Guidelines for the Dimensions and Design of Waterways

Guidelines for

the dimensions and design

of waterways

for commercial traffic and leisure craft

WATERWAY MANAGERS COMMISSION

CC W

wa terwa y guidelines

June 1996

june 1996

Publication: Waterway Managers Commission (CVB)

Compilation: Waterway Managers Commission (CVB)

Editors: R.J. Dijkstra, M.Sc. Civil Engineering (Delft)

Maps: Directorate-Genera1 for Public Works and Water Management Transport Research Centre (AVV)

Translation: Hook and Hatton LTD, Technical Translators Northampton, England

Information: Directorate-Genera1 for Public Works and Water Management Transport Research Centre (AW) Shipping Division P.O. Box 1031 3000 BA Rotterdam Telephone: +31 10 282 5823 Fax: +31 10 282 5645

wa terwa y guidelines june 1996

Genera1

CONTENTS

FORElWORD

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL page

Chapter 1 Summary of contents and use of the guidelines

Chapter 2 Vessel and waterway 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Design standard vessels 2.2.1 Design standard commercial vessels 2.2.2 Design standard dimensions for leisure craft 2.2.3 Combination of commercial and leisure craft 2.3 Traffic constraints 2.3.1 Waterway compartments 2.3.2 Locks 2.3.3 Bridges 2.4 Hydraulic constraints 2.5 Wind 2.6 Environmental constraints

WATERWAY COMPARTMENTS

Chapter 3 Dimensions of waterway compartments 3-1

3.1 Introduction 3-1

3.2 Waterway compartments for commercial craft 3-1

3.2.1 Introduction 3-1

3.2.2 Straight waterway compartments 3-1 3.2.3 Bends 3-6

3.2.4 Wharves 3-8 3.2.5 Junction with side docks 3-9

3.2.6 Bifurcation points and crossings 3-9 3.2.7 Tuming basins 3-10

3.3 Waterway compartments for leisure craft 3-11 3.3.1 Introduction 3-11

3.3.2 Straight waterway compartments 3-11

3.3.3 Bends 3-12

3.3.4 Bifurcation points and crossings 3-13

3.4 Waterway compartments for mixed traffic 3-13

1-1

2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-6 2-7 2-7 2-7

2-11 2-13 2-15 2-18 2-20

waterway guidelines june 1996

LOCKS

Chapter 4 Dimensions of Locks 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Locks for commercial navigation 4-1 4.2.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2.2 Dimensions 4-2

4.2.3 Layout 4-3 4.2.4 Lock approaches 4-6 4.3 Locks for leisure craft 4-15 4.3.1 Introduction 4-15 4.3.2 Dimensions 4-15 4.3.3 Layout of yacht lock 4-16 4.3.4 Yacht lock approach 4-17 4.4 Mixed traffic locks 4-18 4.4.1 Introduction 4-18 4.4.2 Dimensions 4-18 4.4.3 Layout of mixed traffic lock 4-18 4.4.4 Approaches to mixed traffrc locks 4-19 4.5 Guard locks 4-22 4.5.1 Introduction 4-22 4.5.2 Situation 4-22 4.5.3 Dimensions 4-23 4.5.4 Equipment 4-24

BRIDGES

Chapter 5 Dimensions of bridges 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Bridges over commercial waterways 5-1 5.2.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2.2 Navigable profile 5-2 5.2.3 Situation in bends 5-6 5.2.4 Skew crossings over a waterway 5-6 5.2.5 Distance between bridges 5-7 5.2.6 Lay-bys 5-8 5.2.7 Fender walls and guide walls 5-10 5.3 Bridges over cruising waterways 5-11 5.3.1 Introduction 5-11 5.3.2 Navigable profile 5-12 5.3.3 Lay-bys, fender walls and guide walls 5-14 5.4 Bridges over mixed traffrc waterways 5-15 5.5 Bridges over locks 5-15

wa terwa y guidelnes june 1996

MANAGEMENT ASPECTS

Chapter 6 Management Aspects 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 Zone along the waterway 6-2 6.3 Space above the waterway 6-5 6.4 Space under the waterway 6-8 6.5 Water leve1 6-8 6.6 Longitudinal and cross flow 6-9 6.7 Lighting 6-9 6.7.1 Locks 6-9 6.7.2 Bridges 6-13 6.8 Small-scale boating 6-15 6.9 Functional quality 6-16

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Literature

Appendix 2 Terms and symbols


FOREWORD

My predecessor, Mr. J.W. Tops, set up the Waterway Managers Commission (CVB) after consultation with the heads of the Provincial Water Management Departments.

The Commissions task was initially limited to dimensioning the smaller waterways, but has gradually expanded to include al1 navigational aspects of waterway design and the operation of structures. In addition, on the initiative of the Commission, agreement has been reached on a fresh harmonisation of the international rules for navigation Channel dimensions for both inland and coastal shipping throughout Europe. The latter standardisation is of vita1 importante for the position of the Netherlands as a centre of international transport.

In drawing up the rules, the CVB has always aimed at a high leve1 of precision by drawing on the knowledge of many experts. Moreover, the major@ of the CVB guidelines have already been in use for some years, so that the value of the CVB rules for the safe and smooth movement of traffrc has already been proved in practice.

Now that the Commission has completed its task, 1 would like to express my great admiration for what has been achieved. The people who served on the Commission or the different working parties can be proud of their work. They have produced a final report that wil1 determine the design of the Netherlands waterway network during the years to come.

It is therefore with much appreciation and pleasure that 1 approve the CVB rules.

G. Blom M.Sc. Directer-Genera1 for Public Works and Water Management


INTRODUCTION

l Task

The Directer-Genera1 for Public Works and Water Management set up the Waterway Managers Commission (CVB) after consultation with the heads of the Provincial Water Management Departments. The original purpose of this Commission was to draw up guidelines for the dimensions and design of the smaller waterways (Classes 1 to 111 of the CEMT classification).

0 First Netherlands stanabrdisation

Europe possesses an extensive inland waterways network. From early days the backbone of this network has been formed by a number of rivers which have been linked by canals in the course of time. The dimensions of these links and of the vessels which use the network vary widely. It is vital for the development of waterway traffic that the dimencions of the different waterways and of the vessels which determine those dimensions should be properly related to each other. This requires standardisation of the dimensions both of waterways and of shipping. The frst step towards a certain measure of local standardisation was taken with the construction of the local canal systems at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It subsequently took a considerable time, however, before the adoption of a more structural regional approach. This found expression in the Netherlands in the recommendations for the dimensions of the waterways in the west of the country (Ringers Commission*) and for the waterways in the north of the country in 1949 (Klappert Commission3).

0 First internutional stanabrdisation

As long-distance trafftc increased the need for an international waterway standardisation grew. This resulted after the Second World War in the CEMT accepting a classification system in 1954 and 1961 in which the waterways were divided into five classes according to their dimensions. The basis of this system was the dimensions of the five standard types of vessel which were in common use in Western Europe at that time. The class to which a waterway belonged was made dependent on the largest standardised type of craft that could use the waterway. The five standard vessel types are given in Tablel.

1 CEMT = Conference Europenne des Ministres des Transports

2 Verslag van de commissie van ingenieurs van den Rijkswaterstaat en van den Provincialen Waterstaat van Noord- Holland, van Zuid-Holland en van Utrecht, onder leiding van den DirecteurGeneraal van den Rijkswaterstaat inzake: Normalisatie van de Nederlandsche vaarwegen in het algemeen en van die in de Hollandsche laagvlakte in het bijzonder, Algemene landsdrukkerij, The Hague, 1932

3 Rapport Commissie Vaarwegen Noorden des Lands, Staatsdrukkerij, The Hague, 1950


2

Class of waterway (CEMT)

1

II m Iv V

General designatlon

French canal barge (peniche) Campine Dortmund-Ems Canal type Rhine-Heme Canal type Large Rhme barges

Length Beam Draught Headroom

(ml (4 OM (m)

38.5 5.0 2.2 3.55 50.0 6.6 2.5 4.20 67.0 8.2 2.5 3.95 80.0 9.5 2.5 4.40 95.0 ll.5 2.7 6.70

Characteristlc tonnage (tonnes)

300 600 1000 1350 2000

Table 1 CEMT classification of 1954

The Class IV waterway was recommended by the CEMT as the design standard waterway for intemational transport. The CEMT also drew up guidelines for the dimensions to which the canals, locks and bridges of this class of waterway had to conform. Similar detailed guidelines were not laid down for the other waterway classes. It was also observed during the 1961 conference that economies of scale in shipping would necessitate the addition of a Class VI to the classification system, but no detailed agreements were reached on the standard dimensions of the vessels using this class of waterway. This Class VI was later interpreted as a waterway that was suitable for pushtows with four barges.

