs et al. / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286

Table 1
1.6 Pros and cons for channel options.
Amplitude (Non-Dim)

0 deg Option Length Alignment Pros Cons

1.2
30 deg (km) (deg)
60 deg
0.8 180 deg S-1 19.2 0 Straight channel Most dredging
150 deg Existing Most shoals/reefs
alignment
0.4 120 deg
No doglegs
S-3 11.6 27 Shorter channel Severe dogleg at Sta.
0 82
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Less dredging
S-8 11.3 13 Shortest channel Slight dogleg at Sta.
Frequency (Hz) 60
Least dredging

3 Notes:
Amplitude (Non-Dim)

1. S-8 length based on Law of Cosines to Sta. 60.

0 deg
2. Alignment relative to S-1.
30 deg
2
60 deg
180 deg Each of the three option routes was divided into several
150 deg reaches. Typically, reaches are defined where the channel depth,
1
120 deg width, and/or alignment changes. Fig. 4 shows more detail of the
bathymetry and channel orientation from Station 3 (i.e., Sta.
0 3þ 000) to Station 87 (i.e., Sta. 87 þ000). Most of the offshore
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 reaches are straight sections with little curvature seaward of
Frequency (Hz) Station 39. To facilitate comparisons among the S-1, S-3, and S-8
options, three reaches were defined for each from Station 39 to
Station 123 with designations of S-1_Sta39, S-3_Sta39, and
0.4 S-8_Sta39, respectively. Table 2 shows the channel particulars for
Amplitude (Non-Dim)

0 deg these basic comparisons including reach number, wave ID, reach
0.3 30 deg name, beginning and ending stations, length, and alignment angle.
60 deg A second group with 6 reaches was defined for final comparisons
0.2 180 deg between the S-1 and preferred S-8 options for the channel's entire
150 deg length from Station 0 to Station 123. This group has designations
120 deg of S-1_Sta0 and S-8_Sta0.
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 3.4. Waves
Frequency (Hz)
Since waves drive the CADET model's predictions of vertical
Fig. 3. RAOs for fully-loaded Susan Maersk (T ¼ 14.5 m, h ¼ 15.8 m, Vk ¼ 10 knots) for ship motions, it was important to provide accurate estimates of
(a) heave, (b) roll, and (c) pitch. Outbound (solid lines for 01, 301 and 601) head and
the wave environment. The steps in this process involved estimat-
bow quartering seas and inbound (dashed line for 1801, 1501, and 1201) for
following and stern quartering seas. ing (a) deepwater hindcast waves, (b) deepwater joint probability
distributions, (c) directional wave spectra, and (d) transformed
(deep to shallow water) channel wave spectra.
3.3. Channel options

The deeper-draught design ship will require dredging to a
depth of 14.9 m MLLW along extensions to deeper water and
removal of shallow shoals. The project depth is restricted due to
buried utilities, dredging costs, offshore reefs, and environmental,
economic, and political considerations. Fig. 1 shows the three
proposed channel alignment options that were considered based
on length, dredging requirements, and pilot considerations.
Table 1 lists the three options and the corresponding “Pros” and
“Cons” for each. For this study, the existing channel starts at
Station 0 and ends at Station 60 (i.e., 60þ000, 18.3 km). Option S-1
is a proposed extension of the existing channel to Station 123
(123þ 000, 37.5 km). Option S-3 intersects the existing channel at
Station 82 (82 þ000, 25.0 km) and runs east–west to Station 98
(98 þ000, 29.9 km). The S-8 option is the preferred option for the
pilots since it has a similar alignment and is an easier transition to
the existing channel. It also intersects the existing channel at
Station 60 and ends at Station 98. All three route options begin at
Station 0. Options S-3 and S-8 have the advantage that they reach
deep water in a shorter distance with fewer shoals and offshore
reefs to dredge through than the S-1 option.
3.4.1. Deepwater hindcast waves
The 20-year hindcast wave data for this study were provided by
the Wave Information Study (WIS). WIS370 was selected since it is
one of the deepwater stations that are closest to the Savannah
Channel. Wave directions θp in degrees are directions from which
the waves are traveling. Direction bands are in 22.51 increments
from 01 to 3601. The overall mean wave direction is 1301. The most
common wave direction, with 22.3 percent of the cases, is
between 101.31 and 123.81, with a mean of 112.81. Both of these
wave directions are nearly parallel with the existing and S-1
channel alignments. The overall mean wave period is 5 s. The
most commonly occurring wave period band, with 81.5 percent of
the cases, is from 1 to 5 s, with a mean of 4.2 s. Significant wave
heights range from 0 to 9.1 m, with variable band limits. The
overall mean wave height is 1.0 m. The most common wave height
band, with 54.4 percent of the cases, is from 0.6 to 1.2 m, with a
mean of 0.9 m. The largest significant wave height was 8.8 m, with
corresponding peak period of 14.3 s and wave direction of 112.51.
However, this is a very rare occurrence, with correspondingly low
probability of occurrence.
 M.J. Briggs et al. / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286 281

Fig. 4. Savannah Outer Channel showing Stations 3 (Sta.3 þ000), 21, 39, 60, and 87.

