PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

UPDATE PIANC INCOM WG 141 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INLAND

WATERWAYS
by
Bernhard Shngen1, Katrien Eloot2
ABSTRACT
The PIANC INCOM WG 141 was founded in 2010 to provide planners of inland waterways with design
standards for inland vessels in accordance with those for sea-going vessels, worked out e.g. by
PIANC MARCOM WG 49. It came out that the MARCOM approach seems generally not applicable for
inland waterways, especially because of the better steerability of inland vessels, the lower ship speeds
and the lower damages in case of accidents. Additionally special design aspects that scale the
necessary waterway dimensions in inland areas have to be considered such as the strong influence of
cross flow or the visibility conditions. So, a new design method will be recommended, especially for
fairway width in canals and rivers, bridge openings, diameters of turning basins or the length and width
of lock approaches. In so far eight meetings, two interim meetings on special questions, a workshop
within the framework of the Smart Rivers Conference last year and several internal workshops, the
group finished the review of existing guidelines. It analysed several best practice examples, especially
concerning fairway design in rivers, the dimensions of lock approaches and bridge openings. Presently
a first draft of the future guidelines will be worked out, basing mostly on the contributions to the Smart
Rivers Conference 2013 and the present paper, which includes these papers with some additions
according to the agreements of the last meeting in February of this year. So, the paper provides
information on the working group process and the actual findings. In more detail, the three
recommended design steps: Concept Design Method, Best Practice Approach and Detailed
Design will be demonstrated by examples. As for all design cases the existing, possible future or
necessary safety and ease of navigation conditions have to be assessed or defined. For this WG 141
provides planners with an appropriate approach, depending on the ship type, ship speed and traffic
density as well as the local boundary conditions to be considered.

1. INTRODUCTION
One of the motives for founding PIANC-INCOM WG 141 Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways
was the lack of internationally accepted guidelines for inland waterway dimensions, in contrast to
regulations for sea-going ships. So, there is a need for adequate new guidelines, especially on
minimum horizontal dimensions of fairways, lock approaches or bridge openings, to support several
new waterway improvement projects. Another reason to update existing knowledge of waterway
design corresponds to the change in fleet, especially with an increasing part of longer, wider, deeper
going and stronger powered vessels and consequently the dimensions of the design vessels. These
new vessels are generally the reason why wider lock chambers, lock approaches and fairways are
needed. On the contrary, these new vessels are generally better equipped than traditional vessels,
e.g. with two thrusters instead of one, with twin rudders instead of single ones or with bow thrusters
and passive bow rudders in some cases. This development, combined with a general reduction of the
number of ships sailing on inland waterways, provides an opportunity to restrict the lateral dimensions
of the navigation channels despite the larger widths of the vessels. Also new and better information

Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute, Karlsruhe, Germany (BAW),

[email protected]
2

Flemish Government, Department Mobility and Public Works, Flanders Hydraulics Research,
[email protected]
1 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

services are available on the basis e.g. of GPS, ECDIS and AIS. Additionally, ongoing improvements
in updating bathymetry data, better forecasts of hydrological conditions and the numerical modelling of
rivers provide more detailed information about local velocities. This can possibly lead to more and
more vessels, steered by an autopilot in the future, helping to exploit existing or restricted waterways
as much as possible.
In contrast to sea-going ships, sailing with inland vessels is generally less dangerous, e.g. contacts
with bank protections are more or less a normal situation when travelling in inland canals. This may be
acceptable because of the lower ship speeds and the very much lower mass of inland vessels and
thus the very much lower kinetic energy of inland vessels compared to sea-going ships. If one takes
as example a typical sea-going vessel speed of 12 knots (about 22 km/h), used in the report of
MARCOM WG 49 about Harbour Approach Channels(PIANC 2014), defining the threshold to account
for an extra width by speed, compared to 13 km/h for an inland vessel, which is the minimum
achievable ship speed on the Rhine to be approved, and assuming that the mass of the largest seagoing vessels is 10 ten times higher than the largest inland push tow units, one ends up with a factor
of ca. 29 between the kinetic energy and thus the possible damage potential of sea-going to inland
design vessels. Additionally, the propulsion and rudder forces respectively, related to vessel mass, are
about 4 times higher for inland vessels than for sea-going ships. In combination the reaction times of
the largest sea-going ships are at least about 6 times slower than of inland vessels. This means that
the damage potential is very much lower for inland vessels and the capability to avoid damages is
higher because of better steerability. Hence, the standards for sea-going vessels, as described e.g. in
the a.m. MARCOM report, should be higher than for inland vessels.
This can be demonstrated applying the MARCOM approach for straight channels without significant
cross wind to inland vessels with the following assumptions: good manoeuvrability, relatively slow ship
speeds (< 8 knots), sloped banks, smooth and soft bottom and ratio of water depth d to draught
between 1.25 and 1.5. This leads to a minimum channel width (in keel plane) of about 2.2 up to 2.4
times of the vessel breadth B in case of one-way traffic, depending on the navigational aids (excellent
or good) and to 4.8 up to 5.7 B for two-way traffic, depending again on navigational aids and the traffic
density (light up to moderate). These numbers are larger than the recommended values of WG 141 for
straight canals of about 2 B for one-way and 3 to 4 B for two-way traffic, depending on the chosen
ease category. The differences between MARCOM approach and WG 141 are greatest in case of twoway traffic because of the very much higher damage potential in this manoeuvring condition for seagoing ships than for inland vessels. Another reason for the differences is the fact that inland vessels
may be convoys with their variety of lengths to breadth ratios L/B, whereas sea-going vessels are
mostly single ships with a less varying L/B because of hydrodynamic reasons. This in turn justifies the
use of B as the only important scaling parameter for channel design for sea-going vessels with some
exceptions, e.g. the extra widths in curves. By contrast waterway dimensions for inland vessels may
vary e.g. on L/B too. Hence, the report of MARCOM WG 49 about Harbour Approach Channels is
generally not appropriate for inland waterways, but for comparison reasons it is helpful for future
guidelines for inland vessels in case of high necessary ease demands to define upper limits of channel
dimensions, or to find out differences between two design cases as with and without cross wind.
Lower ease standards compared to sea-going are also demanded for because of environmental
aspects, especially the Water Framework Directive in Europe, or climate change effects on freeflowing rivers might force planners and operators of waterways to narrow fairways or to increase their
distance to ecologically sensitive areas. These constraints generally affect the safety and ease of
inland shipping. All these aspects show that there is a need to specify the minimum necessary
requirements on waterway dimensions, especially from the nautical point of view. This does not mean
that WG 141 proposes these minimum dimensions. In contrary: looking on the aspects of safety and
ease of navigation and the operational economy of shipping, the design should be generally as
generous as possible, but, looking especially on impacts on the environment, socio-economic aspects
or the politico-economics of the waterway improvement, the design should be as narrow as necessary
but not more than that. So, it makes sense to define just these lower limits to avoid needless
discussions with opponents of waterway improvement measures and to look on the nautical aspects
2 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

only. This is the main task of PIANC-INCOM WG. But because adequate minimum dimensions are
strongly dependent on the local boundary conditions, the nowadays usual and generally accepted
design approach, which will be called in the following Concept Design Method and which is the basis
of existing guidelines, fails in cases where the special aspects to be considered are far away from the
design cases covered by the guidelines and when the application limits of existing design formulae are
reached. Some of the special aspects are listed below:
Fairway conditions (curvature, depth, navigable width, flow velocities and their direction,
turbulence, water level slope, bank course, training structures etc.).
Hydrologic conditions and weather (visibility, wind, raising or falling stage, low or high water).
Vessel type, steering and instrumentation (with or without bow thrusters, single or twin
rudders, one or two-wheeler, powering, Radar, GPS, ECDIS, AIS, auto piloting).
Actual or aimed load and speed (deep draught, empty/ballasted, cargo type, fast or moderate
ship speed).
Driving situation and traffic (one- or two-way, meeting, overtopping, weak or strong traffic).
Therefore WG 141 proposed a three step design method (Shngen, Rettemeier, 2013b), which will be
explained in chapter 4. Because this method contradicts somewhat to the terms of reference defined
from INCOM, a brief discussion about the decisions of WG 141 concerning this point is given in the
following chapter 3 (Shngen, 2013, Shngen & Rettemeier, 2013a). The last proposal to account for
safety and ease of navigation aspects in the future report will be shown in more detail in chapter 5,
because it affects all the design cases considered. The paper finishes with an outlook on further and
ongoing activities of WG 141.