During the period between 1958 and 1969 not only the CEMT, but also the United Nations Economie Commission for Europe (ECE) drew up a classification system. An advantage of this system was that it also included al1 the Eastem European countries. A problem in drawing up the ECE classification was that the dimensions of the East and West European waterways varied considerably, especially in depth. The Western European vessels required a greater depth than was available on most of the East European waterways. In order to circumvent this difficulty, the ECE classification was based solely on the maximum carrying capacity of vessels able to navigate a waterway and not on standardised vessel dimensions. As a result, this classification system could not be used for its primary purpose, i.e. to determine whether a particular waterway could be used by a particular vessel. The ECE classification was therefore not applied in Western Europe in practice.

l Commencement of the CVB activities

The occasion for setting up the CVB was the Vaarwegennota (Waterways Policy Report), which had been published in draft in 1975. The report noted (partly incorrectly, as it later appeared) that good design standards were already in existente for the larger waterways, but were lacking for the smaller waterways. The CVB commenced its activities in 1977, taking as its starting point the CEMT classification of 1954, to which a Class 0 had meanwhile been added in the Netherlands for the very smallest waterways and a Class VI for the waterways able to accommodate four-barge pushtows.

The Commission began its work with an inventorisation of the dimensions of the existing fleet of Dutch inland waterway vessels. The survey showed that the fleet had further developed since the publication of the CEMT guidelines. The standard beam dimensions had been maintained, but the length and draught had been considerably increased over the course of time. Moreover, the air draught of the Dutch vessels was traditionally higher than that given in the CEMT guidelines. Adherente to the CEMT classification as it stood would have meant that new infrastructure such as canals, locks and bridges would have been difficult to navigate or even unnegotiable by a great many of the vessels belonging to that class. On the other hand, the Commission did not wish to abandon


3

intemational standardisation. This is why the Commission decided to choose the following approach, which makes a distinction between two concepts, i.e. 1. The design standard types of vessel in conformity with the CEMT classification: the

dimensions of these design standard types form the lower limit for plating a waterway in a particular standard intemational class.

2. The design standard vessel dimensions as laid down on the advice of the CVB: these standard dimensions form the reference point for the construction or improvement of waterways or waterway infrastructure.

Table 2 lists the design standard vessel dimensions which have now been adopted in the Netherlands.

CEMT Class

Type of vessel Length Beam Draught T (m)

L ON B (4 Laden Waden

Air draught*

H (m)

Sailing yacht 12 4.0 - 1.9 12.0

Motor yacht 15 4.3 - 1.5 3.4

1 French canal barge 39 5.1 2.2 1.2 5.0

11 Campine 55 6.6 2.5 1.4 6.0

0-W Hagenaar 56 or 67 7.2 2.5 1.4 6.3

111 Dortmund-Ems Canal type 67 or 80 8.2 2.5 1.5 6.3

Iv Bhine-Hemekanal type 85 9.5 2.8 1.6 6.7

Va Large Bhine barges 110 ll.4 3.5 1.8 6.7/8.8**

vb Two barge pushtow 186.5 11.4 4.0 1.8

L 8.8

* Bridge height = air draught + 0.30 m ** 6.7 m is for waterways with little container traffc, 3 layers of containers; and also high enough for 70% of unladen

vessels. 8.8 m is for watenvays with a lot (c. 10,000 TEU) of container traftc, 4 layers of containers; and also high enough

for 90-9596 of unladen vessels.

(BA) Apply mis class only to reconstructed watenvays

Table 2 Design standard vessel dimensions adopted on the advice of the CVB

l Guidelines for Class N waterways

It was found some time after the CVB began its activities that far more restricted dimensions could be applied to Class 1, 11 and 111 waterways than might be expected from the CEMT guidelines. In addition, there were also to be found in the Netherlands a large number of Class IV waterways which

4 When the design standard vessel dimensions were established there was found to be a considerable number of vessels in the Netherlands with a beam of 7.20 m and a length of 56 or 67 m. These vessels were also very common on Class 11 waterways. Since these vessels were more economical in terms of transport costs than the Campine barge, it was decided at the time to introduce this intermediate class. A comparable situation also existed in Belgium.

waterwa y guidelines june 1996

4

were smaller than prescribed by the CEMT guidelines, but which nevertheless served wel1 in practice. The CEMT guidelines were therefore too generous. This led the Commission to include the Class IV waterways in its study and to draw up guidelines for the dimensions of these waterways as well.

0 Summary of al1 the CYB guidelines and recommendations

Once the CVB had been established, it seemed efficient to charge the Commission with other tasks in the shipping field which required harmonisation between the centra1 and provincial govemments. This ultimately resulted in the CVB drawing up the following guidelines and recommendations:

Guidelines for the dimensions and design of fixed and moving bridges over waterways in CEMT Classes 1 to IV Guidelines for the dimensions and design of Recommendations for the design of waterway banks Guidelines for the dimensions and design of waterways and bridges for boating Guidelines and recommendations for the dimensions, design and equipping of locks in CEMT Classes 1 to IV Guidelines for the dimensions and design of CEMT Class V waterways Guideline for the operating times of structures Guidelines for the operation of bridges Guidelines for the operation of locks Reconnaissance phase of automatically operated bridges

After the publication of the first CVB report with recommendations on the design of bank protection for waterways, it appeared more efficient to transfer activities in this area to the CUR. The result of this was that the whole coordination of recommendations for bank protection is now the responsibility of a single organisation. Building on the work of the CVB, the CUR has since issued several further reports .

Now that the CVB has completed its work, it is inconvenient to allow al1 the CVB reports to continue to exist separately. The present report therefore includes al1 the CVB rules for the dimensions, design and equipping of waterways and structures, together with the operation of structures. In addition, al1 the rules have been tested once more for their effectiveness and have been slimmed down, while a fresh harmonisation with the current European guidelines has been carried out.

27s means that the whole of the previous regulations have lapsed with the publication of this jinal report.

l Approval procedure and status of the rules

In drawing up the rules the CVB always aimed at a high leve1 of accuracy and adopted the following procedure to this end. A working party was always formed at the start of each new project. Such a working party consisted of a number of managers of national and provincial waterways, together with experts in the theoretical aspects of the field concemed, supplemented where necessary with experts in the practica1 aspects of inland shipping or pleasure boating. These working parties carried out their

5 CUR = Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en Regelgeving (Centre for Canying out Civil Engineering Research and Drawing up Rules)


5

work in close cooperation with the Commission. The final reports of the various working parties were always assessed and approved by the Commission and subsequently used as a basis for draft rules. The rules were then tried out in practice for some time in order to see how wel1 they functioned. The draft rules were also sent for comment to the heads of the Provincial Water Management Departments, al1 the directorates and divisions of the Directorate-Genera1 for Public Works and Water Management, KSV Schuttevaer (association to protect the interests of barge masters), ANWB (Royal Dutch Touring Club) and KNWV (Royal Dutch Watersport Association) and discussed within the management departments concemed. After incorporation of the comments the rules were fnally confirmed by the Directer-General for Public Works and Water Management. Although this procedure was time-consuming, it did guarantee that any shortcomings could be rectified at an early stage. Long experience has now been gained with the greater part of the rules.

The CVB has always made a sharp distinction between three types of rules. In order of importante these are: standards, guidelines and recommendations.

Standards are basic magnitudes which may not be departed from, as otherwise the whole basis of the standardisation falls away. An example are the design standard vessel dimensions. Guidelines are rules which ought to be followed in principle. They provide a pointer for the most appropriate dimensions from the navigational point of view. Failure to follow these rules may result in a risk to natigation or hinder the smooth flow of traffic. The rules may be departed from in very special circumstances, provided further investigation has shown that this is indeed the right thing to do. Recommendations are genera1 indications for the further equipping of the waterway and its environs. They are generally related to the local situation and are not binding in character.

In drawing up the rules, the CVB has always operated on the principle that they are not binding, so that every manager is free to depart from them. %e rules are therejore not binding in the sense that rights can be derivedfrom them by thirdparties.

l New CEMT and ECE classifkation

It became clear in the early 1980s that economies of scale in shipping were beginning to assume such a form that the CEMT classifcation was rapidly becoming obsolescent. The CEMT guidelines in fact contained four serious shortcomings at that time:

The CEMT classification made no provision for pushtows. The recommended bridge heights made no allowance for the passage of container craft. The Class IV waterway was recommended as the standard for intemational waterways, while al1 new intemational waterways at that time were being made suitable for at least two barge pushtows. The divergent lengths of smal1 and medium-sized motor vessels had not been incorporated into the CEMT guidelines.

In order to change this situation a resolution proposed by the Netherlands to replace the CEMT guidelines was accepted at the PIANC Conference6 in Brussels in 1985. A similar proposal was made by Czechoslovakia to the ECE at the same time. Since then, PIANC has taken the lead in amending the classification. This resulted in 1992 in amendments to the CEMT and ECE classifications, resulting in the complete harmonisation of the two systems. The new classification is given in Table3.