Table 2 3.4.3. Directional wave spectra

Savannah Outer Channel parameters used in CADET modeling. From deepwater joint probability distributions of Tp vs. Hs,
wave parameter statistics were gathered for generating empirical
Group ID Reach Wave Reach Station Length Angle
directional wave spectra representative of the WIS370 deepwater
no. ID (km) (deg)
Begin End
data. A total of 99 different combinations of Tp, Hs, and θp were
obtained. Wave bins that had less than 0.05 percent (i.e., 0.0005)
Basic comparisons for Channel to Sta. 39 of the total number of occurrences were eliminated as these
S-1_Sta39 1 100 S-1a 82 123 12.5 117 represent very rare events on both low and high ends of the
2 200 S-1b 60 82 6.7
dataset. With the elimination of these rare occurrences and
3 300 Tybee 39 60 6.4
S-3_Sta39 1 100 S-3 82 98 4.9 90 including all the very low wave energy days, a total of 72.3 days
2 200 S-1b 60 82 6.7 117 per year (19.8 percent of a year) are considered “calm” days.
3 300 Tybee 39 60 6.4 During these days, wave-induced vertical ship motions are insig-
S-8_Sta39 1 100 S-8a 82 98 4.8 104
nificant and will not impact the available UKC in the Savannah
2 200 S-8b 60 82 6.5
3 300 Tybee 39 60 6.4 117
Entrance Channel. Thus, CADET was not run for these waves, but
Detailed comparisons for entire Channel to Sta. 0 they are included in the days of accessibility. After this pre-
S-1_Sta0 1 100 S-1a 82 123 12.5 117 processing, the final wave dataset does include seven relatively
2 200 S-1b 60 82 6.7 “extreme” waves that can lead to ship grounding, but of course the
3 300 Tybee 39 60 6.4
probability of occurrence is very low.
4 400 Bloody Pt 22 39 5.2 141
5 500 Jones Is 15 22 2.1 108 The directional wave spectra were then generated using a TMA
6 600 Tybee 0 15 4.6 83 frequency spectrum and a cosn spreading function. Spectral
Knoll Cut frequencies ranged from 0.01 Hz to 0.50 Hz in 0.01-Hz intervals
S-8_Sta0 1 100 S-8a 82 98 4.8 104
to cover frequencies corresponding to one half to three times the
2 200 S-8b 60 82 6.5
3 300 Tybee 39 60 6.4 117
peak frequency. Because of directional spreading and CADET
4 400 Bloody Pt 22 39 5.2 141 requirements, the full circle of 3601 was modeled in 151 incre-
5 500 Jones Is 15 22 2.1 108 ments. Spectral wave parameters were selected for each wave
6 600 Tybee 0 15 4.6 83 based on wave period, a standard approach for CHL (Coastal and
Knoll Cut
Hydraulics Laboratory) studies. For the TMA spectrum, frequency
Notes: spreading is a function of the γ parameter that varied between 3.3
S-8 length based on Law of Cosines. (broad) and 8 (narrow). For the directional cosn spreading func-
Angle is channel alignment relative to outbound ships, clockwise from North. tion, the “n” parameter ranged from 4 (broad) to 30 (narrow).
These spectra formed the incident wave input at Station 123
(beginning of Reach 1) in the Savannah Channel.
3.4.2. Deepwater joint probability distributions
The next step in the wave processing was to separate the data
into joint probability or percent occurrence tables of peak wave 3.4.4. Wave transformation
period Tp vs. significant wave height Hs for a realistic set of Thompson (2002) modeled the existing Savannah Channel
direction bands. Because of the angle of the shore (i.e., shelter- with the STWAVE numerical model (Smith et al., 2001) and
ing), wave directions outside the range of 11.31 to 236.31 would calculated wave transformation along the channel as a function
not impact the Savannah Channel, so the set of direction bands of distance from the WIS deepwater Station. These transformation
was reduced. The total number of observations or predictions for factors for wave height were used in this study to reduce the wave
the entire 20-year hindcast dataset was 175,314. The reduced height of the 99 empirical directional wave spectra for the
dataset has only 90 percent of these observations, or 158,138 different reaches from the offshore Station 123 to the inshore
observations. Station 0. Table 3 lists the wave height reduction factors for each
282
Table 3
Wave height reduction factors by reach.
Reach no. Wave ID Station no.
1 100 123
2 200 82
3 300 60
4 400 39
5 500 24
6 600 15
Notes:
1. Station no.¼ Beginning station no.
360
300
Days of accessibility/year
240
180
120
60
0 wants 365 days of accessibility at the shallowest water depth possible.
14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0
Water depth (m)
Fig. 5. CADET predictions of days of accessibility for inbound fully-loaded Susan
Maersk as a function of channel depth and ship speed for route options S-1, S-3, and
S-8. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
reach and their corresponding wave ID (see Table 2). The 100
series were used for reach 1, 200 series for reach 2, etc. It
was assumed that the wave period and wave directions
would not change significantly across the relatively short distances
of the Savannah Channel as the bathymetry was relatively con-
stant and wave refraction would be minor. Thus, the directional
spectra were identical for each reach except for the reduction in