2. DISCUSSION OF THE TOR

According to the assignment of the PIANC inland commission from June 2009 (terms of reference,
shortly TOR), WG 141 should undertake a review of current papers, data sources, current research
and experience relating to the design of inland waterways and prepare a PIANC publication giving
guidelines to aid designers, developers and operators of proposed and existing inland waterways.
The report shall consider all the major issues associated with the dimensional constraints associated
with the passage of vessels along river or canal channels for both commercial and leisure use, taking
into account e.g. effects of visibility, current, wind, cross flows and speed of vessels. The
recommendations shall focus on the size of fairways, sweep of bends, lock approaches and size of
bridge openings.This comprehensive demand of INCOM was discussed controversially during the first
meeting of WG 141. According to the experiences of WG 141 members, the actual importance of a
steadily changing fleet and facing the possible performance of a working group in a restricted time
schedule, the group decided to focus on commercial navigation.
The TOR demand next for considering the actual dimensions of vessels as determined by already
agreed standards such as CEMT, UNECE, USACE and to formulate corresponding channel and
infrastructure dimensions. This was not put into question, because most of ongoing projects are
associated with the improvement of navigation channels for these new standards. The WG should
consider also the use of single and two-way working of channels associated with density and
supervision of traffic which will promote the economic development of waterways that are marginal
either in terms of size or use. Also current research and papers dealing with Climate Change and the
minimization of the environmental impact of vessels on a channel ecosystem shall be considered in
the review of channel dimensions. Reference to mitigation measures for flood and drought should be
considered if at all possible although it is recognized that there is considerable ongoing research
which may preclude any conclusions being drawn at the current time.
The WG members didnt see that these extensive tasks could be fulfilled in a limited time schedule.
But it may also not be necessary in case if technical minimum limits of waterway dimensions will be
defined, considering necessary safety and ease of navigation standards. In this case the demands of
an economic, ecologic and hydraulic engineering acceptable design will be accounted for to some
extent automatically, because the approach avoids under- or overdesign. And one can avoid needles
3 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

discussions about the way and extent of foreseen waterway improvement. So, WG 141 will focus on
technical aspects and safety and ease of navigation demands only. This means, in particular, that WG
141 does not put the waterway improvement measures proposed into question. These are generally a
result of intensive economic and environmental studies and are therefore outside the scope of WG
141 recommendations. These studies define also the corresponding vessels to be considered. But
important nautical design aspects that could in turn affect the improvement measures in general and
so the planning standards have to be discussed in the recommendations, as e.g. the necessity of twoway traffic or the choice of appropriate safety and ease of navigation conditions. Also an appropriate
approach to consider all the relevant design aspects, starting from the clarification of the design case,
the choice of relevant boundary conditions to be considered, the selection of appropriate design
methods, the performance of the design and the check of impacts and drawbacks to the improvement
measures in general and to the a.m. points in particular, leading to a refined design if necessary, shall
be handled in the future guidelines, see chapter 4.2. But specific numbers, e.g. of necessary minimum
lock approach lengths, will be given taking nautical aspects on necessary waterway dimensions only!
Hence, the future recommendations of WG 141 take the agreed measures generally as a given
boundary condition for the nautical design, but it gives nevertheless guide notes on what could be the
drawback on the planned measures. So, the future recommendations of WG 141 give neither
recommendations at all, whether a waterway improvement is necessary or not, up to which extent it
will be acceptable e.g. from ecologic reasons or which ship type may be more appropriate than the
chosen ones, WG 141 report just shows onto necessary waterway dimensions in the sense of cause
and effect relations and from the nautical point of view only. The reason of this restrictive approach is
not that the group members wouldnt be able or willing to give more comprehensive answers (the WG
members are often faced with these questions in their professional work), but there will probably be no
chance to get the recommendations balanced with PIANC members and even an agreement within
the working group maybe complicated. Hence, all the design aspects mentioned before have to be
handled outside the future report. Nevertheless, the report will give enough information and feedback
to the planning process even if it will be limited to nautical aspects.
INCOM made also reference to all current and relevant PIANC reports. Special attention should be
drawn to MARCOM WG 49 and its report on Harbour Approach Channels (PIANC, 2014) for seagoing ships. This reference generated a discussion about the applicability of the corresponding
MARCOM approach, which provides a table about necessary minimum dimensions e.g. of necessary
minimum fairway width plus increments to account for special effects as wind, cross flow or bed
roughness on the design, see application example in chapter 1 of this paper. The discussion ended as
stated earlier, to use the MARCOM approach as a basis for the proposed Concept Design Method for
inland navigation, but for special design cases only and clearly with somewhat other numbers
concerning the necessary minimum waterway dimensions. Generally WG 141 recommends the above
mentioned three steps approach, especially to account for the huge variety of boundary conditions in
inland navigation compared to approach channels. This variety could lead to the assessment that
standards for inland going vessels maybe hardly to define, especially facing the different ship types all
over the world. However, from morphologic and hydrologic reasons, especially the depths in large
inland waterways, which scale the maximum draught of the vessels, are more or less the same to be
about 2 3 m, and taking structural demands to construct ships made of steel, maximising cargo
volume and so blockage, lead to corresponding breadth of a single vessel and therefore to
comparable breadth even for different rivers all over the world. This, together with the variety of
draughts at different water stages and the need to sail in rivers with strong cross currents and narrow
curves, led to similar ship constructions in size, installed power, and type and number of rudders. This
in turn makes a standardisation possible, even if there are much more effects to be accounted for than
for approach channels for sea going ships. In summary the group decided
To focus on inland-going freight vessels,
To review guidelines and extract recommendations supporting the Concept Design Method,
To collect and discuss practice examples as the second design basis if available guidelines do not
handle the special design aspects to be considered,
4 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

To give guidance on the general design approach, considering e.g. the clarification of the design
case, the choice of relevant boundary conditions, the selection of appropriate ease of navigation
categories and the drawback of the performed design on the planned waterway improvement,
But to focus on nautical aspects only and to accept the predetermined general improvement
strategy as constraints for design, as well as
To perform generally a three step design, starting with a Concept Design, Best Practice and end
up if necessary with a Case by Case Study using simulation techniques if necessary.