6 PIANC = Permanent International Organisation of Navigation Congresses


6

Type der voirer na", ables

Type 0 P inland wateways

Table 3

vb 1

Vl1 95.110 22 80 2.50-4.50 3200.5000 7.00 e

Er

Ylb 140 15 02 390 1.95.15?j 22.90 2.50.4.50 HOO- 700 +33 l2ooo

i%

IIC 270.280 22 80 2 50.4 50 9mo. 193.200

9.10 - 18000

2.50.4 50 9600.

EB

z rn. 18OW

III ai 2 50-4.50 9.10

CEMT classifcation of 1992

Pushtows, container vessels and non-standard lengths of smal1 and medium-sized motor vessels have now been incorporated into the classification, while a solution bas also been found for the non- standard dimensions of the smal1 East European waterways. The Class IV waterway is now being recommended by both organisations as the minimum standard for intemational communications. A Class Va waterway is the preferred standard for modemisation, while a Class Vb waterway which can accommodate twin barge pushtows is the recommended standard for new waterways.

A second PIANC initiative was to agree on a standardisation of the dimensions of inland waterways which can also accommodate coastal vessels. This led in 1996 to recommendations for the dimensions of new waterways used by coastal shipping. This new standardisation has been harmonised with that for inland shipping and is given in Table 4. These recommendations are expected to be adopted shortly both by CEMT and the ECE.

The final result of al1 these activities is that we now possess in the Netherlands a system of rules that has served as a model for the European classifcation and that has been fully harmonised with the European rules.


RK3 +) class

maximum perrmssible dlmenstons of vessels

length (m) beam (ml draught (m)

minimum brtdge clearance

(m)

1 90 2 135 3 135

*) RB = River/Sea vessel

13.0 16.0 22.8

3.5 or 4.5 7.0 or 9.1 3.5 or 4.5 29.1

4.5 1.9.1

Table 4 Recommendation for the dimensions of new waterways used by coastal shipping

l Cruising

In contrast to commercial shipping, no classification existed for cruising. The CVB therefore developed principles to serve as a basis for a classification based on the type of cruising waterway, in which clearance height is an important factor. A distinction was made between waterways on which motor boats determine the standard (M routes) and waterways for use by both motor boats and sailing boats (SM routes). In addition, two classes have been included for barge yachts. The classifcation for cruising is given in Table 5.

Watenvay Type of cruising route Class in class BRTN 1990

SM1 + Ml * routes in local water sport districts and small-scale routes

SM2+M2 * routes for mainly local traffic DZM + DM * routes via sheltered inland waterways where a Class 3 route is available as an ahemative for through navigation or for the main network * routes for motor boa& where many bridges with a clearance of 2.5 m have aheady been provided

SM3 + M3 * routes via sheltered inland waterways where no ahematives of ths class are CZM + CM available for through traffc + * routes for motor boats where many bridges with a cleamnce of 3.0 m have BZM + BM aheady been provided

SM4 + M4 * routes on or directly connected to large water areas: Delta region, Lake AZM+AM IJsseVLake Marken and Wadden Sea

cruising traffic

l BYl I * route for barge yachts, excluding the largest craft, via sheltered inhmd watenvays l BZM l I BY2 I* route for al1 categories of barge yachts on or directly connected to large water 1 DZM +DM 1 I I areas I I

barge yachts

Table 5 Classifcation for cruising traffic

7 The barge yachts consist of former commercial craft fitted with sails. These vessels have now generally been tted out as charter ships.


8

Routes following sheltered inland waterways are in principle Class 2, but there must be at least one Class 3 waterway between two cruising zones for through traffic.

The principles drawn up by the CVB as a basis for cruising waterway guidelines also served as a basis for the Policy Vision for Cruising in the Netherlands (BRTN 1990). BRTN 1990 established the Dutch main cruising network with the desired classification for each waterway. The BRTN guidelines and the CVB guidelines are mutually comparable because the boat dimensions have been harmonised with each other.

The BRTN guidelines enable the manager to establish the CVB class for the waterways which form part of the main cruising network. A link has been established for this in Table 5. For waterways not forming part of the main cruising network the managers must first draw up their own classifcation based on the classification in Table 5 before the guidelines for dimensions can be applied. When he establishes the class the manager has the option of plating a waterway in a lower class if the local circumstances, such as the existing depth, justify this, but he must take into account the desired opportunities for opening up the waterway network for boating use.

Combined commercial and cruising traDc

For waterways which carry both commercial and cruising traffic the choices of class for commercial and cruising trafftc are made independently of each other. If there are altemative or parallel routes for cruising traffic, which cannot be used by commercial craft, it may be important to keep these up to standard in order to separate leisure traffic from busy commercial trafftc on safety grounds.

Future areas of attention

The rules have now been so far completed that it is not desirable to maintain such a large organisation as the CVB any longer. Nevertheless, developments are in progress in a number of fields which may necessitate amendment of the rules in the future. The following may be mentioned as areas for future attention:

simplification of the equipping of lock approaches as a result of an increase in the number of craft fitted with a bow propeller, provision of lay-bys near bridges in the light of the reduced use of these lay-bys now that a growing number of crafi are fitted with a bow propeller,

Future procedure for amending the regulations

After the abolition of the CVB, tasks like those performed by the CVB wil1 be taken over as follows:

The Directorate-Genera1 for Public Works and Water Managements Transport Research Centre (AW) wil1 have the task of monitoring the implementation of the guidelines and warning when they need to be amended. The initiative for this may also be taken by any centra1 or provincial govemment manager. The work of amending the guidelines is performed under the supervision of the AW, which may be assisted in each field by a working party with sufficient practica1 experience.

wa terwa y guideines june 1996

9

The composition of the working party is determined in joint consultation between the centra1 and provincial governments. Proposals for amending the guidelines are dealt with jointly by the centra1 government and provincial managers or by the Shipping Consultative Group and the Inter-Provincial Consultative Body (IPO) for waterways. Decisions to amend the guidelines are taken by the Directer-Genera1 for Public Works and Water Management, which also confirms the guidelines after hearing al1 the centra1 govemment and provincial managers.

Dr. R. Filarski M.Sc. Chairman of the Waterway Managers Commission (CVB) Rotterdam, June 1996

In October 1998, a new text of chapter 4 on locks was released by the Transport Research Centre of Rijkswaterstaat. This text deals with the first point of Future areas of attention on page 9. At the same time it was decided not to publish a new text for lay-bys near bridges, as there would be little if any profit.

Ir. J.U. Brolsma Transport Research Centre Rotterdam, October 1998

Composition of the Waterway Managers Commission (CVB)

Dr. R. Fihdi M.SC. (chaiman)

E.J. van der Kaa M.Sc.

A.J. Veraart M.Sc.

G. Verdoorn, ing. A.P. Wiersma, M.Sc. R.J. Dijkstra, M.Sc. (kcretary)

Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, Transport Research Centre Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, IJsselmeer District Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, General Management Province of Friesland Province of Overijssel Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, Transport Research Centre

waferway guidehes october 1998

l Former members of the Watenvay Managers Commission (CVB)

J.W. Aarents, M.Sc. Province of Groningen (from 18 November 1988 to 27 April 1990) J. Bovenberg, M.Sc. Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, (from 27 august 1982 to august 1985) General Management I.A.A. ten Broeke, M.Sc. Directorate-General for Pnblic Works and Water Management, (Secretaty from 1 October 1987 w 27 August 1991) Traffic Engineering Division P. Hellinga, M.Sc. (from 25 September 1987 to 18 November 1988) E. van Hijum, M.Sc. (from 25 September 1987 to 2 March 1989) J.G. Hillen, M.Sc. (from 1 October 1987 to 1 October 1992) W.A. Himmelreich (fmm 11 August 1977 to 1 Aprd 1984) A. Hoogduin, M.Sc. (Secretaty from 11 August 1977 to 1 Apnl 1985) C. Kooman, M.Sc. (Chairman from 11 August 1977 to 1 May 1979) J.K. Korf, M.Sc. (fmm 11 August 1977 to 27 April 1990) H.A. Nuhoff, M.Sc. (fmm August 1985 to 1 October 1987) J. de Ridder, M.Sc. (fmm 27 April 1990 to 2 Match 1993) J. Schalkoort

Province of Zuid-Holland

Province of Friesland

Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, General Management Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, Noord Holland District Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, Traffic Engineering Division Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, Traffic Engineering Division Province of Friesland

Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, General Management Province of Zuid-Holland

(fmm 1 April 1984 to 1 June 1987) J.E. Schermer, M.Sc. (Secretary from 27 August 1991 to 1 Dec 1993) F.J.U. van Slooten, M.Sc. (fmm 27 April 1990 to 7 November 1990) J. Stolk, M.Sc. (fmm 11 August 1977 ass. Sec. to 1 August 1983) J.C. Teekens, M.Sc.

Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, Noord-Holland District Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, Traffc Engineering Division Province of Groningen

Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, Traffc Engineering Division Province of Zuid-Holland

(from 11 August 1977 to 1 December 1982; in a personal capacity fmm 1 January 1980) N.W. Tromp, M.Sc. Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, (fmm 11 August 1977 to 19 June 1986) Overijssel District C.J. van Veelen, M.Sc. Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, (fmm 19 March 1986 to 23 June 1993) Limburg District J. Verkade, M.Sc. Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, (Secretary fmm 1 April 1985 to 1 October 1987) TrafBc Engineering Division G. de Vries, M.Sc. Province of Noord-Holland (fmm 22 July 1980 to 7 November 1990) M. de Water, M.Sc. Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, (from 31 May 1979 to 27 August 1982) General Management

waterwa y guidelines june 1996

1-1

1 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS AND USE OF THE GUIDELINES

The chapters in these guidelines have been grouped into five parts:

General: Chapters 1 and 2. Waterway compartments: Chapter 3. Locks: Chapter 4. Bridges: Chapter 5. Management aspects: Chapter 6.

Chapter 2 describes the constraints imposed by the vessel, the requirements of navigation, the water and the enviromnent, on the basis of which the appropriate shape and dimensions of the wetted section can be derived to ensure smooth and safe navigation on the designated part of a waterway.

The dimensions of the waterway compartments and the structures based on these constraints are set out in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. The rules are intended for application to new construction and reconstruction. The guidelines for waterway compartments do not necessarily apply to lock approaches .

Besides the constraints which directly affect the dimensions of the wetted section, there are a number of aspects which affect, or must be taken into account in connection with, the management of the wetted and dry section needed for navigation and a smooth and safe use of the waterway. These management aspects are described in Chapter 6, which also describes how the dimensioning rules can be used to test the existing infrastructure.

In the interests of user-friendliness, the text in these guidelines has been limited to simple rules for the dimensions, form and accessibility of the waterway network. Where further advice and research are desirable, this is indicated; the Shipping Division of the Transport Research Centre (AW), of the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management in Rotterdam can offer guidance here.

The CVB has produced a large number of reports containing the underlying principles and further background information about the rules. These reports are obtainable from the AW on request. Appendix 1 indicates which are the relevant reports for each chapter and section. and lists other relevant literature. In the text itself bibliographical references are given only by exception.

The terms and symbols are explained in Appendix 2.


2-1

2 VESSEL AND WATERWAY

2.1 Introduction

The following data are necessary for determining the form and dimensions of waterway compartments and structures:

the design standard vessels (Section 2.2); the traffic constraints affecting navigation (Section 2.3); the hydraulic constraints (Section 2.4); the wind constraints (Section 2.5); the environmental constraints (Section 2.6).

The waterway manager is responsible for ensuring that the traffic on the waterway moves smoothly and safely. As the controller of a lock or moving bridge, he is also responsible for the controlling the road traffic using the lock or bridge.

The present guideline allots a global economie significante to this constraint in determining the rules: trafftc should flow safely and smoothly, but not at any price. The measures to be taken must always be weighed up in a policy analysis study.

2.2 Design standard vessels

2.2.1 Design standard commercial vesseis

When a vessel is described as design standard in relation to waterway dimensions, this is primarily on the grounds of its dimensions and the frequency of its occurrence in the fleet. In addition, wind sensitivity and tbe presence of bow propellers are also relevant to the required waterway dirnensions. The following wil1 be dealt with in turn:

the fleet to be accommodated, the choice of horizontal vessel dimensions, the choice of air draught, the choice of draught, manoeuvrability, the Community Certifcate, visibility, other waterway users, the result, summarised in Table 2.2.1.1.

n nte fleet to be accommodated

The composition of the present Dutch fleet has been taken as a basis. The following sources were

water wa y guidelines june 1996

2-2

consulted for the fleet data:

CRR (Centra1 Register of Inland Vessels); IVR (Register of Rhine Vessels, 1986); Pushtow Survey 1986.

In addition, expected future developments have been anticipated. Classes 1, 11 and 111 have declined greatly in importante; the number of smal1 vessels has steadily declined, a development which has been further strengthened by the European Scrapping Regulations.

n le choice of horizontal vessel dimensions

Classes 1 to IV consist solely of motor vessels. Those vessels which occur relatively frequently in the classification have been chosen as design standard vessels. 1 or 2 lengths were found to predominate among the clearly defmed beam classes, so that it was possible to define a single design standard vessel for each class of waterway. Table 2.2.1.1 gives a summary of the situation. The analysis showed that there was a considerable number of vessels which formed an intermediate class between the Campine barge and the Dortmund barge. In the Netherlands there is a number of waterways which are navigable for these vessels, but not for Dortmund barges, while the transport costs are lower for these vessels than for the Campine barges. This led to the introduction of a new Class IIA: the Hague barge. Class V includes the following types of vessels:

motor vessels , single barge pushtows, powered barge coupled to an unpowered barge, two-barge pushtows, motor vessel pushing a single barge, low profile coasters tugs.

In conformity with the new CEMT classification of 1992, the standard values for Class V motor vessels and single barge pushtows are ll.4 x 110.00 m x m.

This is the guideline for Class Va. For motor vessels no distinction is made between ordinary cargo vessels and container vessels as far as dimensions are concerned. Single barge pushtows (often a Europa 11 barge) generally fit wel1 within these dimensions.

Combinations of a powered and unpowered barge are not regarded as design standard vessels for waterway dimensions on the premise that the manoeuvrability of permitted combinations is no worse than that of the design standard motor vessels and pushtows.

Long formations with two-barge pushtows (Europa 11) are 185 m long; a powered push-barge with a single unpowered barge is very slightly longer: 186.50 m. The latter has become the length standard for Class Vb; the beam standard remains the same as for Class Va.

It follows from the above that the dimensions for two abreast pushtows are 22.80 x 110.00 m x m. This broad formation is not regarded as design standard, as it is rarely found on Class V waterways because it occupies too great a width.

wafarway guidalines june 1996

2-3

Coasters with a minimum air draught are regarded as ordinary Class V vessels if they correspond to them in dimensions, manoeuvrability and equipment. If not, an individual admission policy wil1 have to be applied.

The manoeuvrability of tugs differs so greatly from that of motor vessels that they should really fa11 automatically under the individual adrnission policy. This type seldom occurs today and is not considered further in these guidelines.

n The choice of air draught

With Classes 1 to IV, the height which is exceeded by 10% of the vessels in a certain beam category has been chosen as the standard height.

For Class V the choke is less simple. For most vessels the height of the wheelhouse is the determining factor. Wheelhouses are regularly rebuilt and made collapsible. Heights vary widely for vessels carrying containers, depending upon the number of layers of containers, the degree of loading and the height of the containers, and whether or not ballast water has been taken on board. The air draught has been determined for Class V by reference to the CEMT guidelines of 1992 for the headroom under a bridge (see Table 1.1.1). The design standard vessel heights given in Table 2.2.1.1 were determined from these guidelines, allowing for a safety margin of 0.3 m.

n Re choice of draught

In contrast to the length, beam and air draught of a vessel, the draught is less important in determining the accessibility of a waterway for that vessel, since the draught can be varied according to the quantity of cargo taken on board. In the light of this, the standard draught of the laden vessels is determined in a more global marmer.

The starting point is that 50% of the design standard vessels (the media@ built after 1945 must be able to use the waterway without a limitation on draught. This was based on the following arguments:

A relatively large number of design standard vessels were found to have a maximum draught around the median. Laden vessels by no means always sail fully laden. There are tbree reasons for this:

draught restrictions on waterways elsewhere; the transport of goods with a low weight by volume; the size of consignment which is sometimes less than the vessels carrying capacity.

The criterion of 50% of vessels exceeding the draught applies to design standard vessels of a particular class. Vessels of a lower class wil1 therefore be less affected by draught restrictions in those cases or not at all.

The CEMT guidelines of 1992 have been adhered to as far as possible (Table 1.1.1).


------

2-4

CEMT class

Type of vessel Length Beam

L (m) B (ml

Draught T (m) Air draught

Laden Unladen H (ml

1 Pniche 39 5.1 2.2 1.2 5.0

11 Campine barge 55 6.6 2.5 1.4 6.0

(IIA) Hague barge 56 or 67 7.2 2.5 1.4 6.3

111 Dortmund-Ems Canal barge 67 or 80 8.2 2.5 1.5 6.3

IV Rhine-Heme Canal barge 85 9.5 2.8 1.6 6.7

Va Large Rhine barge 110 ll.4 3.5 1.8 6.7/8.8*

vb Two-barge pushtow 186.5 11.4 4.0 1.8 8.8

*) 6,7 m applies to waterways with little container traffic, 3 layers of containers; and also high enough for 70% of the unladen craft.

8,8 m applies to waterways with a lot of (> c. 10,000 TEU) container traffic, 4 layers of containers; and also high enough for 90-95% of the unladen craft.