wave height. All the other parameters remained unchanged
between reaches.
3.5. Tides
As noted previously due to environmental and political concerns,
the recommended depths will require the consideration of tides to
achieve desired water levels for safe transit. A tidal window is
calculated for the channel to allow sufficient time to transit the
channel based on different ship speeds. The 37 tidal constituents for
Ft. Pulaski are representative of the Outer Channel in Savannah. Each
constituent includes the amplitude and phase of the tide constant for
Savannah. They are input to the tidal prediction program in CADET
which calculates the average tidal range for 20 years between 1986
and 2006. The duration in hourly increments that the water level is
above various threshold levels in 30 cm increments was estimated.
The tide duration prediction program then determines the number of
days per year the water level is above the user-specified tide datum
for durations in 1 h increments. This duration is continuous so that a
ship can expect that this time interval is available for transit during
the calculated number of days per year.
M.J. Briggs et al. / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286
4. Ship accessibility
CADET predicts days/year of accessibility based on the ship
Height ratio
parameters, channel configuration, input wave conditions, and risk
1.00 of grounding (1 in 100 for this study). This accessibility is
0.94 generated for each reach, transit direction, and ship loading
0.85 condition. Based on these values, the project designer can select
0.56
0.57
the optimum dredge depth which is defined as the shallowest
0.28 dredge depth with the required percentage of time the channel
could be safely transited each year.
This section presents results for mainly the fully-loaded Susan
Maersk for absolute water levels. These water levels represent a
combined water depth that includes tides and/or future dredging.
For instance, a depth of 15.8 m represents either a dredged depth
of 15.8 m or a depth of 14.9 m plus a tide level of þ0.9 m. The
effect of the tides on days of accessibility is discussed later.
4.1. Comparison of optional routes
Fig. 5 compares accessibility among the three channel options of
S-1, 6 kt S-1 (open squares), S-3 (solid triangles), and S-8 (solid line) for the
S-3, 6 kt
S-8, 6 kt
fully-loaded Susan Maersk at speeds of 6 (blue), 10 (red), and 14
S-1, 10 kt (green) knots. The Savannah offshore channel is restricted to max-
S-3, 10 kt
S-8, 10 kt
imum ship speeds of 10 knots due to the right whale constraints. The
S-1, 14 kt maximum proposed project depth will be only 14.9 m, so these
S-3, 14 kt
S-8, 14 kt
deeper water depths represent use of the maximum tidal range up to
2.4 m, plus additional depth for future consideration. Ideally, one
16.5 17.0 These water levels do not occur continuously as they are only possible
for limited time intervals each year according to the tides.
This plot (Fig. 5) represents the worst case combinations for
inbound transits for all three reaches in each of the three channel
options. The left-most curves on these accessibility figures repre-
sent the best results since they indicate the most number of days
of accessibility for the shallowest channel depth. In general, the
slower ship speeds have greater days of accessibility than faster
speeds. Slower speeds mean less ship squat and longer time in the
channel. However, it is assumed that the required tidal window is
long enough so that the depth does not decrease appreciably
during a transit. In general, all three options provide approxi-
mately the same number of days of accessibility for the same
channel depth and ship speed.
4.2. Comparison of transit direction
Fig. 6 compares the effect of inbound vs. outbound transit direction
for the six reaches in the option S-8_Sta0 route (Table 2). Inbound and
outbound transits are assumed to have the same loading and draught,
although in reality transit draughts often differ for inbound vs.
outbound movements. The main difference between the transit
directions is the relative angle of the wave to the ship, which alters
the wave encounter frequency and leads to different ship response
and vertical motions. Table 4 lists days of accessibility for inbound and
outbound transits at 10 knots as a function of three water depths for
each route option. Outbound transits have slightly more days of
accessibility than inbound transits, with the largest difference (i.e.,
highest days of accessibility) occurring at a 10 knots speed.
4.3. Effect of reach
The effect of channel reach on the days of accessibility is shown in
Fig. 7 for inbound transits for reaches R1 and R6 in the S-8_Sta0 route.
As expected, days of accessibility increase for the more sheltered (i.e.,
smaller wave heights) interior reaches (i.e., R6 or as reach number
increases) for inbound transits and all ship speeds. The largest
difference occurred for the 10 knot speed.
 M.J. Briggs et al. / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286 283

