1 INTRODUCTION

The river Seine is a major axis of the French inland

waterway transport network with a high traffic

density. Traversing the city of Paris is challenging for

inland vessels due to the variety of manoeuvres

involved. In the city centre, the main artery of the

waterway is passing in between two isles (south of the

Ile Saint-Louis and north of the Ile de la Cité), so that

larger ships have to deal with sharp bends in between

these two islands. On top of that, there is a high

number of historically important bridges where traffic

has to pass underneath narrow arches while taking

into account delicate current conditions on a bending

trajectory (see Figure 1).

Currently, regulations [2] concerning the

maximum ship length as a function of the water level

of the river are put in place to ensure the safety of

navigation. However, with increasing capacity

demand and with new types of ships, the question

arose whether the regulations are still up to date and

whether the safety is sufficient to increase traffic and

ensure the competitiveness of inland waterways

transportation.

PIANC [3] published a three methods approach

with the vision of optimizing inland waterways

dimensions based on local constraints and on the

present and future fleet plying the waterway. A first

step in the design or upgrade of an existing waterway

is to use national guidelines. If no national guidelines

are applicable, the PIANC guidelines provide

recommendations for the dimensions of fairways

(Concept Design) that depend on a so-called safety

and ease level, which is stipulated by the waterway

authority.

Simulation Study to Assess the Effect of Ship Beam

the Navigable Flow Conditions in Paris

M. Mansuy

, M. Candries

, K. Eloot

& S. Page

Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Flanders Hydraulics, Antwerpen, Belgium

IMDC, Antwerpen, Belgium

ABSTRACT: Traversing the river Seine in Paris is challenging for inland vessels due to the density and diversity

of local traffic that is encountered in a confined environment. The waterway authority, Voies navigables de

France (VNF), commissioned a study to assess the relevance of the current regulations when vessels of varying

types cross Paris. A first simulation study showed that regulations based on length only may be too restrictive

for ships with smaller beams [1]. This paper presents additional simulations executed on a full mission bridge

simulator with ships of reduced beam. The main bottlenecks happen at different locations depending on the

ship’s beam and ships with smaller beam can sail at higher water levels than the ships considered in the fir

study. The maximum water levels for which safe passage is possible were determined for each ship. Finally,

recommendations have been formulated, which were then discussed with VNF and stakeholders.

http://www.transnav.eu

the

International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 17

Number 1

March 2023

DOI: 10.12716/1001.17.01.

Figure 1. Study area: river Seine crossing the city of Paris,

France. This paper focuses on the itinerary delimited by the

start/end lines. The bridges Pont d’Arcole, Pont Neuf, Pont

Alexandre III and Pont des Invalides are numbered from 1

to 4 respectively.

The Concept Design method has some limitations,

e.g., it is not applicable in rivers with high flow

velocities. Existing examples can then be used as a

reference if the situation is comparable to the one

studied (Practice Approach). When the situation is too

different and large uncertainties remain or if

environmental, local constraints limit the dimensions

of the waterway, a third method (Detailed Design) is

recommended.

Under bridges, PIANC recommends guaranteeing

a minimum height on the total width of the fairway

with an additional safety distance to account for

collision risk. However, most of the waterways in

France were designed before any regulations

regarding air draft had been put in place [4] and the

fleet has significantly changed over the last decades.

In Paris, the minimum height under arch bridges

would only be guaranteed over a very narrow width.

Moreover, no guidelines are given for rivers with

significant flow velocities. Therefore, the Detailed

Design method was used in the present study using a

ship manoeuvring simulator to reproduce the passage

under bridges in specific hydro-meteorological

conditions.

A comprehensive study assessing the maximum

length of ships able to cross Paris under different

hydraulic conditions has been conducted by the

authors [1]. The study concentrated on the influence

of length and ship type for 11.4 m wide ships sailing

under narrow bridges and in sharp bends

encountered on a stretch of 12 km of the river Seine

crossing Paris and resulted in recommendations that

were presented to VNF and stakeholders. However,

the study showed that regulations based on ship

length only are too restrictive for the actual fleet

which consists of ships with smaller beams. This

prompted VNF to commission a follow-up study in

order to investigate how the recommendations would

evolve when ships with smaller beams are also taken

into account.

