Maneuverability of a pusher and barge system under empty and full load conditions

Abstract

A pusher–barge system (P/B) has been one of the main transportation systems particularly for rivers and inland waterway services. Since a P/B normally sails in restricted waters such as a sharp bend in a river, the maneuverability is important for safe navigation. Although the barge draft changes drastically with an increase of the amount of cargo, the draft of the pusher which normally equips a small ballast tank does not change so much. It indicates that the step appears or disappears around the pusher–barge connection due to the load condition of the barge. This phenomenon is a unique and interesting characteristic of a P/B. Therefore, this study aims to discuss the effect of the barge load condition on the maneuverability. For this purpose, the towing tank experiments were conducted under the empty and full load conditions of the barge, and the mathematical model to simulate maneuvering motions of the P/B was established. At that time, the hydrodynamic force data in the range of high yaw rate was made up by the CFD method. We found that the course stability of the P/B deteriorated with an increase of the barge draft. It is related to the change of the pressure filed spread over the pusher bow which is influenced by the wake shed from the barge. Besides, the simulation study revealed that the turning ability due to small steering was worse under the empty load condition than the full load condition of the barge. However, it appears to be improved with an increase of the steering angle.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26

References

  1. 1.

    National waterways foundation: Waterways: working for America. http://www.nationalwaterwaysfoundation.org/study/Work4America.pdf. Accessed 23 Sep 2015

  2. 2.

    Japan Coal Energy Center (2011) Report of the export promotion project of infrastructure system 2010 year-Investigation on ocean coal storage and shipment and efficiency of coal transport for effective utilization of coal resources in Indonesia, pp 1–53 (in Japanese)

  3. 3.

    Sano M, Hasegawa K (2015) A fundamental study on the ship handling simulation of tug–barge and pusher–barge systems for river service. In: Proceedings of International conference on ship and offshore technology—India 2015 (ICSOT INDIA-2015), Kharagpur, India, pp 141–150

  4. 4.

    Yokohama port corporation. Promotion of modal shift including green distribution. http://www.yokohamaport.co.jp.e.df.hp.transer.com/info/environment/environment_friendly/. Accessed 11 Sep 2016

  5. 5.

    Eda H (1972) Course stability, turning performance, and connection force of barge systems in coastal seaways. Trans Soc Naval Arch Mar Eng 80:299–323

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Yasukawa H, Hirata N, Koh KK, Krisana P, Kose K (2007) Hydrodynamic force characteristics on maneuvering of pusher–barge systems. J Japan Soc Naval Arch Ocean Eng 5:133–142 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Koh KK, Yasukawa H, Hirata N, Kose K (2008) Maneuvering simulations of pusher–barge systems. J Mar Sci Technol 13:117–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Koh KK, Yasukawa H, Hirata N (2008) Hydrodynamic derivatives investigation of unconventionally arranged pusher–barge systems. J Mar Sci Technol 13:256–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Yuba TGD, Tannuri AE (2013) Analysis of pusher–barge systems with different maneuvering and propulsion devices. In: Proceedings of the ASME 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2013-10489

  10. 10.

    Koh KK, Yasukawa H (2012) Comparison study of a pusher–barge system in shallow water, medium shallow water and deep water conditions. Ocean Eng 46:9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Maimun A, Priyanto A, Muhammad AH, Scully CC, Awal ZI (2011) Manoeuvring prediction of pusher barge in deep and shallow water. Ocean Eng 38:1291–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Valkhof HH, Hoogeveen T, Dallinga RP, Toxopeus SL, Verwoest TF (2000) A tug and barge system for sea and river service. Trans SNAME 108:71–98

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Tabaczek T, Kulczyk J, Zawiślak M (2007) Analysis of hull resistance of pushed barges in shallow water. Polish Maritime Res 14(1):10–15

  14. 14.

    Grassi AGF, Lavieri RS, Pereira AAP, Tannuri EA (2013) CFD and experimental analysis of current forces of pusher–barge systems. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Paper No. OMAE2013-10404

  15. 15.