360 360

300 300

Days of accessibility/year
Days of accessibility/year

240 240
R1, 6 kt
R6, 6 kt
Inbound, 6 kt R1, 10 kt
180 Outbound, 6 kt 180
R6, 10 kt
Inbound, 10 kt R1, 14 kt
Outbound, 10 kt R6, 14 kt
120 Inbound, 14 kt 120
Outbound, 14 kt

60 60

0 0
14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0
Water depth (m) Water depth (m)

Fig. 6. CADET predictions of days of accessibility for inbound vs. outbound fully- Fig. 7. CADET predictions of days of accessibility in reaches R1 and R6 in S-8_Sta0
loaded Susan Maersk as a function of channel depth and ship speed for six reaches for inbound fully-loaded Susan Maersk.
in S-8_Sta0 group.

360
Table 4
Days of accessibility for fully-loaded ship at 10 knots.
300

Days of accessibility/year
Group ID Inbound Outbound
240
h ¼ 15.5 m h ¼ 15.8 m h ¼ 16.2 m h ¼ 15.5 m h ¼ 15.8 m h ¼ 16.2 m Light, 6 kt
Full, 6 kt
180 Light, 10 kt
S-1_Sta39 356 360 363 363 364 364 Full, 10 kt
S-3_Sta39 357 360 363 364 364 365 Light, 14 kt
S-8_Sta39 357 360 363 364 364 365 120 Full, 14 kt
S-1_Sta0 356 360 363 363 364 364
S-8_Sta0 357 360 363 364 364 365
60

