Split-hopper barges

Workability of a split-hopper barge

in irregular seas

by

S.T.M Mensch
to obtain the degree of Master of Science

at the Delft University of Technology,

to be defended publicly on the 16th of October 2017

Student number: 4150503

Project duration: November 14, 2016 – Oktober 16, 2017

Chairman: Prof. Dr. Ir. A. Metrikine, TU Delft

Thesis committee: Ir. J. S. Hoving, TU Delft
Dr. Ir. K. N. van Dalen, TU Delft
Ing. H. Duba, Royal Boskalis Westmister

An electronic version of this thesis is available at .

 Abstract

A split hopper barge is a dredging vessel that can split over its longitudinal axis to discharge its cargo. To
allow for such an operation, the barge consists of two half-hulls that are connected by hinges at the top and
hydraulic cylinders at the bottom. Any forces that act at the interface between the half-hulls have to be trans-
ferred by the hinges and cylinders as a result. The aim of this thesis is to develop a method to determine the
workability limits of split hopper barges in irregular seas. For this workability of the barge, the design limits
of the hinges and hydraulic cylinders are assumed to be governing.

A quasi-static model is formulated to determine the effects of roll, different types of cargo, opening the barge
and discharging the cargo on the forces in the hinges and cylinders. The results of the quasi-static model
are a set of governing load cases for the split hopper barge. From the quasi-static model, it is found that the
forces of interest are the largest for a closed split hopper barge and that either a solid or a liquid cargo will
yield the governing load case. To account for the dynamics in irregular sea conditions, a calculation method
is proposed based on Ansys AQWA. Since AQWA is not able to account for liquid cargo motions, its effects are
incorporated separately. Using WAMIT simulations, the influences of the liquid cargo to the added mass and
stiffness of the barge are determined. Based on the WAMIT results the AQWA model is adjusted.

Superimposing the results from the quasi-static and dynamic models, the maximum forces in the hinges and
hydraulic cylinders are obtained for the governing load cases. By comparing the obtained maximum forces
to the design forces, a conclusion on the workability limits of the split hopper barge is drawn.

For the barge carrying a solid cargo only one resonance frequency is found, while, due to the liquid cargo
motions, the barge with a liquid cargo has two resonance frequencies. As a result, a larger number of com-
binations of wave directions and periods yield considerable forces. For a 3-hour-extreme with a significant
wave height of 3 meters, the governing hydraulic cylinder forces are found for a barge carrying a liquid cargo.
The maximum resulting hinge forces however, are found for a barge carrying a solid cargo. Because the limits
of the hinges are exceeded before the limits of the hydraulic cylinders, it is concluded that the workability lim-
its of the split hopper barge in irregular waves are most limited, and therefore governing, for a barge carrying
a solid cargo.

iii
 Preface

S.T.M Mensch
Bergambacht, October 2017

This report presents the study that I have done as a part of my thesis for the finalization of my master study
in Offshore Engineering at the Delft University of Technology. The research has been conducted at the R&D
department of Royal Boskalis Westminster and covers the topic of the workability of split hopper barges in
irregular seas. It is a topic that has become very dear to me and has challenged me repeatedly over the past
months.

I would like to thank my graduation committee Prof. Dr. Ir. A. Metrikine, Ir. J.S. Hoving and Ing. H. Duba
for their guidance, effort and confidence that they putt into me and my project. In particular I feel obliged to
thank Hans for his full and daily support over the duration of the project. It is really appreciated that he was
willing to putt this amount of time of effort in this project next to his daily activities. Next to Hans, I would
like to thank the other engineers of the R&D department as well, in special Oscar Sainz Avila and Gert-Jan
Grundlehner for their ideas and support in the realization of the research goals.

Next to the supervisors and colleagues I would like to thank my fellow (graduate) students at Boskalis for the
pleasant cooperation and working environment. Off course my graduation would not have been successful
without the support of my family, friends and other relatives.

Thank you all!

v
 Summary

Introduction
Split hopper barges (SHB) are dredging vessels that are used to transport and discharge dredged materials. A
typical split-hopper barge is only used for transportation of dredged cargo, the dredging itself is done using
other types of dredging equipment. Therefore, split hopper barges will always work together with other types
of dredging vessels in a project. The SHB is build up from two half-hulls that are connected by hinges and
hydraulic cylinders. Any forces that act at the interface between the half-hulls have to be transferred by the
hinges and cylinders as a result. In this research the limits of the hinges and hydraulic cylinders are of con-
cern. The aim of this thesis is to find a calculation method to determine the technical workability limits of
split hopper barges in irregular seas. The assumption is made that these limits follow from the design limits
of the hinges and hydraulic cylinders. In this thesis first the design/classification regulations are used to get
familiar with the barge and its design. Using the obtained knowledge, a simple model is built to determine
which load cases are of the most interest. For these load cases a model is built to study the dynamics. Using
this model, the resulting maximum forces in the hinges and hydraulic cylinders can be found. By comparing
the determined forces to the design forces that were used, a first conclusion on the limits of the barge can be
made.

Design regulations for a split hopper barge

In the static design/classification regulations for the
SHBs by Bureau Veritas (Bureau Veritas, 2016), a cal-
culation method for the forces in the hinges and
cylinder is presented. The reactions in the hinges
and hydraulic cylinders are determined based on
the equilibria of forces and moments around the
hinges. Both equilibria are found using the splitting
forces that act in the splitting plane of the split hop-
per barge, they follow from the summation of the
different loads that act on one half-hull.

The opening moment around the hinges of the

barge is counteracted by the cylinders. The required
force in them, F c yl , follows directly from the mo- Figure 1: Static calculation method by Bureau Veritas
ment equilibrium around the hinges. In general the
hydraulic cylinders have an overcapacity, the super-
fluous force in them pre-loads the barge resulting in a force in the bottom chocks. Hence, the bottom chock
forces, F b , can be obtained from the difference between the cylinder capacity and the required cylinder force.
Using the cylinder and bottom chock force, a complete horizontal force equilibrium in the hinges can be
made, using this it is possible to determine the reactions in the hinges.

Quasi-static model of the split hopper barge

In order to study more interesting load cases, the model from the design regulations is expanded. The result
is a quasi-static model of the SHB in Matlab. In this model, again the reactions in the hinges and cylinders are
determined based on the splitting forces in the splitting plane. The barge is loaded by forces resulting from
hydrostatics, the cargo and its own weight. Using the quasi-static model, the effects of roll, different types of
cargo, opening the barge and discharging of the cargo are determined. Using the results, the most governing
load cases for the SHB are identified to model their dynamic influences.

vii
viii Summary

Using the quasi-static Matlab model, first the effect

of roll is considered. The barge is modelled carry-
ing a liquid cargo (ρ c = 1450kg /m 3 ) under fixed an-
gles of roll varying between 0 and 25 degrees. The
static roll is found to result in a decrease of the re-
quired cylinder forces,F c yl , which is an effect of the
additional closing moment due to the weight of and
the hydrostatic force acting on the SHB. Through the
bottom chock forces, the hydraulic cylinder force
is found to have an important effect on the hinges
forces. The decrease of the required cylinder forces
results in an increase of the superfluous force that
Figure 2: Quasi-static Matlab model excites the hinges and the bottom chocks. This in
combination with a decrease of the cargo forces due
to outflow over the coaming, causes the horizontal hinge forces,F hg e,y  , to increase slightly for an increasing
angle of roll. The vertical hinge forces,F hg e,z  , are found to increase as well. For an increasing angle of roll, the
uphill half-hull of the barge starts to rest on the hinges. As a result, the weight of the lifted half-hull has to be
supported by the hinges, which causes an increase of the vertical hinge reactions.

Next to the effect of roll, the effects of different types of cargo where considered. The barge was modelled
carrying either a solid (ρ c = 2200kg /m 3 ), liquid (ρ c = 1450kg /m 3 ) or a sliding cargo (ρ c = 1600kg /m 3 ). Here,
the behaviour of the cargo is determined based on the cargo density. A liquid cargo is expected to have a
constant horizontal fluid surface, while a solid cargo does not move relative to the barge. The sliding cargo is
expected to move in a restricted way, which is defined by a sliding law.

For all cargoes, the exciting forces that act on the hopper walls are assumed to follow from homogeneous
pressure distributions. I.e. a solid cargo is modelled like a liquid cargo only it is restricted in its movements.
For the cargo calculations, the barge is again considered under multiple fixed angles of roll, the differences
between the resulting forces for the different types of cargo are determined. In the end, the calculations show
that either a solid or a liquid cargo results in the highest reactions in the hinges and hydraulic cylinders.