(BA) only in the event of modernisation

Table 2.2.1.1 Design standard commercial vessels

n Manoeuvrability

The wind sensitivity of vessels is largely determined by the ratio of the lateral area above water A,, to the lateral area under water 4,.

The manoeuvrability of the vessels at low speeds plays a much larger role at locks and bridges than in waterway compartments. Bow propellers are effective at these low speeds. A high proportion of the larger motor vessels in particular are already fitted with a bow propeller.

In Class V a canal-type bow propeller of at least 200 kW is recommended for large motor vessels if A,Jhw > 4.5; this recommendation applies to two-barge pushtows in long formation if AJA,,, > 3. The bow propeller is not used continuously, but only for corrections over a relatively short time. Vessels with a lower lateral surface ratio are considered to have a normal wind sensitivity. If a vessel is fitted with a different type of bow propeller and/or has a different capacity, the propeller must be at least as effective at speeds of up to 10 kph as the reference type.

Bow propellers and use of the marine telephone (a marine telephone is obligatory) are also important in connection with the need for lay-bys at moving bridges: the need to tie up has declined because bridgemasters are often aware of the approach of a vessel wel1 in advance, while if the captain unexpectedly has to wait, he can often keep the vessel in motion with the aid of the bow propeller until he can sail on.

To ignore the use of the bow propeller might result in the overdimensioning of lock approaches, lock basins and the navigable openings van guard locks. Moreover, the availability of bow propellers has


2-5

changed the strategy of navigating in lock approaches: the need to tie up has declined because it is easier to hold the vessel steady than previously. In addition, improved communications with the locks (marine telephone) enable waiting at locks to be avoided by proceeding more slowly for some time en route to the lock.

Single-barge pushtows are not usually ftted with a bow propeller, and this may stil1 apply to other vessel types, too. The person in charge of the waterway/bridge/lock wil1 have to consider in each individual case whether this justities departing from the rules given in these guidelines or whether rules wil1 have to be incorporated into the admission policy.

As far as the manoeuvrability requirements for the principal means of steering the vessel are concemed, it is assumed for waterway design purposes that design standard vessels satisfy the legal requirements of the Inland Waterway Vessels Order.

n The Community Cetijcate.

The issue of an inspection certificate (Community Certificate) for vessels is regulated in the Mand Waterway Vessels Act. The Inland Waterway Vessels Order, that was issued under this act, lays down a number of rules based on the European Communities guidelines within the framework of a joint transport policy. The Community Certificate is not valid for the conventional Rhine barge.

The waterways are divided into zones in each country according to the character of the waterway. A supplementary certificate can be issued to vessels with a Rhine Certificate which is valid for navigating the different zones.

A vessel for which a Community Certificate has been issued must be admitted to al1 the waterways which fa11 within the zones listed on the certificate. An example of this is that a requirement may be imposed for fitting a bow propeller, but no requirements may be imposed about the power of the bow propeller.

n Visibility

The BPR (The Netherlands Inland Waterway Policing Regulations) and the RPR (Rhine Navigation Policing Regulations) require the helmsman to have a free view in al1 directions, either directly or indirectly. They also prescribe what optica1 aids are permitted. It is assumed for the purposes of waterway dimensioning that the vessels satisfy the legal requirements.

n Other use of the waterways

Special vessels and loads, such as objects which cannot be transported by road, maintenance equipment and floating cranes, may impose extra demands on the waterway profile and structures. This also applies to requirements arising from water management and leisure use, other than for leisure cruising.

A particularly high load, which occurs onIy a few times a year, could pass a fixed bridge, for example, by making the bridge deck removable or, if ballasting affords a solution, by deepening the waterway profile under the bridge.


2-6

Requirements may be imposed on the wetted profile and the locks etc., in the interests of water management (discharge of water, ice and sediment).

These requirements are location-dependent and are not dealt with further in these guidelines.

n The result

Table 2.2.1.1 gives an overview of the design standard vessels in the various commercial navigation classes.

2.2.2 Design standard vessel dimensions for leisure craft

Because of the wide variation in the dimensions of leisure craft it bas not proved possible draw up a standard vessel classifcation, as has been done for commercial craft. Standard vessel dimensions have now been drawn up for each class of waterway based on measurements of the leisure fleet along waterways and in marinas al1 over the Netherlands, taking into account the changes which are occurring in the fleet. The dimensions have been chosen in such a way that only 5% of the vessels in each class of waterway have either a greater length, a greater beam, or a greater draught. This approach means in practice that the other dimensions of at least 90% of the vessels which can pass the bridge height of a given waterway class, also allow them to navigate the waterway. This assumption prevents waterways and structures being designed to accommodate vessels with extreme dimensions.

Class Sailing Craft

Height Draught Beam hngth

3 12.00 1.75 3.75 11.00

dimensions in (m)

Table 2.2.2.1 Design standard vessel dimensions for leisure cruising and barge yachts

Table 2.2.2.1 summarises the design standard vessel dimensions for leisure cruising and barge yachts,

water wa y guidelines june 1996

2-7

based on the classification in Table 1.1.2. In this table BY 1 refers to barge yachts with the exception of the very largest vessels. This is generally the design standard category for channels in sheltered waters. BY2 denotes al1 categories which are design standard for the large water areas.

Section 6.8 considers specifc dimensions, including those for small-scale boating.

2.2.3 Combination of commercial and leisure craft

For waterways with mixed trafftc, account must be taken of both classifications and the differente in vessel size and navigation behaviour.

Examples are:

The commercial navigation guideline is standard in al1 cases as far as the depth and width of the navigation Channel are concemed. The dimensions, equipment and the locking routine at locks require special attention. In relation to bridges, leisure cruising may affect the choice of fixed or moving and the clearance of both fixed and moving bridges. This mixed traffic must be taken into account when segregated lay-bys are set up.

These guidelines always indicate, where necessary, how special provision can be made.

2.3 TratKc constraints

2.3.1 Waterway compartments

Waterway compartments for commercial craft

* Profile variants and choice of profile for waterway compartments:

The desired size of the waterway depends on the required traffic flow. The trafftc flow is determined by the traffic volume and the fleet composition.

A wider variety of commercial vessel types must be catered for with Class V than with the smaller classes.

Up to a volume of about 30,000 commercial passages per annum, the design of a waterway can be based upon at most two-lane trafftc, keyed to design standard commercial craft; at that level, the size and number of leisure craft does not play any part in determining the dimensions of the waterway. Where there is a volume in excess of about 30,000 passages per annum, further research is necessary. At the chosen dimensions, multi-lane trafftc is sometimes possible for the smaller inland vessels.


2-8

Three profile variants have been distinguished:

the normal profile for two-way traffk; the constrained profile for two-way traffk; the one-way profile.

The normal profile is recommended in principle, certainly for new canals.

Where a good case can be made for it, e.g. excessive construction costs, a more constrained profile can be chosen. In such a case, the traffk volume must be lower than 15,CKKl commercial passages per annum, or the waterway compartments must be relatively short. The extent to which there can be a departure from the normal profile depends upon the traffic volume and is limited for two-lane waterways from the navigational standpoint by the tight profile, which is suitable for fewer than 5,000 commercial passages per annum.

The one-way profile is intended for special cases.

The transition between two profile types must always be a gradual one.

* The normal profile:

At commercial traffk volumes in excess of 15,000 vessels per annum the following leve1 of traffk movement is applicable to Classes 1 to IV:

the passing of two laden design standard vessels with little or no reduction of speed; the careful overtaking of one laden design standard vessel by another (careful = with reduction of speed); the passing of a laden design standard vessel by an unladen design standard vessel where there is a troublesome side wind.

For Class V, these traffic situations have been extended with a number of variants, because of the less homogeneous composition of the traffk. In addition, the traffk pattem has been analysed by a probabilistic method, in which the concept of design standard vessels and characteristic traffk situations was replaced by the whole range of possible traffic situations.

The application of a more constrained proflle over short sections of the waterway is acceptable, with the introduction of traffk controls, where necessary. In these instances, the permitted draught of the tighter profile must obviously be the same as the standard draught of the normal profile of the neighbouring waterway section.

* The constrained profile:

The constrained profile must be regarded as a minimum from the traffk point of view that is stil1 just acceptable for waterways on which two design standard vessels must be able to pass. Only at very low volumes (fewer than 5,000 commercial craft per annum) can the constrained profile be applied over the whole length of the waterway.


2-9

The following traffic situations have been made standard for the constrained profile:

carefl passing of two laden design standard vessels; occasional overtaking of a laden design standard vessel by an unladen design standard vessel, with the laden vessel greatly reducing speed; careful passing of a laden design standard vessel by an unladen design standard vessel where there is a troublesome side wind.

The overtaking manoeuvre of two laden design standard vessels need not be regarded as a design requirement for the constrained profile, because, in general:

the traffic volume on waterways which are constrained over their whole length is relatively low (often fewer than one vessel every two hours in each direction, nearly always fewer than one per hour in each direction); the speed differences between design standard laden vessels in a constrained profile are small.