In summary for the fully-loaded ship, the days of accessibility
increase for slower ship speeds, outbound transits, and interior
reaches. A fully-loaded ship has approximately 90 percent or more
of each year available for ship transits for depths from 15.2 to 16.5 m
(i.e., þ0.3 to þ1.5 m tide). A depth of 15.8 m (þ0.9 m) will give a
UKC of 1.4 m with 360 days of accessibility for inbound and 364 days
for outbound ships. The S-8 option gives similar or slightly better days
of accessibility as the other two options. The effect of tide is not
included yet, but will be discussed later in this section.
4.4. Comparison of loading condition
Finally, Fig. 8 compares the effect of light- versus fully-loaded
conditions for inbound transits in the six reaches along the
S-8_Sta0 route. As expected, the light-loaded ship (dashed line)
has increased days of accessibility compared to the fully-loaded
ship (solid line) for all ship speeds for inbound transits.
In summary for both light- and fully-loaded ships, the days of
accessibility increase for slower ship speeds, outbound transits,
interior reaches, and light-load. The optimum depths are 15.2 m
(þ 0.3 m) and 15.8 m (þ 0.9 m) for the light- and fully-loaded
ships, respectively. The S-8 option is as good or better as the other
options relative to days of accessibility.
4.5. Effect of tides
The recommended depths for the light- and fully-loaded ships
will require the use of the tide to achieve the desired water levels
for safe transit. One of the first considerations is the calculation of
the travel time required for the different route options. This
required travel time must be balanced with the available time
that can be achieved using the tides.
0
14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0
Water depth (m)
Fig. 8. CADET predictions of days of accessibility for Reach 1 in S-8_Sta0 group for
light- and fully-loaded Susan Maersk as a function of channel depth and ship speed
for inbound transits.
The existing Savannah Outer Channel has a length of 18.3 km
(Sta0 to Sta60) and a water depth of 13.4 m MLLW. All three
options considered in this study would include the existing
channel as the inner reach that ships would transit. The S-1
channel option (S-1_Sta0) would have a total length of 37.5 km
to reach the ocean contour with commensurate depth at Sta123.
Channel options S-3 (S-3_Sta0) and S-8 (S-8_Sta0) would have
lengths of 29.9 km and 29.6 km, respectively, as they “daylight” at
Sta98. All options would be deepened to a project depth of 15.2 m
MLLW. Table 5 lists the distance and travel time in hours for
different ship speeds for the various route options. The numbers in
parenthesis are the “rounded up” times that might be considered
somewhat conservative to insure safe transits in the event of
unexpected delays and variability in ship speed.
Fig. 9 shows the number of days with water levels higher than a
threshold water depth above MLLW for durations of 1–8 h. For
example, the water level will be higher than 15.8 m MLLW with
duration of 6 h for 365 days/year. Table 5 shows that durations of
1–4 h are required to satisfy the required travel times for the range
of ship speeds from 6 to 14 knots. Of course, this assumes that the
tide actually occurs at the time the Susan Maersk is planning to
transit the channel. The CADET days of accessibility are based on a
full 24-h day. Therefore, there will probably be some instances
where ships will be forced to wait on the tide. These tidal
predictions are a statistical representation of the tides and are
284
Table 5
Travel times in hours for a one-way transit, Savannah Outer Channel.
Channel option Distance
(km) (nm)
Existing 18.3 9.9
S-1 37.5 20.2
S-3 29.9 16.1
S-8 29.6 15.9
360
Days > threshold water level
300
240
180
120
60
0
15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5
Threshold water level (m)
Fig. 9. Effect of tides on water levels at ocean boundary of Savannah Outer Channel
using Ft. Pulaski predictions.
intended to be used only as a planning tool for evaluating the
suitability and cost benefit of different channel depths.
4.6. Discussion
As an example for the fully-loaded Susan Maersk, CADET results
showed that 360 days of accessibility were available at a depth of
15.8 m MLLW for inbound transits at a speed of 10 knots for all
route options. Since Fig. 9 shows that 365 days/yr are available at
this water depth for durations up to 6 h, and the required transit
time is between 2 and 3 h (Table 2) for all channel options; there
should be sufficient time to insure a safe transit in the Outer
Channel at this water level. Of course, the durations must be long
enough to allow the ship to safely transit the Outer Channel as
well as the Inner Channel, which has a length of 31 km.
If the number of days at a water level due to the tide were less
than the predicted days of accessibility, then one would expect to
reduce the number of days of accessibility by the percentage of the
tide at a particular level. A simplistic estimate would be to reduce
the days of accessibility by multiplying this value by the tidal
percentage. Of course, this assumes that the tide and waves are in
phase, which is not likely to occur simultaneously every time in a
real-world situation. As a design tool, however, it is probably
acceptable to interpret the results in this fashion as it makes the
comparisons uniform. During actual transits, pilots would need to
take into account the wave and tide conditions expected during
the transit, especially if the UKC is small.
Continuing with the previous example for the fully-loaded ship,
if duration of 7 h was desired, Fig. 9 shows that only 200 days/yr
are available. Thus, the effective number of days of accessibility
would be reduced to only 197 days (i.e., 200 days/yrn360 days/yr/
365 days/yr). This is due to the fact that the water level is not
constant for 365 days each year, but must depend on a þ 0.9 m
tide that does not occur every day. If a duration of 8 h is desired,
then only 24 days of accessibility are available (i.e., 25 days/yrn360
M.J. Briggs et al. / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286
days/yr/365 days/yr). The days of accessibility decrease for
increases in duration, water depth, and ship speed.
For the light-loaded ship, a minimum water depth of 15.2 m
Ship speed (knots)
(þ0.30 m tide) was recommended. This depth has a correspond-
6 10 14 ing 358 days of accessibility for inbound transits. Since the plan is
to dredge the Outer Channel to 14.9 m, it will be necessary to
1.7 (2) 1.0 (2) 0.7 (1) require the use of 0.3 m of tide to accommodate safe transits for
3.4 (4) 2.0 (3) 1.4 (2)
2.7 (3) 1.6 (2) 1.2 (2)
light-loaded ships. Of course, the tides will provide additional
2.7 (3) 1.6 (2) 1.2 (2) safety margins in deeper water for ships with shallower draughts.
5. Vertical ship motions and net UKC
Wave-induced vertical ship motions are composed of the com-
1 hr bined effects of heave, roll, and pitch at the five critical points on the
2 hr
3 hr bottom of the ship. CADET calculates these vertical motion allowances
4 hr for each ship loading condition, channel reach, and water depth. The
5 hr
6 hr allowances are based on Eq. (6) and are output for each wave
7 hr condition, transit direction, ship speed, and critical points.
8 hr
Reach 1, located at the offshore end of the channel, has the
largest vertical motion allowances since it is exposed to the largest
wave heights. Comparisons were made of inbound and outbound,
light- and fully-loaded ship motions in Reach 1 for average values
for all 99 wave cases, for the three channel options S-1, S-3, and S-
8. In general, outbound transits are much less of a problem than
inbound transits as their motion allowances are much smaller. For
17.0 17.5 18.0
the light-loaded ship, the motion allowances tend to increase as
ship speed increases. The motion allowances for the fully-loaded
ship, however, tended to decrease until reaching a ship speed of
about 12 knots before increasing again at the highest speeds. This
is due to the particular RAO response characteristics of the fully-
loaded ship to different ship speeds and loading conditions. These
comparisons indicated that the S-8 option is the preferred alter-
native as it has smaller predicted motions than the S-1 or S-3
options for all speeds, especially for 10 knots.
The net underkeel clearance (UKCNet) is obtained by subtracting
dynamic squat and these ship motions from the static UKC. This
definition of the UKCNet is analogous to the PIANC (2014) definition
as a deterministic parameter that is used primarily in the Concept
Design stage. In this study, however, we use it as a probabilistic
parameter since we want to compare the remaining UKC after
accounting for all other ship motions. PIANC (2014) also defines a
maneuverability margin (MM) that is used to define the time-
averaged clearance under the ship to insure adequate maneuver-
ability for a moving ship. We chose not to use the MM since it still
includes the vertical ship motions. Although these ship motions
are not very large in sheltered interior channel reaches, they are
significant in the outer channel reaches of this study that are
exposed to waves. Therefore, we wanted to explicitly account for
them in the channel design UKC. In general, there is sufficient MM
to insure a minimum of 0.6 m to 5 percent of draught, as
recommended by PIANC.
In general for the light- and fully-loaded Susan Maersk, UKCNet
increases with change in transit direction from inbound to out-
bound, increases in water depth, and decreases in speed. Fig. 10
compares the average UKCNet statistics for the inbound fully-
loaded ship in Reach 1 between S-1 and S-8 options. These results
are in agreement with the previous accessibility results in that S-8
option is as good as or slightly better than the S-1 and S-3 channel
configurations.
Fig. 11 compares the average UKCNet statistics for inbound and
outbound, fully-loaded ships in Reach 1 of S-8 option. UKCNet
increases for outbound transits, in keeping with the accessibility
results. In summary, UKCNet increases with change in transit
direction from inbound to outbound, increases in depth, and
decreases in speed.
 M.J. Briggs et al. / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286 285