To study the effect of opening the barge, it is modelled with an opening angle varying between 0 and 15
degrees. Again the opened barge is considered for multiple angles of roll, discharge of the cargo is neglected
to create a conservative load case. Due to the opening of the barge, the force of the hydraulic cylinders that
acts on the barge is no longer found to be equal to the maximum capacity of the cylinders. Only the force
that is required to counteract the opening moment now acts on the barge. Since this means that the bottom
chocks forces are zero, the horizontal hinge forces decrease. Although the opening of the barge does lead to
an increasing trend in the reaction forces. The initial difference due to the loss of the superfluous force in
the cylinders makes that the hinge reactions for the closed barge are larger. For the highest required cylinder
forces, no difference was found between the opened and closed barge. The conclusion is drawn that the
closed barge load case is governing over the opened one.

The final effect that is captured using the quasi-static model, is that of actual cargo discharge. the barge is
modelled as a mass, spring, damper system from which the cargo flows out with a fixed speed. Two types of
cargo outflow are considered. First a normal outflow were the cargo surface moves down through the hopper.
Secondly, an inverse outflow is considered for which the cargo disappears from the bottom up. This outflow
mimics the presence of cargo bridges over the opening in the barge due to cohesion and friction. For both
types of outflow it is found that the resulting forces in the hinges and hydraulic cylinders decrease to almost
zero after all cargo has flown out. Depending on the outflow speed, this decrease occurs rapidly. From the
dynamic outflow model it is concluded that discharge of the cargo will not lead to the most governing load
case.

In the end, from the quasi-static calculations of the SHB, the conclusion is drawn that the most interesting
load cases to be studied further are those for a closed barge either carrying a liquid or a solid cargo.
 ix

Modelling the dynamics of a split hopper barge

To account for the dynamics of the SHB in irregular seas, a calculation method based on Ansys AQWA is
proposed. Using Ansys AQWA GS, the splitting forces in the splitting plane of the SHB can be determined
directly. When the splitting forces are known, the hinge and cylinders reactions follow from a calculation
method similar to that used before. To run AQWA simulations, the geometry of the SHB as well as some data
on its mass, mass distribution and inertia are required. This input can be determined using excel and CAD
software tools.

From the splitting force RAOs that are returned by AQWA the forces that result in the hinges and hydraulic
cylinders can be determined using a Matlab script. Using the resulting hinge and cylinder force RAOs in com-
bination with a wave spectrum, the maximum dynamic forces in the hinges and cylinders are obtained. To
find the overall forces, the average/static forces in the hinges and cylinders have to be added. These average
force contributions are determined using the quasi-static SHB model. By comparing the obtained hinge and
cylinder reaction for a certain irregular sea state to the the design limits that follow from the classification
regulations, a first indication on the exceedance of the limits of the SHB is found.

Since AQWA is not capable of dealing with a free-surface liquid cargo inside the model, the effects coming
from a liquid cargo have to be accounted for in the simulations separately. Based on the coupled equations
of motions of the SHB and the liquid cargo, the conclusion was drawn that the liquid cargo effects are be
captured well by adding additional added mass and stiffness to the system. The additional stiffness that has
to be taken into account is included by reducing the stability lever arms of the barge. The additional added
mass matrix, follows from a comparison of the added mass plots of a barge carrying a solid and a frozen cargo
in WAMIT. The differences that are found are used to describe a relation that is used for the adjustments to
the added mass matrix in AQWA.

From the WAMIT simulations with the TF501 SHB, it is found that the natural frequencies of the liquid cargo
are hardly excited for the wave spectra that were considered. As a result, a constant relation between the
added mass of the barge with a solid and a liquid cargo is obtained. The effects of the liquid cargo mainly
affects the surge, sway, roll and yaw motions of the SHB. For heave and pitch, no significant changes are
identified. Using the additional added mass determined using WAMIT in combination with the decrease of
the stability lever arms of the SHB, the Ansys model is adjusted to be used for a SHB carrying a liquid cargo
as well.

Results and conclusions

The calculation method is used to determine the forces in the hinges and hydraulic cylinders for one type of
SHB. Using a model of the TF501 SHB it is found that beam waves yield the highest responses in the hinges
and hydraulic cylinders. The limits of the hinges are found to be exceeded faster, which leads to the conclu-
sion that the design limits of the hinges are of most interest when the limits of the SHB are considered. Due to
a destabilization of the barge that results from the liquid cargo effects, a wider spectra of wave directions and
periods is found to result in significant increases of the reactions in the hinges and hydraulic cylinders. For
the cylinders this causes the obtained reaction forces for the barge carrying a liquid cargo to be the highest.
The maximum reaction forces in the hinges however, are found for the SHB carrying a solid cargo. Due to a
large difference that is found in the static hinge force contributions, the barge carrying a solid cargo yields the
highest hinge force reactions. Since the limits of the hinges are exceeded first, the conclusion is drawn that
the limits of the split hopper barge in irregular waves are most limited, and therefore governing, for a barge
carrying a solid cargo.
 Nomenclature

Abbreviations

D AF Dynamic amplification factor

R AO Response amplitude operator

CoF Center of flotation

CoG Center of gravity

p Subscript used for variables on the port-side of the vessel

s Subscript used for variables of the starboard-side of the vessel

SHB Split hopper barge

Constants
kg
ρs Density of seawater 1025 m3
m
g Gravitational acceleration 9.81 s2

Greek symbols

αw Wave direction r ad

δ Angle of external friction d eg

ω Wave frequency r ad /s
kg
ρc Density of the cargo inside the hopper m3
N
σ Normal stress m2
N
τ Shear stress m2

θc Angle made by the cargo relative to the barge deg

θr Angle of roll made by the barge deg

θu Upper angle in the cargo hopper deg

SH B Weight of the barge N

ϕ Angle of internal friction d eg

ϑ Wave phase angle r ad

Variables

GG  x /GG  y Reduction in metacentric heights m

B SH B Breadth of the split-hopper barge m

N
c Cohesion of soil m2

Ch Cargo height in the hopper m

xi
xii Summary

D st or m Storm duration s

FW Force due to the weight of the barge N

FB Force in the bottom chock N

F cur Current force acting on the SHB N

F c yl ,pr e Pre-tension in the hydraulic cylinder N

F c yl ,r eq Required hydraulic cylinder force N

Fd Force due to cargo pressure N

F hg e Resulting force in the hinge N

Fh Hydrostatic force N

F wi nd Wind force acting on the SHB N

F x/F y/F z Splitting forces in the splitting plane N

G M x /G M y Metacentric heights m

Hs Significant wave height m

Hv Height of the V-shaped part of the hopper m

Hbot Height of the bottom of the barge m

h c yl Distance between the cylinders and the hinges m

h hg e Distance of the hinge above the baseline m

Hmax Maximum loading height of the hopper m

HSH B Height of the barge’s free-board m

It Second moment of area at the water plane of the barge m4

k xx /k y y /k zz Radii of gyration m

L hop Length of the cargo hopper m

L SH B Length of the split-hopper barge m

mn Spectral moment [−]

M op Opening moment around the hinges Nm

M r es Restoring moment acting on the barge Nm

nB Number of bottom chocks -

n c yl Number of hydraulic cylinders -

n hg e Number of hinges -

R x/R y/R z Splitting moments in the splitting plane Nm

T0 Initial mean draft of the barge in a upright position m

Tz Mean zero crossing period s

T Ff Force RAO [−]

u cur Current speed knot s

m
u wi nd Wind speed s
 List of Figures

1 Static calculation method by Bureau Veritas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

2 Quasi-static Matlab model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

1.1 Cork Sand split hopper barge (Boskalis, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Axes convention (Journee & Massie, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1 Forces acting on the half hull. (Bureau Veritas, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 Schematic drawing of the hinges. (Bureau Veritas, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3 Scantelings for jack hinges. (Bureau Veritas, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.4 Scantelings for jack hinges. (Bureau Veritas, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1 Quasi-Static model of the split-hopper barge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.2 The split-hopper barge model experiencing roll. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.3 The exciting forces in the ship-bound coordinate system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.4 Forces, pressures and friction acting on the hopper walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.5 Resulting pressure force on an inclined wall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.6 Resulting pressure force on an inclined wall for a non-horizontal fluid surface. . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.7 Gravitational- and hydrostatic forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.8 Hydrostatic forces in beween the half-hulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.9 Restoring moment acting on the SHB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.10 Lever arms for the opening moment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.11 The bottom chocks of the SHB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.12 Cargo forces acting on the hopper walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.13 Orientation of the cargo forces on the hopper walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.14 Hydro-static forces acting on the hopper walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.15 Orientation of the hydrostatic forces on the hull. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.16 Resulting required cylinder forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.17 Resulting hinge forces (y’-direction). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