3. UPDATE WORKING GROUP PROGRESS

The kick-off meeting took place during the PIANC Congress in Liverpool in 2010 (see also table 1,
where some important information about the working groups progress is collected). The discussion
about the terms of reference issued by INCOM in Liverpool and the next meeting in Karlsruhe, showed
that the group probably cannot fulfil all of the requirements. It was decided e.g. to restrict the work to
freight vessels and technical aspects and to neglect recreational boating in a first step. The detailed
review of existing guidelines concerning these topics which followed during the next two meetings in
Brussels and Paris, showed some huge differences, e.g. concerning appropriate minimum waterway
dimensions or length of lock approaches, between the lower limits set in German or French guidelines
or between the upper limits of Russian or Chinese guidelines, for instance. Besides the guidelines,
existing dimensions e.g. of fairway widths in rivers are totally different from country to country or river
to river.Thus, the group had to face these special boundary conditions, e.g. narrow canals, low ship
speed, very well equipped vessels and optimally trained helmsmen delivering arguments to accept a
reduced standard in some cases. On the other hand, large sea-going vessels, sailing with high speed
on the large rivers of China, causing a higher risk level, will force planners and operators of these
waterways to demand for higher levels of safety and ease. The group decided to explain the huge
differences in its design recommendations and to collect arguments for choosing an appropriate
design standard from case to case. This may help to align the different guidelines.
The group began to identify appropriate minimum dimensions of canals during the next two meetings
in Brussels and Bonn. The widths, depths in straight reaches and corresponding vertical and
horizontal clearances of bridges, diameters of turning basins or the lengths of berthing places were
derived from existing guidelines and best practice examples. The group members found out that it is
possible to recommend specific numbers, e.g. the appropriate width in terms of ships beam,
corresponding to ease of navigation categories which are mostly dependent on traffic density or the
consideration of extra effects as wind in inland or coastal areas. The WG group called this approach
Concept Design Method, which may be used in standard cases with defined boundary conditions.
Only a few guidelines, e.g. from Russia or China, provide detailed information about appropriate
waterway dimensions for rivers, e.g. the minimum width of lock approaches in case of significant flow
velocities. Seeing that every river can be unique regarding its nautical boundary conditions, general
recommendations may fail in special conditions. The group decided to recommend a detailed design in
these cases during the meeting in Madrid. This method may be generally acceptable as the costs of a
detailed nautical study are only a little fraction of the construction costs and the study can reduce the
latter significantly. The group therefore discussed the possibilities and restrictions of modern
simulation software and what should be the necessary inputs and results of simulations.
Appropriate safety and ease of navigation standards are hard to define, and since safety and ease will
change waterway dimensions significantly, the group decided to recommend, besides the Concept
Design and Case by Case Design, an approach based on best practice examples. Here the group
collected and discussed numerous data during the meetings in Utrecht and Antwerp, e.g. existing
fairway or lock approach dimensions, to define the corresponding boundary conditions and to give
comments about practice experience. Thus, the user, taking the Best Practice Approach, is able to
compare his special boundary conditions with the existing examples and will be supported to find out

5 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

appropriate dimensions for his special design cases. If there is a wide spread in existing data, he is
able to find arguments to perform a detailed design study instead or additionally.
No.
1

Year, Location
2010, Liverpool

2
3
4
I1
5

2010, Karlsruhe
2011, Brussels
2011, Paris
2011, Brussels
2012, Bonn

I2

2012, Madrid

2012, Utrecht

2013, Antwerp

I3

2013,
Maastricht
2014, Brussels

Main topic
Subject and TOR, general
approach
Table of contents
Collection of existing guidelines
Review existing guidelines
Workshop planning
Fairways in canals, rivers,
bridge , turning basins
Application of ship handling
simulators
Fairway rivers, turning basins,
berthing places
Discussion on safety and ease,
lock approaches
Workshop Smart Rivers
Findings Smart Rivers
Conference 2013 (SRC)

Main results
Start review existing guidelines
Commercial vessels only
Definition of design vessels
Need to consider safety & ease
Best practice in rivers instead of using guidelines
Dimensions for concept design method in terms of
ship beam
Need for case by case design, especially for locks
3-step design, best practice fairway rivers
Lock approach dimensions, turning basins
Positive feedback to the approach, especially
concerning narrower standards
Agreement how to involve SRC papers in the
report, responsibilities to each chapter

Table 1: Overview of meetings of WG 141 with main topics and decisions (I=interim)
The interim meeting at the SMART Rivers Conference (in the following shortly SRC) in Maastricht
and the positive feedback to WG 141 workshop showed that the working group is generally on the
right way, but that the choice of the terms of reference considered and the main differences to
MARCOM approach should be commented as outlined above. Therefore, it was decided to use the
conference papers as a basis for our future guidelines. The workshop showed clearly that the three
steps approach, providing process recommendations in many cases instead of giving specific
numbers, is very helpful, especially to ensure that a detailed study using simulation technique, delivers
appropriate results or those on the safe side. Nevertheless, the participants demanded for as many
values concerning waterway dimensions as possible. Also the approach to account for safety and
ease of navigation demands using three ease categories and the appropriate assignment of these
categories to the Concept Design values were generally supported. This approach corresponds to the
demand of several participants for more realistic or generally narrower standards as those for seagoing vessels, if one takes the values of the ease category C. But the discussion showed further that
we need more practice examples are necessary, especially for fairways and lock approaches in rivers.
During the 8th meeting in Brussels in February 2014 the results of the SRC were reviewed. The
working group came to some agreements concerning the minimum water depth at lock approaches,
accounting for the efficiency of usual bow thrusters, the layback of berthing places in rivers with
significant flow velocities, the sight distance at junctions and the way how to present practice
examples. The ongoing discussion about defining appropriate safety and ease of navigation standards
ended in a modified approach, outlined here in chapter 5, taking two new criteria into account:
recreational boating and speed range and avoiding the designation standard or level using
category or score instead. Because the safety of navigation should be ensured in every case, the
working group decided to look on the ease of navigation aspect only. It was also decided how to
involve the SRC papers in the report. A 1st draft of the report, basing on these papers and the
assignation of these new categories to the Concept Design values will be the task of the 9th meeting.

4. UPDATE GENERAL APPROACH

4.1 General Approach
Referring to chapter 3, the group decided to recommend generally three steps in design, which will be
explained in more detail in the following. But one has to specify all the relevant design aspects before
6 of 20

PIANC
C World Cong
gress San Frrancisco, USA
A 2014

and if ne
ecessary afte
er the design
n has been performed
p
ag
gain to accou
unt for possib
ble drawbacks on the
design ccase or generally the planned wa
aterway imp
provement. This
T
genera
al design prrocess is
illustrate
ed in figure 1 and will be explained
e
in more detail in
i the following:
(1) To cllarify the dessign case loo
ok on existing and future fleet, accou
unting for the
e aimed lifetim
me of the
design measures,
m
de
efine from th
his the desig
gn ships with
h its typical draughts
d
(generally a fully loaded
and an e
empty vessel) and heightts above watter table (ma
aybe different numbers off container le
evels has
to be ta
aken), the tra
affic situations to be co
onsidered, mostly
m
meetin
ng or single
e drive of the largest
vessels going upstrream and downstream,
d
taking into account esspecially the
e traffic den
nsity and
possible waiting time
es in front off bottleneckss and so on. Appropriate check lists concerning important
i
aspects and necess
sary data sho
ould be partt of the futurre report. Th
hey are depe
ending on th
he design
stage, in
ndicated by the
t
boxes in
n figure 1, but
b also on the waterway
y dimension considered,, e.g. the
fairway w
widths in a frree flowing River.
R

(1)

Figure 1
1: General approach and steps to follow
f
for de
esigning inla
and waterwa
ay dimensio
ons
(2) Lookk at local boundary
b
co
onditions as the probab
bility of strong crosswin
nd and bad visibility
condition
ns as fog, th
he variety an
nd probabilityy of occurren
nce of differe
ent water sta
ages with itss different
flow velo
ocities, espe
ecially longittudinal curre
ents for ship
ps sailing downstream in narrow curves
c
or
approaching locks fro
om upstream
m and cross currents
c
at outlet
o
structurres or in fron
nt of lock app
proaches.
duced impaccts in genera
al and especcially at the stability
s
of ba
anks (aspectts excess
Look alsso at ship ind
pore wa
ater pressure and erosion rate) an
nd at ecologic sensitive
e areas to be spared, defining
necessa
ary minimum
m bank distances that maybe
m
largerr than navig
gational safe
ety distancess. Modify
design ccase according to bound
dary conditions if necesssary. Again use
u correspo
onding checkk lists for
relevant aspects and
d data (to be
e provided in
n the future report of WG
G 141). One example co
oncerning
c
to
o be considered in case of the analyysis of the fa
airway condittions in a
the local boundary conditions
free flow
wing river is given in ta
able 2. Even
n if the checck list is no
ot complete, it demonstrates the
complexxity of the de
esign proble
em, the partly huge num
mber of nece
essary data and so, the
e need to
simplify the
t design problem or co
oncentrate on
n the design relevant bou
undary condiitions.
7 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