2 off the centerline of the ship (nearly following seas). This wave has
the potential to produce significant ship motions that include both
pitch and roll.
1 In summary, the net UKC analyses tended to confirm the results
from the accessibility analyses for all three route options. The S-8
option is the preferred alternative as it tended to have smaller
UKCNet (m)

Bottom predicted motions than the S-1 or the S-3 option for all speeds,
0
especially for 10 knots.
S-1: h=15.2 m
S-8: h=15.2 m
S-1: h=15.8 m
-1 S-8: h=15.8 m
S-1: h=16.5 m 6. Summary and conclusions
S-8: h=16.5 m

A vertical ship motion study was conducted to evaluate three

-2
6 8 10 12 14 16 proposed channel alignments S-1, S-3, and S-8 in the Savannah, GA
Vs (knots) entrance channel. These alignment changes were proposed to
allow ships to reach deeper water in shorter distances, with
Fig. 10. Comparison of net UKC between S-1 and S-8 options for fully-loaded reduced dredging costs. The project depth is restricted to a depth
inbound ship in Reach 1.
of 14.9 m due to environmental, buried utilities, dredging costs,
offshore reefs, and political considerations. Thus, it will be neces-
sary to use the 2.4 m tidal allowance to insure safe and efficient
2 use of the channel. Also, ship speeds in the offshore portions of the
entrance channel are restricted to 10 knots during right whale
season.
1
The Susan Maersk was selected as the design ship for this study.
It has a light-loaded draught of 14.0 m and a fully-loaded draught
of 14.5 m. Of course, the fully-loaded draught represents a “worst”
UKCNet (m)