    Sano M, Okuda A, Yasukawa H (2015) CFD analysis of hydrodynamic force characteristics of pusher and multi barges in steady-state maneuvers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Ship Manoeuvrability and Marine Simulation, Paper No. 3.2.3

  16. 16.

    The open source CFD toolbox, OpenFOAM. http://www.openfoam.com/. Accessed 11 Sep 2016

  17. 17.

    Yasukawa H, Yoshimura Y (2015) Introduction of MMG standard method for ship maneuvering predictions. J Mar Sci Technol 20:37–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Motora S (1959) On the measurement of added mass and added moment of inertia for ship motions (Part 1). J Zosen Kiokai 105:83–92 (In Japanese)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Fujii H, Tuda T (1961) Experimental research on rudder performance (2). J Soc Naval Arch Japan 110:31–42 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Yoshimura Y, Sakurai H (1989) Mathematical model for the manoeuvring ship motion in shallow water (3rd Report): manoeuvrability of a twin-propeller twin rudder ship. J Kansai Soc Naval Arch 211:115–126

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Yasukawa H, Sano M (2014) Maneuvering prediction of a KVLCC2 model in shallow water by a combination of EFD and CFD. In: Proceedings of workshop on verification and validation of ship manoeuvering simulation methods (SIMMAN 2014), Copenhagen, pp. C115–C121

  22. 22.

    ITTC. Recommended procedures, performance, propulsion, 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method, 7.5-02-03-01.4

  23. 23.

    Sano M, Yasukawa H (2008) Maneuvering motions of KVLCC1 and KVLCC2 using MMG model. In: Proceedings of workshop on verification and validation of ship manoeuvering simulation methods (SIMMAN2008), Copenhagen, pp E51–E55

  24. 24.

    Nomoto K, Taguchi K, Honda K, Hirano S (1957) On the steering quality of ships. Int Shipbuild Prog 4:354–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Yoshimura Y, Nomoto K (1978) Modeling of manoeuvring behaviour of ships with a propeller idling, boosting and reversing. J Soc Naval Arch Japan 144:57–69 (in Japanese)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) of JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26820380. The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Grant-in-Aid.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masaaki Sano.

Appendix

Appendix

Although the circular motion test (CMT) was conducted in the towing tank of Hiroshima University, there was a limitation on the range of the nondimensional yaw rate in CMT, i.e., \(|r^{'} | \le\) 0.2. There was inadequate data available to establish the mathematical model that is expected to simulate maneuvering motions up to larger yaw rates. Thus, CFD computations were carried out in order to make up for the hydrodynamic force data of the bare hull in large maneuvers up to \(|r^{'} | \le\) 0.8 in the same manner as that proposed by Yasukawa and Sano [21]. A least square method was applied to the result of CMT calculated by CFD and the force derivatives of Eq. 6 were identified. Only the nonlinear derivatives were picked up from them and employed as listed in Table 5. In terms of linear force derivatives, the experimentally derived values as listed in Table 4 are employed.

Figure 27 shows the comparison of the surge force, sway force and yaw moment at the midship of the bare hull between the measured plots and polynomial trendlines which were drawn based on the combination of these derivatives. They take into consideration the inertia term of mass like Fig. 12. The figure shows that the polynomial trendlines agree with the experimental plots up to \(|r^{'} | \le\) 0.2 and the surge and sway forces and yaw moment seem to be reasonably extrapolated up to larger yaw rates. The proposed mathematical force model employing the linear derivatives that are based on the experiment and the nonlinear ones that are based on CFD is validated.

Fig. 27
figure27

Comparison of the hydrodynamic forces and moment acting on the bare hull between the experimental plots and polynomial trendlines that are drawn by the mathematical force model employing the linear derivatives that are based on the experiment and the nonlinear ones that are based on CFD; subplots in the 1st row: pusher, subplots in the 2nd row: P/B(Empty), subplots in the 3rd row: P/B(Full)

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sano, M., Yasukawa, H., Okuda, A. et al. Maneuverability of a pusher and barge system under empty and full load conditions. J Mar Sci Technol 23, 464–482 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-017-0485-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pusher and barge system
  • Barge load condition
  • Turning ability
  • Course stability
  • Towing tank experiment
  • Maneuvering simulation