(3) Select an appropriate design method, e.g. use national guidelines (Rettemeier 2013), if they treat
the design case considered (then the design process may end up here), use appropriate other
guidelines or follow the three step design process as recommended herein, taking into account the
constraints and demands as described in the following chapter. If necessary, review the specification
of the design case and the boundary conditions considered according to the design method chosen.
aspect
fairway
conditions

load and
speed

hydrology and
weather
helmsmen

boundary condition
relevant water stages: generally low and average
stage, stage with full draught (min. navigable width),
highest permitted stage (largest swept area width,
but more space), stage at which parallel dykes or
groynes will be overtopped (cross flow, stages
where banks and sensitive areas may be affected
theoretical and real course of the fairway
boundaries, including positions of buoys, radar
marks and usual landmarks for nautical orientation,
usual points for making critical manoeuvres as
overtaking
water stage depending maximal and average
draughts of full loaded vessels, reach dependent
risk of grounding
hydrodynamic maximum possible (critical) ships
speeds for different vessels, draughts and stages at
each relevant cross section, usual ship speed or
power used
visibility conditions, wind influence
reach specific experiences, skills, training levels,
average journey times in the reach considered,
attention level, stress, distraction

data or information needed

calculations or measurements (at least 2D)
concerning flow field, water table, including
longitudinal and sideways slopes,
bathymetry with training structures and
banks, on occasion of high stages with
flooded plains
survey of ship courses, e.g. by analysis of
AIS data, inquiry among ship pilots and
water authorities, ECDIS charts
local loading rules at relevant gauges, river
bed granulometry, areas with rock outcrop,
return current relevant (effective) cross
section areas, including water depth at ship
path and flow velocity
days with fog, wind statistics, including
direction and probability of wind speeds,
possible shading e.g. by trees
strictly confidential dialogue with pilots,
inquiry among ship pilots and waterway
authorities

Table 2: Check list (incomplete) concerning the analysis of existing fairway widths in a free
flowing river for the design step boundary conditions (grey box in figure 1)
(4) Choose an appropriate ease category (Deplaix & Shngen, 2013), depending e.g on ship speed
and traffic density. Modify design case if necessary according to the demands of the chosen category.
(5) Perform the design. Use more than one method, if there are doubts about the proper method.
(6) Compare the results of the design (if necessary using all the three recommended methods) with
those of similar projects. If there are big differences or if there are special parameters, which influence
the results more than expected, perform a sensitivity analysis concerning these parameters. Modify or
refine the chosen design method(s) and corresponding relevant data in these cases.
(7) Check possible impacts on the design case and the relevant boundary conditions to be considered.
Look especially at the stability of the bank slopes and buildings along the waterway and corresponding
mitigation measures, possible negative effects on the environment, on water levels (especially
increase of high stages), expenses for mitigation measures or unforeseen socio-economic impacts, if
e.g. the designed waterway dimensions are very much larger than expected. In these cases, go back
to modify the design case, e.g. concerning the traffic situation (one-way instead of two-way) and
contact your client concerning possible modifications to the planned improvement measures. Take
note that the design process is normally a closed loop, where all the steps, mentioned above and in
figure 1, have to be run through several times. In case of a planned situation, this could include new
hydraulic calculations concerning the flow field.
4.3 Concept Design Method
This design approach is generally the same as if existing national guidelines will be used (Rettemeier
2013, Shngen & Rettemeier 2013b). The latter reflect the special demands for waterway use and
improvement of the country, especially accounting for the national fleet, the tradition of shipping, the
8 of 20

PIANC
C World Cong
gress San Frrancisco, USA
A 2014

politico-a
and socio-ec
conomical boundary
b
conditions and
d the nation
nal and international law
ws to be
considerred. Nationa
al Guideliness correspond
d therefore with
w
generally accepted waterway standards
s
and best practice in this countryy and are therefore the first choice for
f design. But,
B
besides possible
application limits of all
a the guide
elines, e.g. concerning th
he design of fairways in rivers with significant
s
flow velo
ocities (Shn
ngen and Retttemeier, 2013a), there are
a also som
me general disadvantagess in using
guideline
es: The first is that guide
elines will be
e adapted oftten too late to
t account fo
or new developments
e.g. of a changing flleet. Hence, they are so
ometimes ba
ackward lookking and theyy may hinde
er or hold
back neccessary developments. B
Because, ass mentioned before, gene
erally also not all relevan
nt design
aspects will be treate
ed in the guidelines, this fact may na
arrow possiblle innovation
n and hinder adapting
solutionss to locally diifferent boun
ndary conditio
ons.
But even
n if one has a broader view,
v
taking not only the
e national gu
uidelines, but taking also
o e.g. the
Chinese or the US Guidelines
G
to
o design fairrway width in
n rivers, to stay
s
with the
e same exam
mple, one
e confused, because there are parttly huge diffferences in recommended special waterway
w
could be
dimensio
ons, e.g. the
e length of lo
ock approacches. These may be cau
used e.g. byy different sa
afety and
ease of navigation demands or by
b different ship
s
types, to
o mention jusst two aspectts. So, taking
g existing
es alone doe
es not solve the
t design prroblem in ma
any cases.
guideline
For this reason, WG 141 propose
es

To look into national guid

T
delines for all design case
es covered by
b these guid
delines first,
T compare with applica
To
able international guidelines next, in order to hav
ve an idea about
a
the
o the deman
nded waterwa
ay dimension
ns next,
uncertainty of
T compare also with the
To
e extract of the review of existing guid
delines (Retttemeier 2013
3),
T take the
To
e corresponding recommendations of WG 14
41 for speciial design cases
c
as
necessary minimum
m
wid
dth and depth of canals, bridge open
nings, length
h and breadtth of lock
a
approaches,
diameter of turning basins or length and layback
k of berthing places, and finally
T extend th
To
he design if necessary, using adequ
uate formulae for so-called increme
ents, e.g.
c
concerning
the
t extra wid
dth in curves in case of significant flow
w velocities or to counteract wind
f
forces
or cro
oss currents from
f
applicable guideline
es or relevant publications.

Figure 2
2: Design ch
hart for estim
mating cross-wind influ
uence on a Class
C
Va ves
ssel in a can
nal
This morre comprehe
ensive Conce
ept Design Approach
A
was demonstra
ated in our workshop
w
at the Smart
Rivers C
Conference 2013 (Shn
ngen & Retttemeier, 20
013a, 2013b, Eloot et al.
a 2013). Additional
A
formulae
e e.g. to acccount for the
e extra width
h in curves and
a
those frrom the gen
neral instability of the
ships co
ourse and hu
uman-factor-e
effects as we
ell as a drive
e close to gro
oynes were derived
d
for su
upporting
9 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