Bottom
0 draughts due to differences in cargo density and scheduling. Thus,
In: h=15.2 m
Out: h=15.2 m
In: h=15.8 m
-1 Out: h=15.8 m
In: h=16.5 m
Out: h=16.5 m
-2
6 8 10 12 14
Vs (knots)
Fig. 11. Comparison of net UKC between inbound and outbound transits for S-8
option for fully-loaded ship in Reach 1.
A total of seven relatively “extreme” wave cases were identified
that can lead to ship grounding for the fully-loaded ship at a depth
of 15.8 m. As previously discussed, only inbound transits at speeds
of 10 knots are discussed here as inbound ships had slightly less
days of accessibility and the ship speed is required to comply with
the right whale constraints. These seven waves represent rela-
tively rare occurrences with a total of only 2.6 days/yr. The average
duration is 0.3 days/yr, with a maximum of 0.8 days/yr. The wave
periods range from Tp ¼11.8 to 14.4 s, wave heights from Hm0 ¼ 1.5
to 2.7 m, and wave directions from 67.51 to 112.51. Again, these are
relatively large wave periods and heights compared to the typical
waves at Savannah. In general, increasing the water depth to
16.7 m (þ 1.8 m of tide) eliminates all but the worst wave case
with Tp ¼ 14.4 s, Hm0 ¼ 2.7 m, and θm ¼112.51. This tide and water
level occurs for durations up to 4 h for 39 days/year. When
comparing these seven “extreme” cases, the S8 option is the
clearer choice relative to S-1 and S-3 options.
One way to understand why these ship motions are so large is
that the size of the Susan Maersk leads to significant motions even
for relatively small rotations in pitch and roll. For instance, a pitch
or roll angle of 11 produces a vertical displacement of 2.9 m at the
longitudinal extremes due to pitch and 0.4 m at the transverse
extremes due to roll. As an example, a wave with a 112.51 direction
is almost parallel with the channel. For inbound transits the ship
experiences starboard, stern quartering seas that are only 41 to 51
case scenario as ships rarely are loaded to their full design
the light-loaded ship is the most realistic ship expected to use
Savannah Channel. Also, traffic congestion and two-way traffic are
not a factor for the Savannah Channel as ships of this size are
expected to call on this port on only a weekly basis and the port
will impose a one-way traffic regime as needed to maintain
acceptable levels of safety.
16 The risk-based Channel Analysis and Design Evaluation Tool
(CADET) was used in this study. CADET uses wave-induced ship
motions due to heave, roll, and pitch in the prediction of net
underkeel clearance and days of accessibility. These motions are
output for each ship loading condition, channel reach, water
depth, wave condition, transit direction, ship speed, and critical
point on the hull. The 99 wave conditions represent the entire
range of exposure over a 20-year design life for the Savannah
Channel. They include seven “extreme” wave cases that can lead to
ship grounding, but they have a very low probability of occurrence
and their impact can be minimized by waiting for deeper water
levels due to the tide.
In general for both light- and fully-loaded ships, days of
accessibility increase for slower ship speeds, outbound transits,
interior reaches, and reduced load/shallower draught. Based on
the tidal analysis for the light-loaded inbound ship at 10 knots, the
Savannah entrance channel will have an additional water level of
0.3 m above 14.9 m project depth (i.e., h¼ 15.2 m) for durations up
to 8 h for a minimum of 358 days of accessibility every year for all
three route options. To accommodate the fully-loaded inbound
ship at 10 knots, the tide will be required to provide an additional
water level of 0.9 m above the project depth (i.e., h ¼15.8 m). This
depth will have durations up to 6 h for a minimum of 360 days of
accessibility every year for all three options. Longer durations or
faster ship speeds would reduce the days of accessibility.
Based on the CADET analysis of UKC and the corresponding
days of accessibility, the S-8 alternative is the best option among
the three choices S-1, S-3, and S-8, and much better than the
existing channel. The S-8 option will have slightly less risk of
grounding than S-1 and S-3 for relatively rare, extreme wave
conditions.
286 M.J. Briggs et al. / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 276–286
In summary, both light- and fully-loaded conditions can be
accommodated using the available tide depending on ship speed,
desired UKC, and water level duration. Transits with the deeper
draught ships will require tidal assistance at all times for safety.
Since the tidal water levels only occur for a fraction of any day,
there may be some instances where ships will need to wait on the
tides to insure safe navigation. However, since these large ships
will not be calling on the port very frequently, this should not be a
problem for efficient use of the channel.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to acknowledge Headquarters, US Army
Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, and the Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Carderock Division for authorizing publication of
