Workshop Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways – Best
Practice Approach – using existing examples (PIANC-INCOM
WG 141)
KOEDIJK. O.C.
Rijkswaterstaat, Netherlands
Email otto.koedijk@rws.nl
ABSTRACT: The Pianc Working group 141 is in progress to develop design guidelines for inland waterways. In this paper, the state of affairs of the so called ‘Best practices’ is given.
1 INTRODUCTION
The Pianc Working group 141 is in progress to develop design guidelines for Inland Waterways. In advance of publication of the final report, this paper consists of paragraph 6.2 of the report to come. The possibility exists that the content of this paper needs to be revised to suit with the other (future) subjects in the framework of the final report.
The best practice approach can be used if the design case under consideration is not handled in existing guidelines, or if there are doubts about the applicability of their recommendations. This means one is looking for comparable existing design cases. This can be helpful e.g. for fairway design in rivers.
2 COMPARABLE DESIGN CASES 2.1 Preliminary remarks
Especially in river situations, one has to be very careful in comparing. A river is a complex system and the variety in its dimensions and in current is wide and continuous, due to ongoing changes in the watermass that is discharged.
Besides that there is the great variety in shipping traffic. Intensity and composition of the traffic, ship-dimensions (especially the hullshape, beam, length and draught), propulsiontypes and cargo are the most relevant variables.
In summary the search for comparable cases is not easy in the case of river situations and must be executed with care. This also explains the very few
existing guidelines for inland fairway design in rivers.
2.2 Best practices - limitations
Working Group 141 collected examples of existing river situations from different countries. Those examples were examined on only a few aspects and in a rough way.
Concerning aspects are fairway design
(particularly the width), dimensions of bridge openings and lock approaches.
3. FAIRWAY DESIGN
3.1 Introduction
The Working Group received only a few examples of fairways in rivers. From China there was input for the Yangtze River, from France for the Seine River, from Germany the river Rhine, from US the river Mississippi and from the Netherlands for the rivers Waal respectively IJssel (upstream part).
3.2 Yangtze River
The Yangtze River is quite large: from its spring it flows over 6300 km to Shanghai City at the East Chine Sea. For commercial purposes, the river is navigated upstream unto Shuifu at 2743 km, still a
on fairway maintenance and management. In table 1 the fairway dimensions are given.
3.3 Seine River
From France the WG 141 received some representative cross sectional drawings of the Seine River and her branches.
In figure 2 profiles are shown from the downstream part (Radicatel upto Rouen) and the upstream part (with widths of 120 to 250 m). Besides that, the profile of the Maison Neuve is shown as an example of the branches of the Seine. Note that the design vessel used is a class Vb convoy with 3.5 m draught.
3.4 Rhine River – Germany
The Rhine River is the largest river in Germany with the highest traffic potential. According to the special flow regime in different sections the maximal usable push tows vary. The traffic intensity decreases significantly upstream section km 740.6. At low water conditions further restrictions have to be taken into account.
Table 2 provides an overview of the fairway dimensions varying from 88 m (upstream region) to 150 m (downstream region) with high traffic.
3.5 Mississippi River
The Mississippi River is one of the most important river transportation systems in the US. Large push tow units (32m x 297m) drive up to the Ohio mouth.
The Fairway dimensions are restricted compared to European standards. Here the fleet and driving conditions have to be taken into account. US push tows usually drive much slower, thus bank or interaction forces are not included in safety distances and narrow fairway dimensions are feasible.
3.6 Waal River
The Waal is the largest part of the Rhine river and flows in the Netherlands over 82 km from Pannerden to Woudrichem.
The minimal dimensions of the channel in the Waal are fixed in an international agreement on 150 m width (‘bevaarbare breedte’) x 2.80 m (depth) at
the waterlevel of OLR (agreed lowest waterlevel, see figure 1 below). Target minimal width is 270 m.
The Waal is navigated on by 116.000 commercial vessels annualy in 4 lane traffic. Reference vessel is a push convoy VIc with draught of 4.00 m.