a traffic simulation model for rivers, but they can be used for improving the Concept Design Method as
well (VBW 2013, Fischer et al. 2014). But they can support the detailed design too, e.g. to specify the
design case. It is for example very expensive to carry out simulations for all possibly relevant wind
directions and wind speeds. By contrast it would be more effective, to find out some relevant wind
situations instead. For this purpose one can use well known formulae to calculate the crosswise forces
and moments caused by the wind attack, that have to be counteracted by forces on the underwater
body of the drifting vessel, to have a good estimate about the extra widths to sail against the wind.
This was done in the design chart of figure 2, using the boundary conditions of the German Havel
Oder Canal (HOW). It applies to Class Va vessels without using a bow thruster and can be used,
together with information about the existing fairway widths, e.g. to specify the permissible wind speed
for exceptional transports, because the HOW is designed for Class IV vessels only. So, if one is forced
to perform a detailed study using a ship handling simulator e.g. to clarify the specific conditions for
admission of special transports in a canal, one can check in advance, whether the wind influence is
relevant or not, or one is able to define the relevant wind situation. This will reduce the necessary
number of simulation runs in the simulator. Concerning this design aspect, we decided to simplify the
approach behind figure 2 for the future WG 141 report and to match it with the Dutch guidelines for
canals.
4.4 Best Practice Approach
Only little information is available in existing guidelines regarding waterway dimensions in rivers. This
concerns e.g. the lengths and widths of lock approaches or the necessary fairways in rivers. If, for
instance, a new lock is to be designed or an existing lock approach has to be adapted to larger
vessels (as in parts of the German Neckar river, which will be upgraded from 105 m long vessels to
accommodate vessels of up to 135 m length in future), existing guidelines provide only limited
information on how the length (from mole tip to lock entrance) and the entrance width of the upper and
lower harbours have to be enlarged to accommodate a longer design ship with significant flow
velocities. These enlargements are generally indicated, especially because of the wider swept area
width of longer ships in the strong cross currents in front of harbours and the need of an adapted
length with reduced flow velocities inside harbours. But these information gaps can be closed by
looking at practice examples of lock approaches in rivers. The task is to find out existing examples that
are comparable to the unique design situation considered (Koedijk 2013). The problem is that
conditions can differ considerably from case to case, especially concerning existing harbour lengths.
Examples are the German rivers like the Main and the Neckar. Constructed harbour lengths are
between 0.7 and 2.0L (L = length of the design vessel) on the Neckar River, with an average of 1.5L.
The upper harbours on the Main River are on the other hand generally longer, from 1.4 up to 4.2L,
with an average length of about 2.5L. There hardly seem to be any compelling reasons why one
specific lock harbour is so much longer than another one. But one of the main findings from this wide
spread of existing dimensions is that planners of lock approaches probably tried to make the harbour
length as long as feasible, in order to optimize the safety and ease of navigation standard and
accepted a lower standard if there was obviously no chance to realize larger dimensions.
Another important finding is that safe navigation seems still possible, even in case of very narrow
conditions as in case of lock approaches on German rivers or the fairway widths on the free flowing
Upper Rhine River or those on the Main River. This may be possible due to the very restrictive
licensing of the corresponding vessels, demanding e.g. for efficient active bow thrusters and can be
demonstrated by looking on relations between existing fairway width bF and breadths of the largest
vessels B (ordinate), which are allowed to sail at typical bottlenecks, drawn in figures 3 and 4 over a
parameter (abscissa), which comes from the theory of extra widths in curves. They show that there are
huge differences between these relations. The lowest correspond to the narrowest conditions on the
Upper Rhine and Main and the largest to the Lower Rhine River. But even if there are very little
numbers in straight reaches to be about 3 for one-way and 3 to 4 for two-way traffic, it is clear that this

10 of 20

PIANC
C World Cong
gress San Frrancisco, USA
A 2014

fairway cconditions offfer not an ea

asy drive. It may
m be nece
essary to saill with high atttention and to use all
the navig
gational mea
ans available
e.

Figure 3
3: Existing fairway
f
widtths bF of Ge
erman Riverrs Main and Rhine relatted to ships
s beam B
at typica
al narrow re
eaches, data
a for largestt permitted vessels
v
sailling one-way
y, dependin
ng on the
ratio off ships leng
gths to curv
rvature ratio
o and flow velocities (the largestt value reflects the
s in the Mid
ddle Rhine between
b
Jun
ngferngrund
d and Lorele
ey)
special permissions

Figure 4
4: Existing fairway
f
widtths bF of Ge
erman Riverrs Main and Rhine related to averag
ge ships
beam B (up- and downstream
d
m) at typicall narrow reaches, data
a for largest permitted vessels
two-way
y, otherwise
e see Figure 3
But even
n looking on
n the smalle
est values off bF/B in figu
ures 3 and 4,
4 they are bigger than those of
canals. T
The latter are
e about 2 in case of one--way traffic o
of the largestt vessels in small
s
canals and 3 up
to 4 forr two-way trraffic (without wind increments) in narrow or normal ca
anals (Shn
ngen and
Retteme
eier 2013b), without curvve incrementts. This mea
ans that there is genera
ally a need for
f larger
navigable widths in
n rivers than
n in canals, e.g. because of stronger influen
nces of crosss flows,
turbulencce, wind and
d also the orrientation is generally
g
wo
orse in case of
o rivers com
mpared to ca
anals with
11 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

their clear bank lines. And there is another difference to be considered between canals and rivers: the
data for canals include safety distances to banks (in draught depth), but the fairway data of rivers do
not. Hence, the nautically usable width in rivers is still bigger than the official fairway width. Also
another important conclusion that can be drawn from figures 3 and 4 is that there is a significant
influence of the curvature of the river on the necessary fairway width. This can be shown even in case
of constant fairway widths over long reaches as from the Rhine, because the permitted vessels are
smaller in case of a narrow curve as it is the case in the Middle Rhine Reach near the Loreley Rock
than in more or less straight river reaches. It should be noted that the exploration of practice data is
not yet completed in WG 141. Other data as those from the Yangtse in China, the Rhone in France or
the Mississippi in USA have to be worked out accordingly.
4.5 Detailed Design
The examples of existing harbour lengths or fairway widths demonstrate impressively the partly large
range of uncertainty regarding appropriate waterway dimensions. Hence, when the spread of data
from different guidelines or (best) practice examples seems too large, instead of specifying any
additional values provided by WG 141, e.g. averages of multiples of L and B for harbour lengths and
widths, a detailed study for the design case under consideration seems to be necessary. The criteria
for cases where a detailed study (left column) or ship simulation software (right column) seems to be
adequate for performing the Detailed Design or a Case by Case Consideration, are listed in table 3.
need for performing a detailed study for design
design problem is not within scope of existing
guidelines or experience
difficult layout like sharp or sequential turns,
narrow width, variable depths, junctions, lock
approaches, bridges, turning areas, berths
environment plays an important role, e.g. intense
or variable longitudinal or cross currents, visibility,
turbulence, water level variations
to define operational limits or to accept higher
operational limits
doubts about using a lower standard
human factor effects have great impact on design
accounting for high traffic density
to plan and check aids to navigation

ship simulation techniques needed

vessel has special properties, e.g. type,
propulsion, steering
large discrepancy between space available
and navigation needs
significant construction cost savings seems
possible through optimization of engineering
works and designs
when evaluating risk-based design and traffic
management
training of captains to fulfil standards
to demonstrate the results and nautical
aspects of design
considering special traffic or operations
to gain acceptance for navigational needs

Table 3: Criteria speaking for a detailed study (left column) and the use of ship simulation
techniques (right column) in the design process
But even the best available simulation techniques may not be able to answer all design questions,
because these techniques are only an approximation of reality, not reality itself, meaning that
modelling inaccuracies are unavoidable. These can affect the design significantly especially in cases
where ship induced currents and water level changes are dominant and influence the behaviour of the
vessel, e.g. nearby a bank. Hence, adequate process recommendations to use simulation techniques
are necessary and will be provided by WG 141.
Such process recommendations shall include:

Examining whether a detailed design study or simulation techniques are necessary.

Selection of the appropriate investigation method (bridge simulator, where a human being steers
the ship; fast-time simulation, using autopilots to steer the vessels; traffic simulations, taking
simplified driving dynamics or scale model tests).

Choosing, collecting and appropriately processing the required minimum bathymetric, flow,
construction and calibration data, especially for the design vessels.

12 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

Calibration of the flow models and the parameters of the design vessels, taking field data or/and
scale model tests and comparing them with simulation results, if possible having similar conditions
as the design case.

Validation of the models by performing runs to compare them with measurements that are not
used for calibration.

Conducting simulations, especially with respect to human factor effects, which may require taking
different pilots with varying professional skills and personal fitness and many simulation runs for
one variant, to account for random effects.

Conducting adequate sensitivity analyses concerning critical design parameters.

Statistical elaboration and interpretation of results, especially concerning human factor effects.

Assess the application limits and unavoidable uncertainties of used simulation technique and the
corresponding impacts on the simulation results and so, the necessary decisions for design.