* The one-way profile:

In special instances, where even the application of the constrained profile is not justified, e.g. for economie reasons, short waterway compartments with a low trafftc volume of design standard vessels may be given a proflle in which two design standard vessels cannot pass. In this one-way (single larie) profile the design standard vessel can proceed at a restricted speed. Design standard vessels cannot pass in such a profile, so that traffic control must be imposed. Smal1 craft can generally pass in this one-way profile, however, which may in fact correspond to the constrained or even the normal profile of a lower class. The traffc control measures can allow for this.

Such profiles are generally applied in areas where little space is available (e.g. urban areas, traverses). It is precisely in these areas that the effect of the wind is greatly infhtenced by buildings (gusts between buildings). Because overtaking manoeuvres between design standard unladen vessels and design standard laden vessels are impossible (even when the laden vessel comes to a halt), the speed of the unladen vessel is restricted and more of the waterway width is taken up.

The above factors are highly dependent on the local conditions. The dimensions for the single-lane profile given in these guidelines therefore apply exclusively to short (possibly temporary) waterway compartments where there are no troublesome side winds. In the other instances where a single-lane profile is being considered, it is recommended that further research be carried out into the profile dimensions.

* Visibility:

The view of passing craft from vessels leaving side docks, lock approaches, bifurcation points and crossings must be adequately assured. Rules are given for this in Sections 3.2.5 and 3.2.6.

In order be able to proceed safely a captain must be able to see what is in his fairway. A commonly employed tule of thumb, which has been confirmed by empirical research, is that it must be possible to perform a controlled stop within a distance of four times the vessel length.

These guidelines are therefore based on the assumption, in the design of waterways and the siting of


2-10

buildings along them, that there is a clear view of five times the length of the design standard vessel (= stopping length + vessel length), calculated from the wheelhouse. If there is not a clear view over this length, compensatory measures wil1 have to be taken.

n Waterway compartments for leisure crafr

* Profile variants and choice of profile:

The desired size of the waterway is govemed by the required traffic flow. The traffic flow is determined by the traffic volume and the composition of the fleet. Three profile variants are distinguished depending upon the volume of leisure craft:

the normal profile; the constrained proflle; the density profile.

* The normal profile:

The normal profile is the optimum cross profile of the waterway from the navigational point of view, in which volumes of up to 30,000 passages of leisure craft per annum can be handled smoothly and safely.

This is the profile that should be chosen in principle for new waterways.

* The constrained profile:

The constrained profile is the profile which is the navigational minimum for two-lane leisure craft traffic. The constrained profile is applied at volumes of fewer than 5,000 leisure craft passages per annum. Where there are no other objections to it (e.g. on grounds of bank protection), the constrained profile can also be applied at higher volumes (up to c. 10,000 passages per annum).

The constrained profile can also be employed for short stretches and diffrcult passages (e.g. within urban areas, where there are insuperable objections to widening the waterway).

* The density profile:

The density profile is the density-dependent waterway cross-profile which must be chosen at volumes of more than 30,000 passages per annum. At volumes of more than 30,000 passages per annum further research is desirable.

w Watenvay compartments for mixed trajjk

Waterway compartments for mixed trafftc follow in principle the rules for waterway compartments used solely by commercial craft.


2-11

Up to a volume of about 30,000 passages of commercial craft per annum and/or a volume likewise of about 30,000 passages of leisure craft per annum, a waterway can be designed on the basis of at most two-lane traffic, keyed to the design standard commercial craft; in this instance, the size and number of leisure craft plays no part in determining the dimensions of the waterway.

Where one of the two volumes exceeds about 30,000 passages per annum, further research is needed.

At the chosen dimensions, multi-lane traffic is sometimes possible for the smaller inland vessels and leisure craft.

2.3.2 Lmks

n Lock approaches and guard locks.

Lock approaches and guard locks are keyed to the profile breakdown in Section 2.3.1. A normal profle in the waterway is therefore continued as a normal profile in lock approaches and guard locks.

n Degree of loading of a lock

The average passage time at a lock is determined by the ratio between the volume of vessels and the locking capacity. This ratio, which is generally defined on a weekly basis, is referred to as the degree of loading.

If the degree of loading exceeds 40% the average passage time begins to increase noticeably.

n Locks for leisure craft

* Capacity:

In al1 cases, the desired capacity of locks for leisure craft is translated into lock dimensions using sirnulations. The guideline adopted in the latter is that, up to a volume of about 10,ooO leisure craft per annum, the lock must be able to accommodate four vessels (two abeam, two in line). At a higher volume the chamber is first enlarged in length (up to about 60 m) and then in width.

* Locking in and out:

Locks for leisure craft are suffrciently wide for vessels to be able to lock in and out smoothIy and safely. The si11 depth must be at least equal to the standard draught + 0.4 m.


2-12

n Locks for commercial crafr

* Capacity:

In most instances (up to about 10,000 passages per annum) the minimum lock wil1 provide sufficient capacity. The minimum lock is a lock, which is suitable for locking 1 design standard vessel per locking operation. According to the waterway profile variants given above, the minimum lock fits into the constrained profile.

At higher traffic volumes, the number of chambers or the dimensions of the lock and the lock approaches must be determined through specific research (such as simulations of chamber fillings at different traffic volumes using the SIVAK simulation program).

* Stopping:

The margin between the useful chamber length Lt, and the vessel length L largely determines the locking-in time. If this margin becomes very small, the locking-in tirne increases disproportionately, because the captain requires a lot of time to stop his vessel precisely within the margin.

When craft enter quickly they have to go hard astem, thus generating powerful translation waves, which make it even more difficult to stop. The shortest total time for locking in and stopping seems to be obtained when the vessel enters at a moderate speed and reduces speed as gradually as possible. In practice, a margin of 0.1 L appears to be satisfactory.

Lock gates are vulnerable to collisions. The extent of the economie consequences of a collision and safety aspects determine whether the gates should be protected by catching devices. In weighing up the consequences such factors have to be considered as the possibility of sailing round the lock and the latters function as a primary water control structure.

* Locking in and out:

The lock must have a sufficiently wide cross-profile to ensure that vessels do not touch the lock bottom and sills, and to enable them to move quickly enough to allow locking in, stopping, tying up and locking out to proceed smoothly.

The draught of the fore part of the vessel is generally less than that of the stem. With long two-barge formations or long powered and unpowered barge combinations, stil1 more points of the vessel may be design standard, because each of the components of the formation squats more or less separately. The draught of the fore part is found to be design standard in nearly al1 cases. Both large and smal1 vessels have draughts of up to 0.4 to 0.5 m. A margin of 0.2 m is required to prevent the vessel touching the bottom.

The width of the lock is determined mainly by the requirement that vessels must be able to enter the chamber from the lock approach and leave again safely and smoothly. With the aid of bow propellers, modem craft can position the fore part very accurately for entering the lock. It may also be assumed that the lock is provided with good guide walls and effective bumper rails. A smooth passage is found to require a ratio of the wetted cross-profile of vessel, A,, to lock, A,, of 0.72 to 0.75.


2-13

If the required space is not available in the cross-profile, locking must take place carefully under adequate supervision.

* Visibility:

With container vessels and empty barges, a visibility problem arises at the moment when the forepart crosses the lock sill, so that there is a relatively high probability of a collision between the entrance structure and the abutment. This poor visibility must be compensated for on the vessels, e.g. by posting a look-out on the fore part of the vessel or by the use of optica1 aids (see the RPR).

w Mixed traDc locks

The dimensions of leisure craft are such that, in mixed traffic, they can always be locked in a chamber for commercial craft of CEMT Class 1 and above. The lock facilities wil1 then have to be adapted to the needs of leisure craft.

Where there are more than 10,000 passages of commercial craft per annum, consideration should be given to a separate yacht lock. The desirability of this can be investigated using simulations and a tost-benefit analysis.

2.3.3 Bridges

n As elements of the waterway, bridges are keyed to the profile breakdown in Section 2.3.1 and the type of craft. This has different consequences for fixed and moving bridges.

n Bridges over leisure waterways

The choice of bridge configuration, including the number and width of the openings and the position of a possible movable section, as wel1 as the bridge height are determined by:

the volume and nature of the leisure craft relative to the volume of road traffic; the local conditions, such as adequate waiting space, the height of the connecting roads etc.

* Fixed or moving bridges:

A moving bridge wil1 generally be chosen for SM routes. The clearance when the bridge is closed is dependent on the function of the route and the traffic density on the waterway concemed. At a volume of more than 15,000 passages per annum it is recommended, in the interests of the road traffic, that the clearance of the closed bridge should be the same as that of the relevant M class.

It is recommended that a high moving bridge be provided where there is a high density of sailing craft on a Class SM4 route. A high fixed bridge can be chosen, if necessary. This al1 depends on the function of the waterway (connecting route, touring route etc.), the frequency of passage of the largest


2-14

yachts and the road traffic situation.