xiii
xiv List of Figures

3.18 Hinge force components on the starboard side (y’-direction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.19 Hinge force components on the portside (y’-direction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.20 Resulting hinge forces (z’-direction). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.21 Required cylinder forces for three types of cargo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.22 Hinge forces for three types of cargo (y’-direction). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.23 Hinge forces for three types of cargo (z’-direction). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.24 The opened split hopper barge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.25 Hydraulic cylinder forces for a opened SHB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.26 Hinge forces for a opened SHB (y’-direction). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.27 Hinge forces for a opened SHB (z’-direction). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.28 Discharge model with downward cargo motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.29 Discharge of crumbeling cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.30 Exciting forces during cargo outflow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.31 Resulting forces for the outflow of a solid cargo (floor panels included). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.32 Resulting forces for the outflow of a solid cargo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.33 Effect of outflow of solid cargo with friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.34 Effect of outflow of solid cargo with friction and cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.35 Effect of inverse outflow of solid cargo with friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.36 Effect of inverse outflow of solid cargo with friction and cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.37 Wind & current forces on the split hopper barge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.1 Flow chart for the proposed method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.2 The split hopper barge model in Rhino. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.3 Rectangular barge sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.4 Rectangular cargo sections and slices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.5 Ansys Aqwa model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.6 Splitting forces in the splitting plane of the SHB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.7 Resulting forces in the splitting plane of the SHB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.8 Flow chart for the proposed method adjusted for liquid cargoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

5.1 Splitting force RAO’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5.2 Y-direction splitting force components for following waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

List of Figures xv

5.3 Y-direction splitting force components for beam waves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5.4 Dynamic and average contribution to the opening moment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5.5 Hydraulic cylinder force RAO’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5.6 Maximum required hydraulic cylinder forces for a 3 hour storm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.7 Harmonic force contributions to the vertical hinge force (fore). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.8 Harmonic force contributions to the vertical hinge force (aft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.9 Vertical hinge force RAO’s (fore) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.10 Vertical hinge force RAO’s (aft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.11 Harmonic horizontal hinge force contributions (fore). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5.12 Horizontal hinge force RAO’s (fore) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5.13 Hinge force RAO’s (fore) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.14 Hinge force RAO’s (aft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.15 Maximum hinge force (fore) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5.16 Maximum hinge force (aft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5.17 Splitting force RAO’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.18 Dynamic and average contribution to the opening moment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.19 Hydraulic cylinder force RAO’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.20 Maximum required hydraulic cylinder force for H s = 3.0m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5.21 Harmonic force contributions to the vertical hinge force (fore). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.22 Harmonic force contributions to the vertical hinge force (aft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.23 Harmonic force contributions to the vertical hinge force (fore). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.24 Harmonic force contributions to the vertical hinge force (aft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.25 Vertical hinge force transfer functions (fore). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.26 Vertical hinge force transfer functions (aft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.27 Harmonic force contributions to the horizontal hinge force (fore). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5.28 Harmonic force contributions to the horizontal hinge force (fore). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5.29 Horizontal hinge force RAO’s (fore). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5.30 Hinge force RAO’s (fore). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.31 Hinge force RAO’s (aft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.32 Maximum hinge forces (fore). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.33 Maximum hinge forces (aft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

xvi List of Figures

A.1 Parameters that are determined to validate the Matlab model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

B.1 Equilibrium of forces over a small element of soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

B.2 The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

B.3 Bishops slope failure model aplied to the split hopper barge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

B.4 Dynamic external friction of the cargo acting on the hopper flow during discharge . . . . . . . . 92

C.1 WAMIT SHB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

C.2 WAMIT SHB with tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

C.3 Surge RAO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

C.4 Sway RAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

C.5 Heave RAO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

C.6 Roll RAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

C.7 Pitch RAO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

C.8 Yaw RAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

C.9 Response spectrum sway for frozen cargo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

C.10 Response spectrum sway for liquid cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

C.11 Response spectrum roll for frozen cargo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

C.12 Response spectrum roll for liquid cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

C.13 Response spectrum yaw for frozen cargo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

C.14 Response spectrum yaw for liquid cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

C.15 Sway added mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

C.16 Roll added mass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

C.17 Yaw added mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

 List of Tables

2.1 Probability for the determination of dynamic forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1 Cargo input for the roll model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5.1 Terraferre 501/502 details. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

kg
A.1 Calculated values for liquid cargo of density ρ car g o = 1025 m 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

kg
A.2 Calculated values for sliding cargo of density ρ car g o = 1600 m 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

kg
A.3 Calculated values for solid cargo of density ρ car g o = 2000 m 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

xvii
 Contents

Abstract iii

Preface v

Summary vii

List of Figures xiii

List of Tables xvii

1 Introduction to the project 1

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Aim of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3 Project approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4 Axes convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Design regulations for a split hopper barge 5

2.1 Static loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 Dynamic loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3 Strength calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3.1 Hinge Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3.2 Cylinder design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3 Quasi-static calculations 11

3.1 The quasi-static approach for the split-hopper barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.1.1 The geometry of the barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.1.2 Forces acting on the split-hopper barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.1.3 Quasi-static equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.1.4 Hydraulic cylinder & hinge forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2 The effect of roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2.1 Cargo forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

xix
xx Contents

3.2.2 Hydrostatic forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.2.3 Resulting hinge and hydraulic cylinder forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2.4 Conclusions on the effect of roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.3 The effect cargo density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.3.1 Resulting hinge and hydraulic cylinder forces for multiple types of cargo . . . . . . . . . 28

3.3.2 Conclusions on the effect of the cargo density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.4 The effect of opening the barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.4.1 Resulting hinge and hydraulic cylinder forces for the open barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.4.2 Conclusions on the effect of opening the barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.5 The effect of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.5.1 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.5.2 Standard outflow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.5.3 Inverse outflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.5.4 Conclusions on the effects of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.6 The influence of environmental forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.7 Chapter summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4 Modelling the dynamics 45

4.1 Model method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.2 Model theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.2.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.2.2 Mass and inertia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.2.3 AQWA simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.2.4 Splitting forces in AQWA GS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.2.5 Process data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.2.6 Spectral analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.3 Adaptations for liquid cargo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

5 Results 59

5.1 Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.2 Results for solid cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5.2.1 Splitting force RAO’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5.2.2 Hydraulic cylinder forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Contents xxi

5.2.3 Vertical hinge forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.2.4 Horizontal hinge forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5.2.5 Resulting hinge forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.3 Results for liquid cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.3.1 Splitting force RAO’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.3.2 Hydraulic cylinder forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.3.3 Vertical hinge forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.3.4 Horizontal hinge forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5.3.5 Resulting hinge forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.4 Conlcusions on the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

5.4.1 Hydraulic cylinder forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

5.4.2 Hinge forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

6 Conclusions and recommendations 79

6.1 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

6.1.1 Method for finding the workability limits of a split hopper barge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

6.1.2 The workability limits of a SHB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

6.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

References 83

A Reliability of the quasi-static Matlab model 85

B Cargo friction in the split hopper barge 89

B.1 Internal cargo friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

B.2 External friction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

B.3 Conclusions about friction of cargo with the split hopper barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

C Influence of liquid cargo motions 95

C.1 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

C.2 Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

C.3 Added mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

C.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

xxii Contents

D Maximum resulting forces for multiple wave heights 103

D.1 Solid cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

D.1.1 Required cylinder forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

D.1.2 Hinges forces (fore) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

D.1.3 Hinges forces (aft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

D.2 Liquid cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

D.2.1 Required cylinder forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

D.2.2 Hinges forces (fore) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

D.2.3 Hinges forces (aft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

 1
Introduction to the project

Split hopper barges are ships that are commonly

used in dredging. They are used to transport
dredged materials from a dredging site to an off-
shore discharge location. The barges can either be
pushed, pulled or self-propelled and come in a va-
riety of sizes and capacities. A typical split-hopper
barge is only used for transportation of dredged
cargo, the dredging itself is done using other types
of dredging equipment. Therefore, split hopper
barges will always work together with other types of
dredging vessels in a project. Since the split-hopper
barges are open hopper vessels, they can be versa-
tilely used for all types of cargoes ranging from rocks
Figure 1.1: Cork Sand split hopper barge (Boskalis, 2014) to fine particles.