this paper. Particular thanks go to Capt Steven Carmel (Maersk
Shipping) for supplying information on the Susan Maersk contain-
ership and to the Institute for Water Resources for CADET support.
References
Ankudinov, V.K., Jakobsen, B.K., 1996. Squat predictions at an early stage of design.
In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ship Squat in Restricted Waters (October 4,
Washington), SNAME. Jersey City, NJ. pp. 48–69.
Ankudinov, V.K., Daggett, L.L., Hewlett, J.C., Jakobsen, B.K., 2000. Prototype
measurement of ship sinkage in confined water. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuverability
(MARSIM 2000), Orlando, FL, May 8–12.
Atkinson, E., O'Brien, P., 2008. DUKC in channel design. In: Proceedings of the 6th
IHMA Conference, St Petersburg, Russia, May.
Beck, R.F., Newman, J.N., Tuck, E.O., 1975. Hydrodynamic forces on ships in dredged
channels. J. Ship Res. 19 (3), 166–171.
Booth, W. 2013. Expanded Panama Canal sparks race to be ready for bigger cargo
ships. Washington Post.
Bouws, E., Gunther, H., Rosenthal, W., Vincent, C., 1985. Similarity of the wind wave
spectrum in finite depth water. J. Geophys. Res. 90 (C1), 975–986.
Briggs, M.J., Silver, A.L., Borgman, L.E., 2006. Risk-based predictions for ship
underkeel clearance. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Coastal
Engineering, ICCE 2006, San Diego, CA. pp. 834–846.
Briggs, M.J., Kopp, P.J., Santangelo, F.A., Silver, A.L., 2010. Comparison of CADET
Vertical Ship Motions with DGPS in Ambrose Channel. PORTS 2010, Jackson-
ville, FL, April. pp. 689–698.
Briggs, M.J., Henderson, W.G., 2011. Vertical ship motion study for Savannah, GA
Entrance Channel. ERDC Technical Report ERDC/CHL-11-5, Sep., 221 pp.
Briggs, M.J., Silver, A.L., Kopp, P.J., 2012. Risk-based channel depth design using
CADET. In: Kim, Y. (Ed.), 2012. World Scientific Press, Singapore,
pp. 319–366 Chapter 6.
Briggs, M.J., Kopp, P.J., Ankudinov, V.K., Silver, A.L., 2013a. Comparison of measured
ship squat with numerical and empirical methods. J. Ship Res. 57 (2), 73–85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5957/JOSR.57.1.120007.
Briggs, M.J., Silver, A.L., Kopp, P.J., Santangelo, F.A., Mathis, I.A., 2013b. Validation of
a risk-based numerical model for predicting deep-draught underkeel clearance.
J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 139 (4), 267–276.
Briggs, M.J., Demirbilek, Z., Lin, L.-W. 2014a. Vertical ship motion study for Ambrose
entrance channel, NY, ERDC/CHL TR-14-3, http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/
search/asset/1034764, May, 215 pp.
Briggs, M.J., Silver, A.L., Kopp, P.J., 2014b. Probabilistic model for predicting ship
underkeel clearance: field and laboratory validation. Coast. Eng. J. 56 (2),
1450010-1–1450010-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0578563414500107.
Hasselmann, K., Barnett, T.P., Bouws, E., Carlson, H., Cartwright, D.E., Enke, K.,
Ewing, J.A., Gienapp, H., Hasselmann, D.E., Kruseman, P., Meerburg, A., Mller, P.,
Olbers, D.J., Richter, K., Sell, W., Walden, H., 1973. Measurements of wind-wave
growth and swell decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP)'.
Ergnzungsheft Deutsch. Hydrogr. Z. R. A 8 (12), 95.
Kaplan, P., 1996. Technical Manual for SCORES II Program – Finite Depth Version.
Hydrodynamics, Inc., Report No. 96-101A.
O'Brien, W.T., O'Brien, P., Hens, C., 2012. Use of web-based decision support
technology for in-transit under keel clearance management. In: Proceedings
of the 8th IHMA Conference, Cork, Ireland, May.
Ochi, M.K., 1973. On prediction of extreme values. J. Ship Res. 17 (1), 29–37.
PIANC, 2014. PIANC Report No. 121–2014, Harbour approach channels – design
guidelines, PIANC (The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastruc-
ture), Technical Report, pp. 300.
Silver, A.L., 1992. Environmental monitoring and operator guidance system
(EMOGS) for shallow water ports. PORTS '92, ASCE, Seattle, WA, Jul. pp. 535–
547.
Silver, A.L., Dalzell, J.F., 1997. Risk based decisions for entrance channel operation
and design. In: Proceedings of the 7th ISOPE Conference, May, pp. 815–822.
Smith, J.M., Sherlock, A.R., Resio, D.T., 2001. STWAVE: Steady-state spectral wave
model user's manual for STWAVE, Version 3.0. Special Report ERDC/CHL SR-01-
1, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydrau-
lics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS.
Spencer, J.M.A., Bowers, E.C. Lean, G.H., 1990. Safe underkeel allowances for vessels
in navigation channels. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Coastal
Engineering Conference, Delft, The Netherlands. pp. 3126–3139.
Thompson, E.F., 2002. Wave modeling, navigation study for Savannah Harbor,
Georgia. ERDC/CHL TR-02-xx (Unpublished), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, August.
24 pp..
Tuck, E.O., 1966. Shallow-water flows past slender bodies. J. Fluid Mech. 26 (1),
81–95.
Tuck, E.O., 1967. Sinkage and trim in shallow water of finite width. Schiffstechnik 14
(73), 92–94.