Special attention is requested for the maintenance of upright mast routes. Outside these upright mast routes it is recommended that a high fixed bridge be chosen instead of a lower moving bridge for classes SM2 and SM3 where there is frequent sailing craft traffic.

* Moving bridges:

The applicable guidelines for moving bridges are those for traffic volumes of up to 10,000 PAEs/24 hours and leisure craft volumes of up to 30,000 passages per annum. Where there are more than 30,000 passages per annum, two moving openings should be provided. The desirability of constructing an aqueduct to carry these high volumes can be examined in a policy analysis study.

* Fixed bridges:

Fixed bridges should preferably span the whole profile. A central pier may be provided where necessary, preferably in the axis of the waterway, provided that each opening has at least the bridge width prescribed for the constrained profile.

n Bridges over commercial waterways

* Fixed bridges:

The following navigational requirements apply to fixed bridges:

normal profile: vessels must be able to pass freely under the bridge; constrained profile: the bridge may slightly obstruct the waterway; single-lane profile: some obstruction by the bridge is acceptable; key the dimensions to single- lane traffic.

The clearance is the same for al1 three profiles; the hindrance is a derivative of the width of opening and the number of openings. The aim should be a bridge height that enables al1 Class 1-V vessels to pass freely under the bridge. With existing arched bridges consideration should be given locally to introducing apparent one-way traffic for the tallest craft: they can then pass only under the highest part, that is narrower than the actual waterway. Where this is done, the indicated clearance must be present over a width of 2 B (B = beam of design standard vessel).

* Moving bridges:

With moving bridges a decision has to be made on the required clearance when the bridge is closed, and so the navigational requirements must include a connection between the profile variants given above and the height variants:

normal profile: the bridge may not cause any hindrance to commercial navigation in the waterway; this means that the clearance and the width of opening are equal in principle to


2-15

those of a fixed bridge; the opening section is provided for the benefit of special loads, leisure craft and charter craft (high variant). constrained profile: the bridge may cause some obstruction in the waterway (middle variant or low variant); single profile: some hinder door the bridge is acceptable; key the dimensions to single-lane traffic (low variant).

With the high variant the clearance and the width of opening are therefore the same in principle as those for a fixed bridge. Financial and technical constraints wil1 determine in each case to what extent this is feasible.

The clearance for the middle variant is one for which the bridge has to be opened for about a quarter of al1 vessels.

With the low variant the bridge has to be opened for nearly every vessel.

The safety of navigation can be assured by imposing requirements on the downstream and upstream profiles of the bridge and its approaches.

The smoothness of navigation depends partly on the location of the bridge opening.

n Bridges over mixed traDc waterways

Where there is a combination of commercial and leisure craft, the highest values apply to the width of opening and the clearance; in determining the clearance, allowance must be made for the differente in standard water level.

As far as moving bridges are concemed, the more commercial traffic there is, the higher the clearance of a moving bridge to serve leisure craft must be. This reduces the number of bridge openings and so promotes the smooth and safe movement of craft.

It is recommended that, in many instances, the secondary openings of a moving bridge should be used by motor vessels. Because of the often smaller width or span, the available clearance may sometimes be somewhat greater there. As a result, the motor vessels can pass under the bridge outside the fairway of the vessels which require the bridge to open, although extra care must then be given to the siting of lay-bys.

2.4 Hydradic constrahts

n Water leve1

In these guidelines the standard water leve1 is dependent upon the type of craft using the waterway:

as far as the clearance for commercial craft is concemed, it is the value which is exceeded for 1% of the time (partly based on the water leve1 used to deflne the height for Rhine navigation);

wa terwa y guidelnes june 1996

2-16

as far as the required bed leve1 and/or permitted draughts for commercial craft are concemed, it is the value which is not achieved for 1% of the time; as far as the clearance for leisure craft is concemed, the basis is the value which is exceeded for 2% of the time during the period from 1 April to 1 October.

In many instances the water leve1 is not a natura1 one, but the result of water leve1 management.

In waterways with locks and/or weirs brief, but frequent, water leve1 changes of a few decimetres may occur, caused by translation waves generated by discharges, locking or the manipulations of a weir. These water leve1 changes may amount to several decimetres and must be allowed for in the vertical dimensions of the waterway components.

The standard water levels are fixed by the manager and adopted in his management plan.

w Lmgitudinal jlow

For canals it is generally recommended that no greater longitudinal flow should be permitted than 0.5 m/s, averaged over the cross-profile. This value is keyed mainly to the situation at bridges, sharp bends, manoeuvring places, bifurcation points etc.

Vessels moving downstream require more width in bends when there is a longitudinal flow, but vessels moving upstream require less. It is not known to what extent the two effects cancel each other out. It is therefore recommended that further research be carried out where there is a longitudinal flow of more than 0.5 m/s on a commercial waterway. This recommendation applies both to bends and to straight stretches.

Nor should the velocity of the longitudinal flow at bridges and guard locks, averaged over the wetted cross-profile, exceed 0.5 m/s. If the velocity is higher than this, the cross-profile must be correspondingly widened for commercial craft or another solution found through further research to ensure that the design standard vessel has sufficient power against the flow to be able to cape with local flow velocities.

For leisure craft, flow velocities of up to 0.8 m/s are acceptable under certain conditions and where the Channel is constricted.

At locks, it may be necessary to discharge water regularly or occasionally for the purposes of water management. The positioning of the lock culverts affects the design and arrangement of the lock approach. In most instances locking can proceed during the discharge.

n Cross jlow

A number of types of cross-flow can be distinguished.

For through traffic they are: spiral flow in a river; crossing with a river; discharge of a strearn into a canal; pumping stations, intakes and discharge sluices


2-17

For slowly moving vessels the following must be added:

discharge, intake or pumping station at a lock.

Spiral flow in a river has been incorporated in the calculation determining the path width of vessels in bends.

Cross-flow problems arising from a crossing with a river or a discharge at a lock are dependent on the local situation and cannot be treated as standard for waterway compartments; research is needed in these cases.

The maximum permissible cross flow differs for commercial craft and leisure craft.

* Commercial craft:

The maximum permissible cross-flow velocity v, on a waterway is dependent on the ratio of vessel length L to the width of the discharge opening b,. The absolute magnitude of the cross flow Q is also an important factor.

A cross flow is permissible if Q < 50 m3/s and v, 5 0.3 rn/s. A higher cross-flow velocity may be permitted for narrow cross-flow fields (where b, < c. 0.2 L):

v, S (1.5 - 6 b,,/L) m/s

v, is calculated at the bank and averaged over the water depth.

Further research is needed if Q 1 50 m3/s.

A smaller vessel than the design standard vessel for the class to which the waterway belongs can be design standard for determining the permissible cross flow. It is therefore recommended that, for narrow cross-flow fields where v, > 0.3 m./s, the permissibility of the cross-flow velocity should be tested with reference to the length dimensions that wil1 occur on that particular waterway.

* Leisure craft:

Because of the short length of a pleasure cruiser it can be pushed considerably off course if it finds itself in a cross-flow field.

A cross flow is permissible if v, I 0.3 m/s and the cross-flow field is not longer than 0.5 L.

For smal1 openings, such as pipes etc., where the cross-section of the discharge opening A < 0.2 m2, a higher cross flow of up to 1 m/s is permissible:

v, S (1 - 0.35 A) m/s

Where the values are slightly exceeded, this need not lead imrnediately to extensive studies, but it does mean that the problem requires attention. Consideration should be given to plating warning signs at such points. Where the values are greatly exceeded, further research is required.


2-18

n Water extraction

When water is extracted from a waterway, the obstruction caused by the altered flow pattem is considerably less, so that, there, values up to 1.5 times higher can be employed for v,.

n Waves

If vessels on open (not sheltered) water are exposed to wind waves, the latter affect their course. The sideways displacement of the vessel is dependent on the wavelength, frequency and direction of the waves, as wel1 as the vessels size and state of loading. To compensate for this, the vessel must steer at an angle, thus taking up more space across the waterway. For navigation channels through lakes, this factor has been incorporated into a width allowance for commercial craft.

Reflection of vessel waves occurs on waterways with vertical bank protection. This can create a troublesome wave pattem and, consequently, unsafe conditions for leisure craft. Vertical bank protection should therefore be avoided as far as possible on mixed traffic routes.

At high traffic volumes, additional depth is sometimes required for leisure craft to compensate for a fa11 in water leve1 and wave attack, together with extra width in order to counter vessel waves.

At bridges the presence of wind waves and vessel waves is allowed for in the calculation of the clearance height.

2.5 Wind

n Leisure crafi

On SM routes wind nuisance must be avoided as far as possible. By wind nuisance is meant sudden lulls, abrupt transitions and wind effects caused by tal1 buildings etc. The junctions of docks, branch canals etc. entering the waterway must be carefnlly designed to allow for any wind nuisance. It is recommended that the wind nuisance caused by abrupt transitions in existing situations should be reduced, e.g. by means of planting.