3.7 IJssel river (upper part)
The IJssel is a branch of the river Rhine and flows over 120 km to the Iake IJsselmeer. The IJssel river is complex to navigate, due to its narrow and curvy profile. At low waterlevels, a certain part of the upper IJssel can only be navigated by reference vessels in single lane traffic. In that sense, the IJssel should be called bad practice, rather than best practice. The IJssel is navigated on by 36.000 commercial vessels annually; reference vessel is a motorvessel Va.
The channel width in the IJssel varies from 40 m (upper part) up to 60 m (lower part), see figure 3 below.
The needed width in straight sections and curves is projected in table 2 (see below.)
3.8 Conclusion
The working group discussed if recommendation as a factor of ship beam can be derived from best practice examples. Roughly calculated the width varies from 3 (US, upper Rhine) to 11 (France) times the ship beam B. The group might come up with a table stating dimensions and boundary conditions so the planner can look at the table and compare the boundary conditions with his design case. The discussion is not finished yet.
Yangtze
River Section
Fleet Fairway dimensions Curvature Radius
length beam draught Width depth
Upper Shuiifu - Chongqing
238 167 160 85 21,6 21,6 10,8 10,8 2,0 40 2.7 300 Chongqing - Fuling 270 186 182 90 48,6 32,4 16,2 16,2 2,6 100 3.5 800 Fuling – TPG Dam 140 4.5 1000 TPG Dam - Yichang 60 4.5 750
Middle Yichang - Chenglingji 80 3.0 750
Chenglingji - Wuhan 80 3.2 750
Lower Wuhan - Anqing
406 316 223 110 64,8 48,6 32,4 16,2 3,5 3,0 100 4.0 1050 Anqing - Wuhu 200 4.0 1050 Wuhu - Nanjing 500 7.5 1050 Nanjing - Taicang 500 10.5 1050 Taicang - Wusongkou 350 12.5 1050
Table 1. The Yangtze fairway dimensions in use
River
Rhine drive push tows
f
fairway width
curvature Section
km direction length beam b draught Radius width
343,6 upstream 193 22,9 Unr is tr ic ted 88 1260 88 downstrem 193/153b 22,9/34,35b 463 upstream 193 22,9 92 670 92 downstream 193/153b 22,9/34,35b 517,7 upstream 193 22,9 120 1560 120 downstream 193/153b 22,9/34,35b 551 upstream 186,5/193c 22,9 120 600 120 downstream 116,5/193c 22,90/12,50c 740,6 upstream 193d/269,50e 22,9d,e 150 670 150 downstream 153d/193e 34,35d,e 834 upstream 193d/269,50e 22,9d,e 150 1430 150 downstream 153d/193e 34,35d,e
Table 2. Fairway Dimension River Rhine, Germany
Mississippi River [m] fleet fairway
length beam draught depth width
Head of Passes, LA to New Orleans, LA 270 32,2 13 13,7 228,6 New Orleans, LA to Baton Rouge, LA 270 32,2 13 13,7 152,4
Baton Rouge, LA to Cairo, IL 297 32,0 2,7+ 3,7 91,5
Cairo, IL ot St. Louis, MO 297 32,0 2,7 2,7 91,5
St. Louis, MO to Minneapolis, MN 297 32,0 2,7 2,7 91,5
1:3,5 1:3,5 Minimal width of fairway at bottom
riverbottom riverbed 2,50 m or 2,80 m to bottom “”
“”
Minimal waterdepth at OLR Slope 1:3,5
Watterdep th At OLR
Narrow profile Va Normal profile Va
Bend radii OLR
- 2,50 m OLR - 2,80 m OLR - 2,50 m OLR - 2,80 m R = 400 m 62 m Identical to -2,50 81 m Identical to -2,50 R = 500 m 54 m 73 m R = 600 m 50 m 67 m R = 800 m 48 m 65 m R = 1000 m 48 m 65 m Straight *) 48 m 65 m
Table 2. Guidelines minimal width of fairway at bottom Boven IJssel (OLR – agreed lowest water level)
4 BRIDGE OPENINGS
Best practice for bridge openings in river situations is fixed in Protocol 2012-I-13 from the Central Commission for the navigation of the Rhine (CCR).