This approach seems to be a critical point in the future guidelines of WG 141, because especially the
providers and users of ship handling simulators tend to overrate the applicability of simulators just as
clients of the navigational study tend to mix up real life and virtual reality in the simulator.
Consequently, the use of simulation techniques needs some guidance as the process
recommendations shown above, especially to account for the application limits of standard ship
handling simulators, see table 4. Generally speaking, the limits are presently reached in the case of
strong ship-induced currents and when the water level drawdown interferes significantly with the water
body and with other ships. Future developments in the next decades may be able to overcome these
application limits by simulating ship-induced currents and waves simultaneously with the ship motion.
Strong interaction forces (ship-bank and ship-ship) as in narrow canals.
Strong shallow water and canal effects, especially during overhauling
Strong bed roughness effects, e.g. on bow thruster performance or thrust
Irregular banks and long groynes
Strong water level longitudinal or crosswise slope
Drive inside lock chambers
Special problems, e.g. stones being sucked into propellers or ship-induced sediment transport
processes like clouding, which are to be avoided in design case
Table 4: Present application limits of usual ship handling simulators
The application limits listed in table 4 do not mean that simulators totally fail in these cases, but
simulation results should be interpreted carefully and used in a more or less comparative sense, as
e.g. for hydraulic modelling. This comparative thinking in using simulators is worked out in more
detail in table 5. It shows that it may be possible to extend the applicability of ship handling simulators
with some modifications to the usual approach. The reason is that model errors eliminate partly, if the
difference, e.g. of the calculated swept area widths of two variants, is the aim of the study. The need of
comparative thinking in using simulation tools is one reason why INCOM WG 141 will provide
process recommendations for the optimal use of ship handling simulators for waterway design
purposes for inland navigation. According guide notes can be found in the MARCOM WG 49 report.
It should be mentioned that the Cases by Case Design may contradict the requirements of
standardisation of waterway infrastructure, which is one of the methods to simplify the design
processes, to support proved and sustainable solutions and so, to reduce construction and especially
maintenance expenses. Hence, a Case by Case Design should always have the demands of
standardisation in mind and maybe restricted to examine the application of standard-solutions in
design cases far away from existing knowledge or experience.

13 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

Distinguish always the following two cases for each variant or aspect to be simulated:
Reference Case: This may be the existing situation or another well known situation, having the
same important navigational boundary conditions as water depths, flow velocities or wind, draft,
ship type etc., where many data of good quality are available, e.g. from field investigations or from
existing experience, including navigational conditions with the aimed ease category for the design
case, e.g. by taking data for a smaller vessel than for design, if the data come from a waterway to
be improved.
Design Case: It includes all the relevant boundary conditions to be accounted for, especially the
bathymetry, the flow field, the design vessel, but also the helmsmen with their usual training levels,
attention etc., because reality may be different to the situation in the simulator environment.
Perform simulations for the Reference Case first and compare the results, especially concerning
the relevant design aspect, e.g. the navigational space needed or the assessment of the pilots
concerning the safety and ease of the navigational conditions. If there are large differences to the
available data or experiences, renew the calibration of the models used or check, if there are
unconsidered effects as different skills or fitness of the pilots in the simulator and the available data
or better or worse sight conditions. If the differences may be acceptable, note that nearly the same
differences may occur in the simulations of the design case.
Perform Simulations for the Design Case next and add the differences between simulated
reference case and known data. These modified simulation results are more correct than the
simulation results itself.
Use objective criteria for assessing the difficulty of a navigational condition considered as the
number of rudder actions per unit time, the largest rudder angles needed, the amount of engine
power used, the total time needed for a manoeuvre, the navigational space used or the smallest
distances between vessels occurred or to waterway infrastructure as banks. The corresponding
values can be used for the comparison between reference and design case and for adding the
differences as shown above. Using specific numbers is always better than trying to rank e.g. the
feel of a pilot during a critical manoeuvre by arguments only. Note that it is generally not sufficient
that the helmsman feels that the simulations may be correct, e.g. concerning the behaviour of a
modelled vessel, because the feel cannot be quantified.
Table 5: Principles to minimize modelling inaccuracies in waterway design by using ship
handling simulators by comparative thinking

5. UPDATE APPROACH TO ACCOUNT FOR SAFETY AND EASE OF NAVIGATION

5.1 Reasons for defining different ease categories
The differences in existing and recommended waterway dimensions in national guidelines may be
caused by the fact that, every waterway system, with its specific features, especially water depths and
widths, flow velocities, average transport distances, economic conditions of inland waterway transport,
cargo type and the tradition of shipping, forms its unique fleet from which the accepted minimum
dimensions of waterway infrastructure can be derived. So, navigational and therefore the safety and
ease of navigation conditions are definitively different from country to country or from waterway to
waterway. Nevertheless, at least the safety of navigation should be ensured in every case. Therefore
WG 141 decided to distinguish different ease categories only and assumes that the safety is
guaranteed by permissions or design. But there are several objective criteria, why the waterway
dimensions should be chosen more generously, e.g., if there is a great potential risk of loss of human
life in case of damages. Otherwise lower standards may be acceptable in some cases too, e.g., if the
usable or possible ship speed is poor, as it is the case in narrow canals. These criteria will be
discussed in the chapter 5.2.
Based on these criteria, different ease categories, scores or qualities, as called now in WG 141
after a long discussion about the proper wording, will be defined. Before WG meeting No. 8 the word
14 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

standard or level (Deplaix and Soehngen 2013, Soehngen 2013 a) was used. The wording was
changed, because the working group did not want to remove the responsibility from the user of the
future WG guidelines to choose the right standard, e.g. according to those defined in national
guidelines. The only aim was to give guidance in assessing the ease conditions in a specific
navigational situation which is called in the following the analysis case , e.g. to be able to
compare it to another driving situation or to an aimed category. In addition the decision makers must
be supported with arguments to find out an appropriate category for the design case. Both
interpretations analysis and design case , are necessary to assign the ease categories e.g. to
practice examples and to specific recommended numbers for selected waterway dimensions. In the
publications of the Smart Rivers Conference 2013 only the design case interpretation was considered.
5.2 Criteria for choosing appropriate or analysing existing ease categories
Scaling factors for waterway dimensions are depending on a large number of influencing parameters.
These have an effect also on necessary ease qualities. If there are uncertainties to be accounted for,
e.g. in case of possibly poor fairway conditions with strong, highly turbulent currents or irregular banks,
or caused for instance by future adaptation measures to account for ecological demands, the design
should be more generous than in case of traditional waterways. On the opposite, good information
systems up to using autopilots, together with modern steering systems as bow thrusters, two strongly
powered propellers and twin rudders instead of a single propeller or single rudder, can significantly
reduce necessary waterway dimensions. This can generally be accounted for by the proposed Case
by Case Design, using usually ship handling. But besides these more or less quantifiable design
aspects, it may be necessary to choose larger waterway dimensions than usual in case of
unforeseeable design risks. If, for instance, the fairway is foreseen for one-way-traffic only, because
meeting or passing of vessels may be avoided by traffic management, the usable navigable space has
to be designed more generously than in a channel for two-way-traffic, because, e.g. in case of bad
visibility or strong wind, the wider fairway designed for meetings of vessels is generally still large
enough for one-way traffic, but the fairway for one-way-traffic may be too small, if there is no extra
space foreseen to account for special situations. Larger dimensions may also be necessary, if the
amount of damages in case of accidents is high, e.g., if there are buildings, quay walls, groynes, rock
outcrop, floating facilities such as floating restaurants and vessel berths besides the fairway. In this
case, every steering error may cause a hazardous situation. In contrary, if there are sloped sand or
gravel banks besides the fairway, steering errors may end up in bank contact, but without severe
damages on the ship or waterway infrastructure. Also crashes with another ship can be avoided by
sailing the ship onto the bank. So, necessary waterway dimensions are depending on the damage
level in case of unforeseeable situations. These may be caused especially by human-factor-effects,
e.g., if the helmsman, who is one of the most important influencing parameters in waterway design, is
highly skilled, experienced and attentive, which leads to smaller acceptable waterway dimensions, or if
he is poorly instructed, distracted or stressed, which requires more navigational space.
All the above mentioned aspects and some more (mixed criteria) are collected in table 7 as a first
rating group to find out appropriate ease categories. A second rating group looks at the vessel speed
in table 8 and a third rating group, collected in table 9 accounts for the traffic density, which is
obviously linked to the necessary ease quality. For low traffic density e.g. the risks of accidents is very
much lower than in case of high density and also politico-economic losses due to constraints in case
of undersized waterways with high traffic are obvious and should be avoided. Analogous criteria can
be found in several national guidelines and also in the report of MARCOM WG 49. All the three rating
groups will deliver a more or less clear assignment of one of the three chosen ease categories,
defined in table 6. It is the responsibility of the user of the future guidelines to weight the possibly
different results of the three rating groups.
Looking on the speed criterion in more detail the findings are: in case of low speed, as in canals or in
rivers sailing upstream, there is more time to correct steering errors or to react on unforeseeable
situations than in case of high speed when sailing downstream a river at high stages. So, the higher
15 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