The basic design of the split-hopper barge has only seen minor changes over its existence, the vessel consist of
two half-hulls connected by hinges and hydraulic cylinders. Using the hydraulic cylinders the two halves can
be pushed open, splitting the vessel over its entire length. This allows the cargo inside the hopper to free-fall
in to the sea without additional mechanical interference. In general two hinges and two hydraulic cylinders
are installed on a split hopper barge one fore and one aft of the open hopper. Due to the increasing hydraulic
cylinder capacity that is needed to actuate a bigger barge and due to the increase in required steel for the
double hull, conventional split-hopper barge capacities in general are limited to a maximum of roughly 7000t
(DWT). In an effort to increase the capacity of the barge, the conventional design has been altered in some
cases.

1
2 Chapter 1: Introduction to the project

1.1. Background
The moment the split hopper barge starts to open, only the hinges and hydraulic cylinders keep the two half-
hulls together. Since the discharge of the cargo usually takes place in non-sheltered waters, the opened barge
will be excited by wind and waves resulting in movement . Instinctively this causes the split hopper barge to
be quite vulnerable in this situation. The technical limits of the barge for these particular situation need to be
sufficient and great care is taken in judging whether or not the weather conditions allow for the split hopper
barge operations.

For verification and classification of the design of the split hopper barge, static design regulations are stated.
these regulations verify the design loads acting on the hinges and hydraulic cylinders for both an open and
closed condition of the barge. Apart from these static guidelines, only a limited amount of information is
given about the dynamics that have to be included. These dynamic contributions to the hinge and cylinders
forces follow from dynamic amplification factors for which the origin is not always defined clearly.

Since the design forces cannot always be traced back properly, speculation about the true technical limits
of the split hopper barges continues to exist, resulting in discussions about their workability limits . The
technical workability limits result from the environmental loads acting on the barge. In practice this limit
is determined based on experience, weather predictions and the given information in the stability booklet
belonging to the barge. This method thus is commonly based on the judgement of one or several persons
instead of on the knowledge of technical limitations of the barge.

Since a split hopper barge is usually employed in dredging projects that take place in sheltered waters, and
the split hopper barge is the only vessel that has to leave these sheltered waters to discharge. The workability
limit of the split hopper barge is often the limiting one for the entire project. In practice this holds that when
the operations of the split hopper barge are stopped, the entire dredging process comes to a hold. This means
that by making a wrong judgement about the workability of the relatively cheap split hopper barge expensive
and preventable delays in the complete project can be the result.

Following from the above, to be able to describe the technical limits of the split hopper barge in greater detail,
to reassure the crews about the safety of their vessel and to give the project managers a helping hand in
defining the limits of their split hopper barges, this research is intended to find a method to define the limiting
sea states for the split hopper barge. An ultimate goal would be to be able to describe a single limit parameter
that can be measured on board the actual barge itself, giving the crew the possibility to determine the safety
of their operations in real time allowing them to stretch their operational time to an absolute safe maximum.
1.2. Aim of the study 3

1.2. Aim of the study

The aim of this study is to develop a method that can be used to determine the technical workability limits of
a split hopper barge in irregular seas.

In the study, the maximum loads acting on the hinges and hydraulic cylinders of the split hopper barge have
to be determined. These maximum loads are compared to their design limits. The interaction of the barge
with the sea is included. In the intended workability study knowledge has to be obtained for at least the
following conditions:

• Both open and closed conditions of the barge

• Multiple cargo conditions of the barge

• Discharge of the cargo

During this thesis the work-ability of at least one split hopper barge is determined. Yet, the goal is to develop
a method that can be used for more types/sizes of split hopper barges.

1.3. Project approach

The aim of this thesis is not only to describe the reactions that act on the internal structural parts of the split
hopper barge, but also to create knowledge on the influence that multiple types of cargo, configuration and
orientation have on these forces. To reach the thesis goals, the following approach is used:

• First the design regulations of split hopper barges are briefly regarded to create a better understanding
of the barge design and its design loads.

• The influences of multiple types of loading, configuration and orientation on the internal forces acting
inside the barge are determined

• A full dynamic model is made, to obtain the limiting forces in the hinges and hydraulic cylinders of the
split hopper barge.

• The proposed dynamic model will be used to determine the maximum forces in the hinges and hy-
draulic cylinders of one type of SHB in irregular seas.

• Finally, conclusions and recommendations can be made to finalize the research project.
4 Chapter 1: Introduction to the project

1.4. Axes convention

In this report, multiple models of the split hopper barge will be made and multiple calculations on it are
performed. To relate the different parts of the report with each other, the same axes convention will be used
for the barge. The axes convention as it is used in this research is given in figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: Axes convention (Journee & Massie, 2001)

Both global and local directions will be used throughout the different chapters. The global system indicates
the directions in an earthbound direction, the coordinates are indicated using [X,Y,Z]. The local coordinated
system is ship-bound and is indicated by [x’,y’,z’]. The zero degree wave direction modelled to be along the
positive X-axes (from stern to bow), the angle increases counter clock-wise.
 2
Design regulations for a split hopper barge

Since this research is not, directly, meant to gain knowledge for a new design of split hopper barges, there is
no need to define their design requirements al over again. Instead, to get familiar with the design and limits of
the SHB, the already existing design regulations can be used. Do note that the study to the design regulations
in this chapter is not only meant to get familiar with the topic, the obtained knowledge can be used for the
modelling of the SHB in the next stages of the research as well.

This chapter describes the current design regulations for split hopper barges based on the Bureau Veritas reg-
ulations (Bureau Veritas, 2016). Note that, besides Bureau Veritas there do exist more regulating authorities.
Each with its own design regulations, the basic idea in these regulations though will remain the same. The
design regulations that are presented in this chapter are not intended to supply naval architects with a design
for the split hopper barge, but rather are intended to verify/show that a designed and new to build vessel
complies to the safety standards. The regulations describe design strengths for multiple components of the
SHB. In this chapter only the regulations related to the design forces in the hinges and hydraulic cylinders are
considered.

5
6 Chapter 2: Design regulations for a split hopper barge

2.1. Static loads

Figure 2.1 displays the static reactions that act on one half-hull of the split hopper barge, as they are defined
by the rules of Bureau Veritas (Bureau Veritas, 2016).

In the figure, F c yl shows the position and orientation of the hydraulic cylinders of the barge. F hg e,y shows
the force that results in the hinge as a result from the static loads that act on the barge. Note that there exists
no vertical hinge force, the barge is in perfect equilibrium. As a result, the weight of the barge and its cargo
is equal to the buoyancy force that acts on the barge due to its displaced volume. From the equilibrium of
forces in the vertical direction it is found that no force will result in the hinges for this direction.

Since the barge is symmetric, the forces that act on the two different half-hulls will be exactly equal for this
upright position. Do note, that some of the forces for the different half-hulls do have an opposite sign.

Figure 2.1: Forces acting on the half hull. (Bureau Veritas, 2016)

In the figure, F h is the resulting force caused by the hydro-static pressure distribution on the side wall of the
half-hull and follows directly from the draught of the barge. F d is the horizontal force that results from the
horizontal pressure of the cargo in the hopper. The cargo is prevented from flowing through the small gap
that exists in between the two half-hulls by a bottom seal, this seal is positioned in between the bottom of the
barge and the bottom of the hopper which is indicated in the figure by distance a. Q and i are the weight of
the cargo and the barge respectively. Each half-hull is loaded by half the weight of the cargo and the barge.  2
is half the buoyancy force that results from the total displaced volume of the loaded barge.
2.1. Static loads 7

The resulting opening moment, M op , around the hinges are found using:

1
M op = −F h · a 1 + F d · a 2 + ( · b 1 − 1l · b 2 −Q · b 3 ) (2.1)
2

Since this moment can only be counteracted by the hydraulic cylinders, the static horizontal force required
in the cylinder to keep the barge closed follows directly from M op and is given by:

M op
F c yl ,r eq = (2.2)
n c yl a 3

Here, n c yl is the number of hydraulic cylinders that is installed on the barge. The cylinder force that excites
the barge is not necessarily equal to this required hydraulic cylinder force. Instead, when the cylinder capacity
is sufficient, the hydraulic cylinders can be used to pre-load the barge. In this case the barge is loaded with
the full cylinder capacity, F c yl ,pr e . Due to the presence of this pre-tension, the two half-hulls of the barge are
pulled together strongly having a force in the bottom chocks as a result. This resulting bottom chock force is
found by:

n c yl · a 3 · F c yl ,pr e − M op
FB = (2.3)
nB · a4

Here, n B is the number of bottom chocks that are installed. Note that when the cylinder forces are exactly
equal to the force required to counteract the opening moment around the hinges, the force in the bottom
chocks is equal to zero. In this case the barge is not really closed, but only held in a constant ’opened’ position
by the hydraulic cylinder.