The protocol states that bridges should in principle cover over the whole fairway of the Rhine without piers. At that manner bridges are built over the Rhine in the Netherlands in CCR-area. In Germany, if piers can’t be avoided extra measures for ship impact have to be taken into account.
According to the terms of references
dimensional constraints have to be considered so the chairman introduced a discussion on what could be seen as third best practice: bridges with
a horizontal clearance that is smaller than the fairway width. Those bridges have generally two openings and one middle pier and could be called restricted bridges.
An inventory was made by Germany and the Netherlands of the existing width of bridge openings and the maximum beam of the passing ships. A distinction in beam was made in upstream and downstream traffic, because this differs on the Rhine River, including the Waal, Oude Maas and Noord. In this way an average ratio can be calculated.
The WG 141 got input from Germany, the Netherlands and China. For the outcome, see table 3 below. The results per bridge can be obtained from the WG 141.
River Section [km] Bu/Bs (u)* Bu/Bs (d)**
Rhine 424.430 – 595.630 3.3 2.2
Neckar 9.746 – 110.017 2.1 1.9
Waal – Nieuwe Maas 934.000 – 1001.000 6.6 4.5
Average ratio 4.0 2.9
*/**Bu = usable width, Bs = beam ship, u = upstream, d = downstream Table 3. Bridge openings ratio, double lane
4
LOCK APPROACHES4.1 Introduction
Under the leadership of the chairman the WG 141 focussed on the dimensions of the harbors that give entrance to the locks.
Input was given by Germany and Netherlands. China has guidelines which fit close to reality. France reported recommendations. Length and breadth of those harbors were collected and compared with the dimensions of design vessels to provide a ratio.
4.2 Harbor Dimensions
Germany provided the WG 141 with
dimensions from locks along the rivers Neckar and Main. The Netherlands delivered equal
Maas. Chinese guidelines and French
recommendation provide further information. The main results can be found in table 4 below.
4.3 Conclusion
The numbers given in table 4 show a large scatter concerning the minimum length of the upper and lower harbor of about 1.5 – 2.5 L in German rivers up to 6.3 L in Dutch rivers. The minimum net breadth for single locks is between 1.8 B in German rivers up to 9.4 B in Dutch rivers.
The variety of numbers is great. Because the local conditions, especially the flow field, the bathymetry and the ship properties (e.g. draught and powering), determine the driving dynamics significantly (“Every lock approach in a river is unique!”), the group recommended a case by case decision for lock approaches in general .(“The one who can pay a lock, is also able to pay
study!”). The costs of a detailed study are generally only a little fraction of the construction costs. The study can not only check the preliminary design, on the contrary, it can help to to optimize the design and to reduce construction costs too.
River Bh/Bs (u) Bh/Bs (l) Lh/Ls (u) Lh/Ls (l)
Main 2.8 (d) 1.8 (s) 2.8 (d) 2.4 (s) ~ 2.5 Neckar 8.3 (t) 2.6 (d) 2.3 (s) 4.2 (t) 2.5 (d) 2.0 (s) 0.7 – 1.4 1.0 – 2.1 Nederrijn/Lek 2.9 (s) 3.3 (s) 6.3 (s) 4.0 (s) Maas 8.2 (t) 4.9 (d) 9.4 (s) 6.9 (t) 4.6 (d) 3.2 (s) 4.3 (t) 3.3 (d) 4.6 (s) 4.2 (t) 2.5 (d) 3.9 (s) Average ratio 8.3 (t) 3.6 (d) 4.1 (s) 5.6 (t) 3.4 (d) 2.8 (s)
B(L)h = breadth (Length) harbor – breadth (Length) berthed ship(s), B(L)s = beam ship, u = upper harbor, l = lower harbor, d = double lock, s = single lock, t = triple lock
Table 4. Lock approach ratio.
5
ConclusionAlthough the current examples provide a small range of best practices, the variety is great. The group still needs more examples from Belgium, China, Russia and the US to give a complete view.
Still the planner can get an orientation for his design case. That is exactly the task of the group for the best practice approach.
REFERENCES
Central Commission for he navigation of the Rhine (CCR). Protocol 2012-I-13. Minimum demands and recommandations for the execution of works along the Rhine river.