the possible or the permitted speed, the higher should be the ease category. This holds also true if the
waterway reach is used for recreational boating to a significant extent, especially from rowing boats
(restricted sight) or canoes (sensible to waves), to ensure the safety of the private boat pilots. But on
the opposite, if the helmsman is forced to sail fast, e.g. downstream in a narrow curve of a free flowing
river with high flow velocities, in order to restrict the extra width, if the vessel has neither passive bow
rudders or thrusters, the necessity to drive fast is a criterion to assess the ease of the navigational
conditions to be low. Therefore, the speed criteria should consist of three parts: speed value, traffic
density (of recreational boating) and speed range. If the latter is generally high as in case of still water,
the ease category is high too, but if there is only a narrow speed window to sail safe, as in case of a
canal designed for one-way traffic, where the difference between the critical speed (where the stern
wave breaks) and the minimum speed to ensure a usual reaction of the vessel on rudder actions is
very small, as in German one-way-canals of about 2 km/h or less, leading to a low ease category.
5.3 Designation of different ease categories
But before trying to assess the navigational conditions according to such ease categories, one has to
define and designate it. Looking for this purpose e.g. on the fairway conditions in the Lower Rhine
River in Germany or the Netherlands, with fairway widths offering nearly unrestricted sailing
conditions, even at high stages and for all permitted vessels, and compare it to narrow openings at
historical bridges, as the Old Bridge of the German Neckar River in Heidelberg, where a safe drive is
possible only if the helmsman is highly attentive and if the vessel is well equipped, one can assign the
drive e.g. on the Lower Rhine to be a nearly unrestricted (designated by letter A in table 6) and the
navigational conditions on the Neckar at the Old Bridge to be strongly restricted over short distances
(designated by letter C). This designation was used in table 6 to specify two of three different ease
categories. But why distinguishing exactly three and not two as the normal or narrow canal profile in
the Dutch Guidelines or even more than three, which would allow for a better categorization? One
reason is that WG 141 decided to neglect both the upper end of possible safety and ease standards where all possible ships, even those, who are poorly equipped, can sail without interacting with each
other and where also poorly trained helmsman can sail safe in the area considered, focussing as
stated earlier on necessary minimum waterway dimensions - and the lower end of the standards,
concerning all extremely restricted waterway conditions, forcing the helmsman to steer his vessel at
strongly reduced speed, as during entry into locks or manoeuvring inside a harbour, looking on
waterway dimensions that are scaled by a sailing vessel and not a vessel under manoeuvring
conditions with extremely reduced speed. Looking again on the fairway conditions in European rivers,
it seems appropriate to add another ease category between the extremes of Lower Rhine and Neckar,
called ease score B. These are characterised again in table 6, together with some examples, to
illustrate what they could mean.
ease
score
A
B
C

designation

example from existing waterways

nearly unrestricted
drive
moderate to
strongly restricted
drive
strongly restricted
drive on short
distances

Lower and Middle Rhine River for all permitted vessels

largest permitted push tow units on the Mississippi River, Upper
Rhine River, Neckar River, Dutch canals, normal profile, passing
narrow bridges under good visibility conditions
German canals or narrow profile of Dutch canals, narrow bridges
under bad visibility conditions or strong currents, sailing at lock
approaches

Table 6: Designation of ease standards with examples (still under discussion in WG 141)
5.4 Mixed criteria to analyse or choose appropriate ease categories 1st rating group
Coming back to the approach outlined above to find out the ease category, several criteria must be
matched altogether. For this, a scoring system will be used. It is based on the number of criteria or
16 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

arguments fulfilled. Only positive results will be used and can be managed by marking the box with the
criterion fulfilled by an x or y.
Looking for the design case first, an x-mark is used, if the argument in the box speaks for a higher
necessary quality or a y-mark, if a lower category may be acceptable. The x-arguments are
collected in the left coloured (warm colours) column of table 7 and the y-arguments in the right
coloured (cold colours) column. It is obvious that the necessary ease category should be higher in
case of many x-marks and few y-marks and may be lower if there are only a few x-marks and many
y marks made. So, the necessary ease category is related to the numbers of x- or y-marks. These
numbers are still under discussion in WG 141. The last attempt to find an agreement is shown in
tables 10 and 11, where all the criteria to assign the mixed, speed and traffic arguments to an ease
category are collected.
Concerning the analysis case, an x-mark should be set in a box of the left warm-coloured column, if
the navigational condition to be assessed fits with the facts described in the box that speak for low
existing ease quality. So, the x-marks for the analysis case e.g. concerning the navigational
conditions in a narrow waterway section, will probably be set in the same boxes as the
corresponding design case, because a low existing ease score demands for a high ease quality in
design, if the navigational condition should be improved.
criterion

1 type of load
2 level of training,
personnel skills and
experience
3 attention level,
distraction and stress
of the helmsman
4 danger level, possible
damages

5 uncertainty of
waterway conditions
6 traffic situation, shipship and ship-bankinteraction
7 vessel equipment and
instrument-tation

8 recreational boating

x-arguments, defining a higher

necessary ease score for design or
a lower existing ease score

y-arguments, defining a lower

acceptable ease score for design or
higher existing ease score

Design Case (DC): Mark the box with a

x, if the navigational condition
described in the box is true for design
Analysis Case (AC): Mark the box with
a x, if the navigational condition to be
analysed fits with the arguments in the
box
deep draught vessels and dangerous
goods

Design Case (DC): Mark the box with a

y, if the navigational condition
described in the box is true for design
Analysis Case (AC): Mark the box with a
y, if the navigational condition to be
analysed fits with the arguments in the
box
empty or ballasted vessels, no
dangerous goods

poorly trained pilots, low knowledge on

waterway features and infrastructure

optimally qualified and experienced

helmsman

long time or boring drive, permanent

manoeuvring conditions

short manoeuvre situation, e.g. during a

meeting or by passing a bridge opening

buildings, quay walls, floating facilities,

vessel berths in the vicinity of the
navigational area, danger of life and
limb
turbulence, secondary currents,
irregular banks, long groynes, rocky or
stony river bed, wind, fog
one-way traffic, many manoeuvres as
overtaking

sloped banks, guiding walls, parallel

dykes or short groynes besides the
fairway

main rudders only or weakly powered

bow thrusters, sea going ships, low
engine power, no information systems

strongly powered bow thruster or

passive bow rudder, high engine power,
dual propellers, optimal information
systems
high recreational traffic, especially
rowing boats and canoes

low recreational traffic, mostly motor

boats

regular shoreline, sloped sand or gravel

banks, low wind speed or wind
protections
2 or more navigational lines, accepted
interaction forces

Table 7: Mixed criteria for choosing appropriate or analysing existing ease categories 1st
rating group