Objects (trees and buildings) along the bank can cause the wind to 1~11. A rule of thumb for SM routes where sailing is stil1 possible is that the ratio of the distance (1) of the object from the path of the moving sailing craft and the object height (h) relative to the water leve1 must be greater than 5 for long, closed objects, and greater than 3 for less substantial obstacles.

n Commercial crafi

Unladen vessels may experience much hindrance from side winds. In order to prevent the vessel being blown against the bank it must proceed obliquely into the wind. This increases its demand on the width of the waterway, depending upon the shape of the vessel, speed of


2-19

travel and wind speed. If the side wind is constant, we may refer to a constant running angle or drift angle, the equilibrium drift angle . The wind usually varies both in speed and direction. Because of gusts, the maximum drift angle is considerably greater than the equilibrium drift angle. These factors have been incorporated into a weighting on the calculated width of the navigation charme1 (see Chapter 3). In the calculation a distinction is made between:

the location of the waterway , coastal zone or inland zone, see figure 2.5.1; the orientation of the waterway .

- mndary between coastal zone

and intand zone

Figure 2.5.1 Division into coastal zone and inland zone in relation to side wind obstruction

n Lmh and brdges

In Section 2.2.1 it is stated that a high proportion of larger vessels are fitted with a bow propeller of sufficient capacity. With the other vessels, wind nuisance caused by structures is countered by the captains taking anticipatory action. Consequently, no account is taken in these guidelines of wind in the dimensioning of locks and bridges, although it is important to ensure in planning the area around the lock that transitions in exposure to side wind are made as gradually as possible.

Sufficient attention must also be paid to guide and protective walls, which may cause more friction at locks than at bridges.

waterway guideines june 1996

2-20

2.6 Environmental constraints

n The waterway managers management plan covers the other functions which have been allocated to the waterway (see Section 1.3). These functions help to determine the design and dimensions of the waterway. As a rule, the extent to which the different functional requirements are to be met is weighed up in a policy analysis study. The extent of the proposed measures determines whether an environmental impact report is required.

It lies beyond the scope of these guidelines to give a method for this; we shall simply refer to a few aspects of the design of:

banks; locks; bridges .

n Bank

Where a hard element, such as a defence, cannot be avoided, it can be minimised by allowing the bank more space.

Figure 2.6.1 shows as an example the effect of this on a Class V waterway. The minimum profile required for navigation, as determined in Chapter 3, is indicated by crosses. If sheet piling is erected immediately on the edge of this profile, it creates a trough profile which occupies a minimum of space. This profile is popular with the inland waterway captains, but bad for

R300 R500 Rl500perm I I 1

* - Frea spece prufile

Figure 2.6.1 Space for banks

the natura1 environment. In a rural environment, the greenest solution is the friendliest, both from the tost and enviromnental points of view. The lowest maintenance costs are achieved by adhering as far as possible to the equilibrium profile of the waterway and by choosing naturally reinforced protective structures .


2-2 1

Particularly on waterways used by both commercial and leisure craft, it must be clear what type of bank protection is present, which means that a slope protection must project above the water level. NO rubble may be applied to vertical walls (which suggest an unlimited navigable depth). Account must also be taken on these mixed traffic waterways of the effect of bank fear: rubble slopes force leisure craft to the centre of the waterway.

n L.OCkS

A large number of factors and enviromnental constraints affect the design of locks. They include:

reduction of salinity; joint use by the water management authorities; constraints imposed by nature, such as providing for the passage of fsh; are altemative routes possible for some of the craft? what are the construction, maintenance and operating costs and what are the costs for the vessels (locking time)? is a green chamber possible? to what extent can advantage be taken of flexible construction: ease of extension and recycling of components? what physical planning aspects are to be taken into account (design with sufficient space, possible reservation of land for extension, . ..)? water control aspects; reduced use of tropical hardwood and preserved timber.

n Bridges

With bridges many factors play a part in making a choice between moving or fixed. Some have already been discussed in Section 2.3.3. To these may be added the following:

does the bridge cross a main traffic axis, trunk waterway or a less important waterway? does the bridge carry a railway, motorway, a main road, a road of a lower order or an access road to an industrial estate? does the waterway form part of a waterway network? what is the volume of sailing craft? are there altemative routes? what is the volume and character of the traffrc flows crossing the waterway? what are the construction, maintenance and operating costs? are there are any significant landscape, environmental or cultural heritage constraints? what is the potential for container traffic? what physical planning aspects are to be taken into account?

With moving bridges, the degree of interaction between the traffic flows is mainly dependent on the headroom when the bridge is closed; this determines how often the bridge must be opened. The width of the bridge opening and the location of the bridge are also important, because these determine the passage tirne and thus the time that the bridge has to be open. It is not part of our remit to give a complete overview of the functional requirements and constraints, or of a method for weighing them up. This also applies to giving a method for weighing up the choice between fixed or moving and the choice of type of moving bridge.

waterway guideines june 1996

Waterway compartments

3-1

3 DIMENSIONS OF WATERWAY COMPARTMENTS

3.1 Introduction

n The following requirements must be imposed on the waterway compartments in order to ensure as far as possible the safe and smooth movement of traffrc :

The waterway must be sufficiently deep to ensure that the vessels do not touch the bed and are properly controlled. The waterway must be sufftciently wide to ensure that the design standard trafftc manoeuvres can be executed without excessive risk. The waterway must be sufficiently spacious to ensure that the wear on the banks remains with acceptable limits and that commercial craft can move at an economically acceptable speed.

n This chapter wil1 deal in turn with waterway compartments for commercial craft (Section 3.2), for leisure craft (Section 3.3) and for mixed traffrc (Section 3.4).

n This system of guidelines is strongly oriented towards canals. As long as account is taken of the specific characteristics of rivers, the method is also applicable to them in certain instances, provided the longitudinal flow does not exceed about 0.5 m/s.

3.2 Waterway compartments for commercial craft

3.2.1 Introduction

w The following components of waterway compartments for commercial craft are dealt with in these guidelines:

straight waterway compartments (Section 3.2.2), bends (Section 3.2.3), wharves (Section 3.2.4), junction with side do& (Section 3.2.5), bifurcation points and crossings (Section 3.2.6), and tuming basins (Section 3.2.7).

3.2.2 Straight waterway compartments

n Free space projle.

As far as the depth and width are concemed, the rules are given in the form of a free space profile.

The depth is given relative to the low standard water level.

waterway compartmenrs june 1996

3-2

The width is given at three levels:

at the leve1 of the minimum required waterway depth (usually the bed of the waterway), in the keel plane of the laden vessel, and in the keel plane of the unladen vessel to allow for the extra width which the unladen vessel may occupy when there is a side wind.

A more or less arbitrary cross-section can be constructed through or round the fxed points thus obtained (see fgure 3.2.2.1), taking into account the following conditions:

the underwater slope must be gradual; the waterway profile enclosing the fxed points must be symmetrical if possible.

4 ES 0,5bTladm 0,5bTWm *w

Figure 3.2.2.1 Free space profile for straight waterways

With the normal profile, the depth of the waterway must be at least 1.4 x the draught of the design standard vessel. This factor is 1.3 for the tight and single-lane profiles. The waterway depth given here must always be present. This means that the maintenance or specification depth must be equal to or greater than the waterway depth stated here, depending upon the expectecl silt accretion and the frequency of dredging (se-e Section 8.8).

With the normal and constrained profiles, the width, at the leve1 of the minimum required waterway depth given above, must be at least 2 x the beam of the design standard vessel. With the one-way (single-lane) profile this width must be at least equal to the beam of the design standard vessel.

watefway compartments june 1996

3-3

The width in the keel plane of the laden vessel must be at least 4 x, 3 x and 2 x the beam of the design standard vessel for the normal, constrained and one-way profiles, respectively.

The width in the keel plane of the unladen vessel must be equal to the width in the keel plane of the laden vessel, plus an allowance for side wind (the side wind allowance, see Figure 3.2.2.1). Laden vessels are scarcely affected by side wind.

For waterways which are sheltered over their whole length, e.g. by hard physical structures, a smaller side wind allowance can be applied than that given above. The side wind allowance to be applied in these instances must be established by further research. The side wind allowance to be applied to the one-way profrle must likewise be established by further research. Spinneys and dikes usually provide very little protection, while tal1 buildings may cause annoying gusts.

1

NORMAL PROFILE

1 3.1 20.4 10.2 2 4 11 3.5 26.4 13.2 3 6 IIa 3.5 28.8 14.4 3 6 IIa** 3.5 28.8 14.4 3 1 UI 3.5 32.8 16.4 3

Guidelines for the Dimensions and Design of Waterways

Documents

Transcript of Guidelines for the Dimensions and Design of Waterways