Using the forces of the bottom chocks and the hydraulic cylinder, an equilibrium of the horizontal forces
leads to the horizontal forces required in the hinges of the barge:

 
F hg e,y,st at = 0.5[F h − F d + n c yl F c yl ,st at − F B ]
 
a3 M op (2.4)
= 0.5[F h − F d + n c yl 1 − F c yl ,st at + ]
a4 a4

The vertical hinge forces follow from the equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction.

1
F hg e,z,st at = (i +Q − ) (2.5)
2

As was already mentioned in the introduction to this section, in the static upright equilibrium in which the
barge is considered, this force will be equal to zero.
8 Chapter 2: Design regulations for a split hopper barge

2.2. Dynamic loads

Currently Bureau Veritas does not supply comprehensive mathematical formulations for the calculations of
the dynamic forces acting on the hinges, cylinders and chocks. The calculation of these forces is left to the
designer of the barge. The calculations have to be submitted to the regulating authorities for a review. This
review is done using computer software developed by Bureau Veritas itself. In a paper by Bureau Veritas
(Latreille, 1982) a small description of the proposed method is given to determine the strength of the barges.

The calculation software that was developed is based on strip theory that solves the motions of the barge
in a two dimensional way. Since a two-dimensional approach is used, the surge motion is not determined
in the software. After the motions of the barge are solved, the hinge and hydraulic cylinder forces can be
determined. This calculation of the dynamic forces in the hinges and hydraulic cylinders of the split hopper
barge is done using the equilibria of forces and moments that exist around the hinges of the barge. The
exciting forces that are used are expressed as the splitting forces that act in the mid-plane of the barge. For
the equilibria of forces, only one half-hull of the barge is considered.

From the force and moment equilibria around the hinge four unknown forces are found, knowing, the fore
and aft hinge- and cylinder forces. To determine these unknown reactions only three equations are available,
one moment equilibrium around the hinges and two force equilibria in the hinges. Since in this system of
equations there are too many unknowns, it cannot be solved. Therefore, Bureau Veritas assumes that the
cylinder forces of the fore and aft of the barge are equal.

In line with the rules given by Bureau Veritas the dynamic forces should be calculated using a long term
statistical approach taking into account the conditions defined in table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Probability for the determination of dynamic forces.

Condition Probability
Dredging and Navigation with spoil p f = 10− 5
[H s <3m]
Navigation without spoil p f ,Jack = 10− 7
p f ,Hi ng e = 10− 5

For each loading case used, the dynamic forces F c yl ,d yn ,F hg e,y,d yn and F hg e,z,d yn should be obtained. These
dynamic contributions to the load on the hinges, cylinders and chocks have to be added to their static coun-
terparts creating a total force that has to be used for the strength calculations of the different components.
The resulting forces become:

F c yl = F c yl ,st at + F c yl ,d yn (2.6)
 2  2
F hg e = F hg e,y,st at + F hg e,y,d yn + F hg e,z,st at + F hg e,z,d yn (2.7)
2.3. Strength calculations 9

2.3. Strength calculations

2.3.1. Hinge Design

In the design regulations of Bureau Veritas two types of hinges used for the split hopper barge are considered.
In figure 2.2 on the left a hinge design with a bearing is shown. The drawing on the right shows a hinge without
a bearing. For both types of hinges, the exciting loads that act on them have to be compared to their design
limits. For this validation of the hinge strengths, Bureau Veritas supplies a calculation method again. In table
2.3 the relations that have to be used for the validation of the hinge strengths of the split hopper barge are
presented. For both types of hinges the pins, center eyes and side straps are considered separately.

Figure 2.2: Schematic drawing of the hinges. (Bureau Veritas, 2016)

Figure 2.3: Scantelings for jack hinges. (Bureau Veritas, 2016)

For all components of the hinges multiple validation relations are stated. For all these relations the limits of
the hinges have to be safe of course.
10 Chapter 2: Design regulations for a split hopper barge

2.3.2. Cylinder design

To verify the design of the hydraulic cylinders, the calculated forces from sections 2.1 and 2.2 that act on the
hydraulic cylinders for the mentioned load cases have to be compared to their design limit. This limit force
in the cylinders is defined by :

P s y st em P s y st em
F c yl = − (2.8)
A pi st on A r od

In the relation, P s y st em is the pressure inside the hydraulic cylinder that actuates the piston. A pi st on and A r od
are the areas of the piston and the rod respectively. A drawing of a typical hydraulic cylinder design for the
split hopper barge is shown in figure 2.4.

The cylinder forces are determined and verified for both a pull and push operation. In the situation that the
hydraulic cylinder pulls on the half-hulls, it is used to close the barge. When the cylinder pushes, it causes
a opening moment around the hinges. In general the force needed in the pull situation exceeds the force
needed in the push situation. Due to the cargo pressures that act on the hopper wall, split hopper barges
have a tendency to have a resulting opening moment around the hinges rather than a closing moment. As a
result, the force needed by the hydraulic cylinder to open the barge is smaller than the force that is needed to
pull the half-hulls together.

Figure 2.4: Scantelings for jack hinges. (Bureau Veritas, 2016)

 3
Quasi-static calculations

A Split-hopper barge is a relatively small and simple vessel compared to other types of dredging equipment.
The behaviour of the SHB in a dynamic environment however, is a complicated process in which many dif-
ferent motions, configurations and loads play a part. To be able to describe and understand the influence of
all these separate aspects, a thorough study should be conducted. To achieve this, a straight forward imple-
mentation of the barge and all of it particulars in simulation software is not preferred. Instead it seems more
appropriate to investigate the aspects and processes of interest separately first before they are combined in
one dynamic model. This does not only allow for a better understanding of behaviour of the SHB on one side,
it also allows for a detailed selection of processes that have to be included in a full dynamic simulation.

In this chapter the following motions, configurations and loads will be considered:

• The effect of roll.

• The effect the cargo density.

• The effect of opening the barge.

• The effect of discharge.

• The influence of environmental forces (wind & current).

To obtain the influence of these points of interest, a quasi-static model is built in Matlab. This model will be
further described in the next section, after which the result obtained using it are discussed.

11
12 Chapter 3: Quasi-static calculations

3.1. The quasi-static approach for the split-hopper barge

For the calculation of the static forces in the SHB, the barge was modelled in Matlab. This first section of
the chapter focusses on the model that was made. The most important relations for the calculations are
described and their origin will be explained. In appendix A the data from the Matlab model is compared to
data from a stability booklet of an actual barge to validate the Matlab model. Differences up to 0.1% were
found, which shows that the model is accurate.

3.1.1. The geometry of the barge

In the Matlab model that was made, the goal is to de-

scribe the effect of the selected scenarios on the SHB
using straight forward and simple equations. To do
so, the complex shape of the real barge has to be
approximated using a more elementary shape. The
barge hull in the model is represented by a beam
of length L SH B , width B SH B and height HSH B . The
weight of the barge SH B then causes a initial dis-
placed volume with a mean draft T0 as a result.

The hopper itself is modelled as a fully symmetric

shape. It is positioned in the exact middle of the
model hull, both longitudinal as transverse. The
Figure 3.1: Quasi-Static model of the split-hopper barge.
hopper shape is built up from two parts, a triangular
bottom part with a height of H v and a inclined wall
angle of θu . On top there is a square section with a height of Hu and a total width of B hop . The total load-
ing height of the barge Hmax is equal to the combined height of the hopper together with the height of the
barge bottom Hbot , this height exceeds the total height of the barge itself. The two half-hulls of the barge are
supposed to close fully so that there is no gap between the two parts of the hopper in a closed configuration.

Just as with the real barge, the two half-hulls are held together by a hinge arrangement, that is placed at a
height h hg e above the barge bottom. The hydraulic cylinders of the barge are placed at a distance h c yl below
the hinge. The bottom chocks are located at the bottom of the barge at a height h hg e below the hinges.

Figure 3.1 shows the general set-up of the model that is used for the quasi-static calculations in Matlab. The
graph displays the barge model including the described particulars in both a frontal and top view.