17 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

Analysing existing waterway conditions or recommendations in existing guidelines for the design case,
it seems necessary to choose the highest ease score A in case of at least 5 or more x-marks or 2 or
less y-marks. The category B may be adequate, if the number of x- or y-marks is between 3 and 4,
and the lowest ease quality C may be acceptable, if the sum of x-marks is 2 or lower or the number of
y-marks is 5 or more. Accordingly, for the analysis case, the number of x-marks should be 2 or less or
of y-marks 5 or more to define an ease score designated by A, the navigational condition to be asses
should have ease score B, the number of xand y-marks are between 3 and 4 and the lowest ease
quality called C has to be assigned if the number of x-marks are 5 or more and 2 or less y-marks. But
these numbers may change according to the ongoing discussion in WG 141.
5.5 Speed criteria 2nd rating group
A scoring system as for the 1st rating group may be hard to define in case of the speed criteria.
Therefore a direct assignation to possible ease categories was made in table 8 for three different
criteria as the amount of vessel speed over ground, which scales especially the damage potential, the
speed range, which describes the navigational room for manoeuvre and the amount of recreational
traffic which hinders the freight vessels to ensure the safety of boat pilots.
A 1st attempt according to the discussion at the 8th meeting of WG 141 can be found in table 8, dealing
with specific values for the speed over ground. The other two speed-related criteria are added in
tables 10 and 11.The thresholds given for the maximum reachable ship speeds and the necessary
vessel speeds to ensure a safe trip respectively, may help to quantify possible restrictions to ship
speed according to the necessary or existing ease category. The table follows measurements
concerning speed in nearly unrestricted channels as large rivers, speed limits in canals according to
existing guidelines and local regulations, e.g. for very small and shallow canals and in Canal Grande in
Venice (5 and 7 km/h) as well as typical vessel speeds approaching a lock.
designation of vessel
speed
no restrictions

speed over
ground
13 km/h

adapted speed
small canal speed

ca. 9 10 km/h
ca. 7 km/h

reduced speed
strongly reduced speed
creep speed

ca. 5 km/h
ca. 3 km/h
2 km/h

in order to achieve:
avoiding severe damage and danger of life and
limb in case of accidents
reduced interaction forces in case of meetings
reduced wave heights, e.g. to avoid conflicts
with pleasure boats
reduced bank forces
no significant interaction forces
no significant damage in case of accidents

ease
score
A
A, B
B
B, C
C
C

Table 8: Assignation of ease of navigation categories to the vessel speed over ground
The assignation of ease scores to vessel speed is the same for the design and analysis case, because
a high achievable ship speed in an existing situation speaks for a high ease score and the necessity
for high ship speeds in design demands for a high ease category. But the ease scores for the 2nd
criterion, the vessel speed range, may be different for the design and the analysis case. If there is for
example only a narrow speed range possible in a design case, e.g. because the water depth is low,
this small possible speed range demands for a higher ease category, e.g. for a wider navigational
space, but a driving situation to be assessed in the analysis case with the same narrow speed range
indicates a low ease quality. This holds also true for recreational boating, because traffic with many
private boats demand for a higher ease category, but reduces the ease quality of freight vessels in the
analysis case. Therefore, tables 10 and 11 distinguish the analysis and design case for the speed
criteria as in table 7.
5.6 Traffic density criterion 3nd rating group
One of the most important arguments to choose adequate standards is the level of traffic. It can be
found e.g. in MARCOM WG 49 to define extra width in case of high traffic density. Analogous to the
Dutch waterway standards, which says that e.g. the so called narrow profile (maybe ease level C) is
18 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

adequate for traffic below 5000 crafts per year, WG 141 assigned adequate eases categories to the
number of commercial vessels (sum of both driving directions) per year in a cross section considered,
see table 9. It assesses the ease for the design case only.
As shown for the speed range criteria, the assessment of the existing ease quality may be different,
leading to a lower existing ease score in case of high traffic density. This will be accounted for in
tables 10 and 11.
vessels per year,
commercial navigation

selection of waterway profile

> 30,000

further studies required (e.g. extra lanes to

accommodate such high traffic)
normal profile for two-lane traffic
normal profile, narrow profile for short sections
narrow profile for two-lane traffic, single-lane
profile in exceptional cases

15,000 30,000
5,000 15,000
< 5,000

possible assignment of
ease category in design
case
A
B
B, C
C

Table 9: Assignation of ease of navigation categories for the design case to traffic density of
commercial navigation
5.7 Combination of arguments for existing and required ease categories
As stated earlier, all criteria to define ease categories were collected in tables 10 and 11. Because the
assignation to the criteria, e.g. coming from tables 6 9, is not unique in every case, we avoided to
draw lines between the different rows with ease categories for all criteria. It should be pointed out that
the assignation is still not balanced in WG 141 and that the designations to the importance of
recreational boating are not assigned to specific values. The approach should show its worthiness if it
should have been applied to different new designs and different existing fairways. This should be a
work for the following meetings of WG 141.

ease
category,
score,
quality

design case minimum necessary or acceptable ease category

mixed criteria

criteria related to vessel speed

no. of x
marks

strived
speed
over
ground
(km/h)

no. of y
marks

traffic

designed
possible
speed
range
(km/h)

recreational
traffic,
especially
muscle craft

no. of freight
vessels per year

high

> 30,000

3-5

average

15,000 30,000

> 15
A

14
9 - 10

3-4

3-4

5,000 15,000

5
C

low

< 5,000

Table 10: Assignation of ease categories to criteria from tables 7 (mixed arguments), 8 (speed)
and 9 (traffic density) for the design case

6. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF WG 141

The PIANC INCOM WG 141 on Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways has now been working on
its tasks for 4 years. Our workshop on the occasion of the SMART Rivers Conference leads to
revisions or first drafts of several essential chapters of our future report, like those to existing
19 of 20

PIANC World Congress San Francisco, USA 2014

guidelines, the three approaches in waterway design and the safety and ease of navigation
considerations. We are therefore optimistic that a first draft of the guidelines may be worked out in
2014. Nevertheless, some topics are still under discussion, especially concerning the choice of
adequate safety and ease of navigation categories, the reference of these categories to best practice
examples or the application limits of ship handling simulators.
ease
category,
score,
quality

analysis case assessment of an navigational condition according to ease

mixed criteria

criteria related to vessel speed

no. of
x
marks

drivable
speed
over
ground
(km/h)

no. of y
marks

density of
commercial
traffic

usable
speed
range
(km/h)

recreational
traffic,
especially
muscle craft

low

low

3-5

average

average

high

high

> 15
A

14
9 - 10

3-4

3-4

7
5

3
2

Table 11: Assignation of ease categories to criteria from tables 7 (mixed arguments), 8 (speed)
and 9 (traffic density) for the analysis case

References
Deplaix, J.-M., Soehngen, B. (2013).Workshop Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways - Safety and
Ease Standards (PIANC-INCOM WG 141), Smart Rivers Conference 2013
Eloot, K., Verwilligen J., Vantorre M. (2013). Paper 27 - Detailed Design for Inland Waterways: The
Opportunities of Real-Time Simulation, Smart Rivers Conference 2013
Fischer N., Treiber M., Soehngen B. (2014). Modeling and Simulating Traffic Flow on Inland
Waterways, PIANC World Congress, San Francisco 2014
Koedijk, O., Workshop Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways - Best practice approach - using
existing examples (PIANC-INCOM WG 141), Smart Rivers Conference 2013
PIANC (2014). Harbour Approach Channels Design Guidelines, Report of PIANC-MARCOM WG
121, January 2014
Rettemeier K. (2013). Workshop Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways - Review of Existing
Guidelines (PIANC-INCOM WG 141), Smart Rivers Conference 2013
Soehngen B., Rettemeier K. (2013a). Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways (PIANC INCOM WG
141), Smart Rivers Conference 2013
Soehngen, B., Rettemeier, K. (2013b). Workshop Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways - Concept
Design Method (PIANC-INCOM WG 141), Smart Rivers Conference 2013
Soehngen, B. (2013). Workshop Design Guidelines for Inland Waterways Introduction and
Presentation of the Work of WG 141, Smart Rivers Conference 2013
VBW (2013). Fahrdynamik von Binnenschiffen, Fachausschuss Binnenwasserstraen und Hfen
(VBW/HTG) und Fachausschuss fr Binnenschiffe (VBW/STG), Germany, 2013
20 of 20