In figure 3.1 the Center of Flotation, CoF, of the barge

is shown. According to the Offshore Hydro Mechan-
ics book by Journee (Journee & Massie, 2001), this
point around which the vessel rotates is located in
the exact middle of the vessels initial, upright, wa-
ter plane. This holds for all vessels with a symmet-
ric underwater geometry. Since the closed barge is
a beam, it satisfies the condition of symmetry and
thus the mentioned theory holds ( YC oF = 12 B SH B ).
Since the barge rotates around the point of flota-
tion, its rotational motion causes an equal change
in displacement for both half-hulls. As a result,
the emerged and immersed wedges due to the ro-
tational motion of the barge are equal. The barge
Figure 3.2: The split-hopper barge model experiencing roll.
under a heel angle, including the emerged and im-
mersed wedges is shown in figure 3.2. Here, θr is the
angle made by the barge.
3.1. The quasi-static approach for the split-hopper barge 13

3.1.2. Forces acting on the split-hopper barge

As the barge geometry is defined, the forces that load it have to be determined. The static loads that act on
the SHB can be subdivided into three different types. First there are the forces that are caused by the own
weight and geometry of the barge. Secondly the presence of cargo causes forces that act on the hopper walls.
Lastly the outer walls of the barge are loaded by the seawater pressures.

Figure 3.3 shows a graph of all forces that act on the barge for a roll motion as well as the resulting forces in
the hinges and the hydraulic cylinders which are of interest for the research.

The figure shows that due to the rolling motion of the barge the forces that act on it are no longer orientated in
the global coordinate system. Instead, a local (ship fixed) coordinate system is chosen to describe the loads.

Figure 3.3: The exciting forces in the ship-bound coordinate system.

14 Chapter 3: Quasi-static calculations

Cargo loads
For all types of cargo in the SHB it is assumed that
they excite the hopper like a fluid. This means that
regardless of the cargo density and the cargo be-
haviour, the resulting cargo forces that excite the
barge follow from the pressure distributions over the
hopper walls. These cargo pressures together with
the forces that result from them are illustrated in fig-
ure 3.4. Note that in the figure, cargo forces par-
allel to the hopper walls are included as well. In
general such forces follow from friction that occurs
between the cargo and the hopper walls for certain
cargo types. The effects of cargo friction on the SHB
are discussed in more detail in appendix B. Figure 3.4: Forces, pressures and friction acting on the hopper walls.

Due to the roll of the barge, the cargo moves. The extent in which the cargo will be able to follow the motions
of the barge depends on the cargo density. A fully liquid cargo is expected to follow the motions of the barge
exactly. A solid cargo is defined to not move at all. In between these two extremes the cargo is of a sliding kind.
The way this sliding cargo moves is assumed to depend linearly on the cargo density. The linear relations used
to describe the motions of the cargo is taken from the Bureau Veritas regulations (Bureau Veritas, 2016). These
relations divide the possible cargo in the hopper into three regimes depending on the cargo density, ρ c . For
each regime separate relations are given between the cargo angle and the angle of the motion of the barge:

kg
• Liquid cargo for ρ c ≤ 1400 [ m 3 ]

θc = θr
kg
• Sliding cargo for 1400 < ρ c < 2000 [ m 3 ]

2000−ρ c
θc = 600 θr
kg
• Solid cargo for ρ c ≥ 2000 [ m 3 ]

θc = 0

In these relations θc is the cargo angle with respect to the barge. θr is again the roll angle of the barge. De-
pending on the motions of the cargo, the amount of cargo that flows over the coaming and the orientation
of the cargo in the hopper differs per cargo type. The result is that the cargo forces that act on the hopper
change per type of cargo.

Due to the motions of the barge and the resulting motions of the cargo, the cargo pressures on the hopper
walls have to be determined for inclined orientations. To do so, a relation has to be found for fluid pressures
on an inclined wall.
3.1. The quasi-static approach for the split-hopper barge 15

Figure 3.5 shows a fluid pressure on an inclined wall. The resulting force acting on this wall can be found by
integrating the cargo pressure over the wall area, which gives the following relation for the resulting normal
force: 
F r es = ·ρ c · g · h d x d y (3.1)
y x

Were h is the height of the fluid column above the point of interest. Thus for a point on the wall inclined with
an angle θ at a distance y of the water surface:

F r es = ρ c · g · sin θ y dx dy (3.2)
y x

This eventually results in:

F r es = ρ c · g · y cg · sin θ · A = ρ c · g · h cg · A (3.3)
In which y c g is the coordinate of the centroid of the wall along its length, and h cg is the height of the water
column above the centroid of the wall.

Thus, the resulting force on the inclined wall is the

hydrostatic pressure at the centroid of the wall mul-
tiplied with the surface area. Note that the result-
ing force that was determined does not necessarily
work at the location of the centroid. The point of
engagement in which it does work has to be derived
separately from the relation given above.

The obtained relation assumes that the fluid sur-

rounding the wall always develops a perfect hori-
zontal surface. The cargo in the hopper however,
does not always behave like a perfect fluid and can
therefore not always be described using a horizon-
tal surface. In fact, according to the sliding law that
was introduced in section 3.1.1, the developed cargo
angle can differ from the developed angle of roll
depending on the cargoes density. As a result the
cargo surface will not be horizontal, which makes
Figure 3.5: Resulting pressure force on an inclined wall.
the found relations for the resulting wall forces less
valid.
16 Chapter 3: Quasi-static calculations

In the situation were the cargo angle is assumed to differ from the roll angle of the barge, the cargo surface can
no longer be regarded as being horizontal. For the situations where this occurs, the gravitational acceleration
that works on the cargo surface can be split up into two separate parts. Figure 3.6 shows the considered
situation were the cargo surface is no longer horizontal.

The figure shows that the part of the gravitational

acceleration that works perpendicular to the in-
clined cargo surface for this situation can then be
found using the relation:

g  = g · cos (θr − θc ) (3.4)

This relation can be used as a substitute of the grav-

itational acceleration in the previously shown rela-
tions. By doing so, the resulting cargo force on the
inclined wall for a cargo with a non-horizontal sur-
face becomes:

F r es = ρ c · g  · y cg · sin θ · A
(3.5)
Figure 3.6: Resulting pressure force on an inclined wall for a non- = ρ c · g · h cg · A · cos (θr − θc )
horizontal fluid surface.

However, since the gravitational acceleration was split into two parts, the effect due to the part of the grav-
itation that works transversal to the inclined cargo surface has to be taken into consideration as well. This
component causes a force along the hopper wall surface which is given by:

F τ = F r es · tan (θr − θc ) (3.6)

Note that this force resembles a shear force that would act on the hopper wall. It is however a additional cargo
force due to the angle of inclination of the cargo surface. Including this force in the cargo calculations allows
the model to use the same calculation method for all types of cargo, independent of the angle of inclination
of the cargo surface.

The resulting cargo forces both in the y  and z  direction are than found by summing up the cargo force
contributions in both these directions.
3.1. The quasi-static approach for the split-hopper barge 17

Weight of the barge

Next, the weight of the SHB is included. This weight is a constant ,SH B , which is evenly distributed over the
two half-hulls. Hence, each half-hull is loaded with half the barge weight, 12 SH B .

During the rolling motion of the barge the direction

of the gravitational force stays constant. Therefore,
in the ship fixed coordinate system, the gravitational
contribution has to be broken up into two different
parts. Figure 3.7 shows the gravitational force that
excites the barge, together with the components in
which the barges gravitational weight can be subdi-
vided. The force components that result from the
barge weight are equal to:

1
FW,z  = SH B cos θr (3.7)
2

Figure 3.7: Gravitational- and hydrostatic forces. 1

FW,y  = SH B sin θr (3.8)
2

Hydrostatic forces
The last type of load that excites the barge in the
Matlab model comes from the water pressures on
the outer walls of the barge. The resulting forces
can be found by integrating the pressures due to
the water over the submerged wall heights. Figure
3.7 shows the pressures and resulting hydro-static
forces that act on the rolling barge.

Although it was assumed that no cargo flows

through the gap in-between the two half-hulls, in
the gap there is water the excites the barge with a hy-
drostatic pressure, F h,i n . For the length of the hop-
per, the height of this gap is limited to the height
were the bottom seal of the barge is located. In this
model it is assumed that the bottom seal is mounted
at the bottom of the hopper. In front and aft of the
hopper there is no seal. The water in between the
two half-hulls is not limited and raises up to the wa- Figure 3.8: Hydrostatic forces in beween the half-hulls
terline as a result. Figure 3.8 shows the two different resulting hydro static forces in between the two half-
hulls.

To determine the contribution of the hydrostatic forces to the force equilibrium over both the half-hulls,
evidently the force contributions in the y  and z  direction of the barge are found by adding up the hydro-
static forces in the two directions:


F h,y  = Fh (3.9)
y


F h,z  = Fh (3.10)
z
18 Chapter 3: Quasi-static calculations

3.1.3. Quasi-static equilibrium

When the split hopper barge starts rolling, this rolling motion is counteracted by a restoring moment that
results from the buoyancy of the barge. Due to the change in underwater geometry of the barge, the point of
engagement where the resulting buoyancy force acts is no longer in the exact middle of the barge. As a direct
result, a restoring moment occurs that tries to upright the barge into its equilibrium position. Therefore,
barge as it is shown in figure 3.3 is not in a natural equilibrium. Instead it is kept under the fixed angle of roll
by an external moment that resists the described restoring moment. In order to find the required equilibrium
of forces around the hinges of the barge, this additional moment has to be included as well.

Figure 3.9: Restoring moment acting on the SHB.

The restoring moment that acts on the barge, M r es , can be expressed using three contributions. First there is
the total buoyancy force that acts on the barge times the accompanying lever arm with respect to the center
of flotation of the barge. The second contribution is the moment that results from the cargo weight times its
lever arm. Then there is the contribution due to the barge its own combine weight again times its lever arm.
Figure 3.9 shows the different contributions to the restoring moment that acts on the barge. The relation used
to obtain the restoring moment in Matlab is:

M r es = A h yd r o · F h,t ot − A car g o · F d ,t ot + A bar g e · bar g e (3.11)

In which A h yd r o is the horizontal distance between the CoF and the point of engagement of the buoyancy
force. A c ar g o is the horizontal distance between the CoF and the center of gravity of the cargo. A bar g e is the
lever arm of the barge its weight to the center of flotation. Note that the lever arms of the restoring moment
are vectors, they have components in both the y’ and z’-direction.
3.1. The quasi-static approach for the split-hopper barge 19

3.1.4. Hydraulic cylinder & hinge forces

After that all loads and forces that act on the SHB are determined and their accompanying lever arms are
found using the barge geometry as well. The resulting forces in the hinges and the hydraulic cylinders can be
determined. These forces are found using the equilibrium of forces and moments around the hinges, which
are found by adding up the different excitations that act on the half-hulls of the barge.

First the moments around the hinges for both the port and starboard side of the barge are determined. Note
that the restoring moment that was determined in section 3.1.3 is subtracted from the starboard side mo-
ment.

M op,s = − F h,s,si d e · a 1,s + F h,s,i n,1 · a 1,s,i n,1 + F h,s,i n,2 · a 1,s,i n,2 + F h,s,bot · b 1,s + F d ,s,si d e · a 2,s,si d e
1 1
+ F d ,s,bot · sin θu · a 2,s,bot − F d ,s,bot · cos θu · b 2,s − SH B · cos θr · b 3,s + SH B · sin θr a 4,s (3.12)
2 2
1  
+ F t ,s,si d e · B hop + F t ,s,bot · Hhi ng e − Hbot · cos θu − M r es
2

M op,p = − F h,p,si d e · a 1,p + F h,p,i n,1 · a 1,p,i n,1 + F h,p,i n,2 · a 1,p,i n,2 + F h,p,bot · b 1,p + F d ,p,si d e · a 2,p,si d e
1 1
+ F d ,p,bot · sin θu · a 2,p,bot − F d ,p,bot · cos θu · b 2,p − SH B · cos θr · b 3,p − SH B · sin θr · a 4,p (3.13)
2 2
1  
− F t ,p,si d e · B hop − F t ,p,bot · Hhi ng e − Hbot · cos θu
2

The lever arms that are used in the equations are shown in figure 3.10. For clarity only the lever arms on the
port-side are shown. On the starboard side, the used forces are shown again.

Figure 3.10: Lever arms for the opening moment.

20 Chapter 3: Quasi-static calculations

Using the obtained moments around the hinges, the required forces in the hydraulic cylinders to keep the
barge closed or under a steady opening angle can be determined. These forces follow directly from the mo-
ments:

M op,s
F c yl ,s = (3.14)
n c yl · h c yl

M op,p
F c yl ,p = (3.15)
n c yl · h c yl

Using the obtained moments, the forces in the bottom chocks can be determined as well. These forces par-
tially depend on the pre-tension in the hydraulic cylinders F c yl ,pr e :

n c yl · h c yl · F c yl ,pr e − M op
FB = (3.16)
n B · h hgg e

Here, M op is either the starboard or port-side open-

ing moment on the barge. Note that the pre-tension
in the hydraulic cylinder only exists when the barge
is closed. In this situation the superfluous capac-
ity the hydraulic cylinder has on top of the required
force that is needed to keep the barge closed, is used
to pull the half-hulls together. As a result, a force in
the bottom chocks exists.

When the barge is opened, the hydraulic cylin-

ders only delivers the force that is needed to main-
tain the static opening angle. In case that the hy-
draulic cylinder force would deviate from this re-
quired force, the half-hulls would either start to
open further or start to close. In the opened situa-
tion the bottom chock force is equal to zero, when
the barge is opened the bottom chock do not touch Figure 3.11: The bottom chocks of the SHB
so no force exists.
3.1. The quasi-static approach for the split-hopper barge 21

Next the hinge forces in the y’-direction are obtained for both half-hulls using the equilibrium of forces that
exist over the hinges in the y’-direction:

1 
F hg e,y  ,s = F h,s,si d e − F h,s,i n,1 − F h,s,i n,2 − F d ,s,si d e − F d ,s,bot · sin θu
n hg e
 (3.17)
1
− SH B · sin θr − F t ,s,bot · cos θu + n c yl · F c yl ,pr e − n B · F B,s
2

1 
F hg e,y  ,p = F h,p,si d e − F h,p,i n,2 − F h,p,i n,2 − F d ,p,si d e − F d ,p,bot · sin θu
n hg e
 (3.18)
1
+ SH B · sin θr + F t ,s,bot · cos θu + n c yl · F c yl ,pr e − n B · F B,p
2

Finally, using the equilibrium of forces over the hinges in the z’-direction, the z’ forces in the hinges can be
obtained as well:
 
1 1
F hg e,z  ,s = F h,s,bot − F d ,s,bot · cos θu − SH B · cos θr + F t ,s,bot · cos θu + F t ,s,si d e (3.19)
n hg e 2
 
1 1
F hg e,z  ,p = −F h,p,bot + F d ,p,bot · cos θu + SH B · cos θr + F t ,p,bot · cos θu + F t ,p,si d e (3.20)
n hg e 2

When the barge is floating in an upright position, the buoyancy each half-hull should be equal to the weight
of it. Besides, since the barge is modelled to be fully symmetric, the forces on each side of the barge should
be in equilibrium as well for the upright situation. As a result, for the upright position only, the hinge forces
in the z’-direction should be equal to zero for that situation.

The model was checked on its reliability by comparing the numerically values of some of the variables ob-
tained with it with those found using hand calculations. A more detailed review of the reliability check of the
described model is given in appendix A. In the next sections the Matlab model is used to simulate the SHB in
the situations of interest for the chapter.
22 Chapter 3: Quasi-static calculations

3.2. The effect of roll

Now that the Matlab model is defined and validated, the hinge and hydraulic cylinder forces can be deter-
mined for the situations of interest. The first effect that is considered in the model is the effect of roll of the
barge on the forces in the hinges and hydraulic cylinders.

The first calculations that are made using the Matlab model concern a closed hopper barge, 3800m 3 , fully
kg
filled with a cargo of density ρ c = 1450 m 3 which is assumed to behave like a fully liquid cargo. For this loading
condition the barge has an initial mean draught of roughly T0 = 5.8m. The simulations are run for roll angles
upto 25 deg. Journee (Journee & Massie, 2001) states that the RMS angle of roll for light working conditions
is not allowed to exceed 6 deg. Therefore, a maximum roll angle of 25 deg seems a reasonable upper limit for
the simulations for now.

3.2.1. Cargo forces

In the model first the cargo forces on the hopper are determined. Figure 3.12 displays the ship bound cargo
forces that act on the hopper walls for both the y’- and z’-direction. Figure 3.13 clarifies the direction in which
the resulting cargo forces work.

Figure 3.12: Cargo forces acting on the hopper walls.

Figure 3.13: Orientation of the cargo forces on the hopper
walls

In the figure it is shown that the cargo forces both in the y’- and z’-direction decrease. Since a liquid cargo
is considered during the simulations, cargo will flow out of the hopper into the sea. As a result the total
amount of cargo that is present in the hopper, decreases for increasing angles of roll. This explains why the
overall weight of the cargo decreases during the simulations. Apart from this, the figure also shows a growing
difference in hopper forces in between the two half-hulls. Since the liquid cargo is able to move freely through
the hopper, one can expect that when the barge rolls, the cargo will flow to the lowest half hull causing a
difference in the cargo forces for both half-hulls.

When the cargo forces in the y’-direction are considered, the tendency of the cargo to move to lower half hull
causes the resulting cargo forces on this half hull to exceed those that act on the upper half hull. Since, again,
cargo is expected to flow out of the hopper as well, a decrease of the sum of the y’-forces can be expected as
well just as it was for the z’- cargo forces as well. This decrease in the overall y’ cargo forces is clearly shown
by the results from the model as well.
3.2. The effect of roll 23

3.2.2. Hydrostatic forces

Next, the hydro-static forces that result from the pressures that load the outer walls of the barge are deter-
mined. The resulting ship-bound forces are shown figure 3.14. Figure 3.15 shows the expected directions of
the forces that result from the hydrostatic excitation of the rolling barge.

Figure 3.14: Hydro-static forces acting on the hopper walls.

Figure 3.15: Orientation of the hydrostatic forces on the hull.

Figure 3.17 shows that in correspondence with the decreasing cargo loads, the hydro-static forces that act on
the barge decrease as well. Due to the loss of cargo, the total weight of the barge will become less, causing the
required displaced volume of the barge to drop as well. As a result the draught of the barge decreases causing
both the hydrostatic pressures acting on the hull in all directions to decrease.

Due to the starboard orientated roll motion, the displaced volume of the starboard side will increase, while
the displaced volume of the port side will decrease. Remember that the changes in displaced volumes for
both the half-hulls are in equilibrium due to the equality of the immersed and emerged wedges of the barge.

Furthermore, the roll motion causes the side walls of the lower half-hull to be submerged further, while the
side walls of the upper half-hull will be lifted out of the water. This change in wall heights is in equilibrium
due to the symmetry of the system. As a result differences in the hydro-static pressures in the y’-direction are
expected, which is shown in the figure.
24 Chapter 3: Quasi-static calculations

3.2.3. Resulting hinge and hydraulic cylinder forces

Using the determined loads that were mentioned, the Matlab model is used to calculate the hinge and hy-
draulic cylinder forces that result from them. For the barge that was described at the start of this section, the
resulting y’ and z’ hinge forces are shown in figures 3.17 and 3.20. The required cylinder forces are shown in
figure 3.16.

First the resulting forces needed in the hydraulic cylinder to keep the barge closed are determined. Figure 3.16
shows that for an increasing angle of roll, the resulting forces in the hydraulic cylinders decrease. Secondly
the graph displays that the forces for the port and starboard side are in equilibrium for the entire range of roll
angles.

When the barge is in a rolling motion, the upper

half-hull is lifted out of the water and starts to lean
on the lower half-hull. This causes both of the half-
hulls to be pushed together due to the upper half-
hull weight that starts to develop a component in
the y’-direction. Besides, since a liquid cargo is con-
cerned, the cargo forces that cause an opening mo-
ment decrease. Lastly, the hydrostatic forces on the
lower half-hull side increase due to the growing wet-
ted surface area on its side wall. As a result, the
forces needed in the hydraulic cylinders to keep the
barge closed decrease.
Figure 3.16: Resulting required cylinder forces.

It was mentioned that the forces for both half-hulls appear to be in equilibrium. This behaviour can be seen
as a requirement of the static model rather than a result from it. The barge in the model is assumed to be
in a static equilibrium, as a result it does not have a velocity or acceleration. This means that the resulting
forces for both half-hulls have to be in equilibrium, otherwise the half-hull with the highest force would push
the other one with a motion as a result. Since the hinges and hydraulic cylinder are the only components
attaching the half-hulls to each other, the equilibrium of forces over them should follow from the exciting
forces that work on them.

Next the hinge forces are considered. For the re-

sulting hinge forces in the y’-direction , figure 3.17
shows that they first increase and later on decrease
again. To describe this behaviour, the combination
of the effects of the exciting loads that are included
in the y’ hinge forces have to be explained. First, the
cargo inside the hopper causes a negative force con-
tribution to the y’ hinge forces. Due to the outflow
of cargo, the cargo height in the hopper decreases
causing the y’ cargo forces to decrease for an in-
creasing roll angle. As a result, when only the effect
of the cargo is considered, the hinge forces would
Figure 3.17: Resulting hinge forces (y’-direction). increase.

Next there are the hydrostatic loads on the outer walls of the barge, which have a positive contribution to the
hinge forces. When the weight of the cargo becomes lower due to outflow, the draught of the barge decreases
causing the hydrostatic forces to decrease as well. However, due to the angle of roll, the wetted surfaces of
the lower half-hull will increase and that of the upper half-hull will decrease. The combined effect of the
decreasing draught and the effect due to the roll angle causes the hydro-static forces on the lower half-hull to
increase, while the hydrostatic forces on the upper half-hull decrease.
3.2. The effect of roll 25

Due to the angle of roll, the required hydraulic cylinder forces decrease. The cylinder force that is included in
the calculation of the hinge force however stays constant since this is the pre-tension in the cylinder. Since the
bottom chock forces are dependent on the surplus cylinder force that is put on the barge over the required
cylinder force, they increase when the required cylinder force decreases. Due to the negative effect of the
bottom chock forces on the hinge reactions, these will decrease.

Finally , for an increasing angle of roll the y’- component of the SHB empty-weight starts to increase. The
weight effect on the hinge force in the y’-direction is positive for the upper half-hull and negative for the
lower half-hull.

When all the mentioned effects are combined, the effect captured in figure 3.17 is the result. Figures 3.18 and
3.19 display the described components for both of the half-hulls. The forces that are shown in the figure are
the combined force contributions of the hydrostatic, cargo, weight, cylinder and bottom chock forces. For
example, F d is the combined force that results from the cargo pressures on both the bottom and side walls of
the hopper in the y’- hinge direction.

Note how the pre-tension in the hydraulic cylinder forces influences the found forces. When the pre-tension
in the hydraulic cylinders would be disregarded, the resulting hinge forces in the y’-direction would turn out
to be much lower.

Figure 3.18: Hinge force components on the starboard side (y’- Figure 3.19: Hinge force components on the portside (y’-direction)
direction)

The last results from the Matlab calculations are those giving the resulting z’ hinge forces of the SHB model.
Note that, just as for the other resulting forces, for the z’ hinge forces the condition of equality for both half-
hulls is met again.

The resulting z’ hinge forces increase for an increas-

ing angle of roll. Due to the increasing angle of roll,
the upper half-hull of the barge is lifted out of the
water, causing the hydrostatic contribution to the z’
hinge force for the upper half-hull to decrease. Ac-
cording to the relation for the z’ hinge force given
in formula 3.20, this causes the z’ hinge force of the
upper half-hull to decrease.

From the mentioned behaviour, it can be argued

that in fact the weight of the upper half-hull has to
be supported by buoyancy that is generated with the
lower half-hull. Since the hinge is the only connec-
tion between the two half-hulls that can account for
Figure 3.20: Resulting hinge forces (z’-direction). the z’-force, the z’-hinge force increases.
26 Chapter 3: Quasi-static calculations

3.2.4. Conclusions on the effect of roll

When the roll angle of the barge grows, the hydraulic cylinder forces decrease. Again, since the upper half-
hull is lifted out of the water, its weight causes a closing moment around the hinge arrangement. Together
with the decreasing moment due to the cargo and the increasing hydrostatic moment that acts on the lower
half-hull, the force required in the cylinders to keep the barge closed decreases. The highest response for the
hydraulic cylinders is therefore found for the situation in which the barge is in a perfect upright position, so
when the weight of the half-hull does not cause an additional added moment to the moment equilibrium.

The hydraulic cylinders that are installed on the split hopper barge in this model, prove to have a capacity that
exceeds the required force that is needed . Due to this over capacity, the hydraulic cylinders pull the half-hulls
together with a certain pre-tension. This tension causes a force in the bottom chocks for the closed condition
only, i.e. the half-hulls are pulled together. The combined effect of the hydraulic cylinder force and that of
the force in the bottom chocks dominates the response that is found for the hinge forces in the y’-direction.
Under influence of the forces in the cylinders and bottom chocks, the hinge force in the y’-direction increases
slightly for an increasing angle of roll.

The z’ hinge forces increase when the SHB is rolling . This can be explained best by the added weight that has
to be supported by the lower half-hull when the upper half-hull is lifted out of the water due to the increasing
angle of roll. As a result, the weight of the upper half-hull has to be supported by the hinges, causing an
increase in the ship bound z’-forces.