This paper describes the use of simulations to

assess the operational limits with ships of reduced

beam (closer to the present fleet characteristics) to

complete the findings provided in the previous phase

of the study [1]. Section 2 describes the simulation

setup. Section 3 briefly presents the methodology

applied to assess the safety of the manoeuvres and the

main findings and challenges. A synthesis of the

accessibility level based on length and beam is

provided in Section 4. In Section 5, conclusions are

given.

2 SIMULATION SETUP

2.1 Manoeuvring simulators

The full mission manoeuvring simulators at Flanders

Hydraulics are dedicated for research studies and

training. The main simulator is composed of a bridge

with 360° aerial view of the surroundings projected on

a cylindrical screen as shown on Figure 2. The bridge

of all simulators is equipped with:

− ECDIS and radar;

− Controllable camera views;

− Controllable wheelhouse height;

− Propulsion and steering controls adapted to each

ship type.

Figure 2. Main full mission bridge simulator with 360° view

at FH.

2.2 Waterway environment

A total length of 12 km of the river Seine crossing

Paris was modelled in 3D. The 3D environment was

divided into two independently designed parts:

− 3D external view : this was the visible part of the

environment above the waterline (see Figure 3).

This part was projected on screens and allowed the

skipper to orient himself. The visual aspect of the

external environment created was of medium

resolution except for bridges which were

accurately reproduced (+/- 10 cm) from original

plans.

Figure 3. 3D external view of the non-aligned bridges.

− Bathymetry: this was the part under the waterline.

It was reproduced from the bathymetric data and

influences the hydrodynamic behaviour of the

ship.

2.3 Hydraulic conditions

The current was implemented with TELEMAC, which

is a software package that resolves the 2D water

equations to model the water flow [5]. The mesh had a

resolution of 10 m with a refinement of 5 m close to

the banks and 2 m around the bridge piles. To obtain

current velocities at the depth corresponding to the

draft of the ships, a correction factor based on a

logarithmic distribution of the velocities was applied.

Hydraulic conditions from 0.82 m measured at the

reference station Austerlitz (low water) to 4.30 m

measured at Austerlitz (maximum water level for

which navigation is currently allowed) were modelled

with an increment of 0.10 m. Of note, the zero level at

Austerlitz station corresponds to 25.92 m NGF-IGN69.

The minimum water depth guaranteed at low water is

3.4 m.

The water surface was then varied in real time on

the simulator to simulate the significant water level

variation between the upstream and downstream

direction depending on the current flow condition.

2.4 Ship models

In addition to the ship models of 11.45 m beam used

in the first phase of the study [1], models of

motorships of reduced dimensions, as listed in Table

1, were implemented in the simulator. The beam

values were recommended by VNF based on an

analysis of the fleet sailing in Paris.

The manoeuvring behaviour of each ship model

was determined by a mathematical model which

computes:

− hydrodynamic forces, propulsion and steering

forces, shallow water effects, restricted water

effects;

− aerodynamic forces;

− interaction with encountering and overtaking

target vessels.

Table 1. Ship models

________________________________________________

Transport ECMT Length Beam Draft Air Draft

Class [m] [m] [m] [m]

________________________________________________

2 layers container 125 11.45 1.70 4.75

bulk 125 11.45 1.70 4.00

2 layers container 125 9.65 1.70 4.75

bulk 125 9.65 1.70 4.00

2 layers container Va 110 11.45 1.70 4.75

bulk 110 11.45 1.70 4.00

2 layers container 110 10.55 1.70 4.75

bulk 110 10.55 1.70 4.00

2 layers container 110 9.65 1.70 4.75

bulk 110 9.65 1.70 4.00

2 layers container IV 86 9.65 1.70 4.75

bulk 86 9.65 1.70 4.00

bulk 68 7.25 1.70 2.90

bulk 68 6.60 1.70 2.90

bulk 55 6.60 1.70 2.90

________________________________________________

These new ships were obtained by scaling down

existing models developed and validated in-house [6].

The propulsion and geometrical characteristics of

these ship models were based on reference ships

representing the actual fleet.

2.5 Skippers

The real time simulations in this study were executed

by professional skippers who had ample experience

with navigation in Paris. One skipper was particularly

familiar with 110 to 180 m long bulk convoys with a

beam of 11.45 m. Another skipper was particularly

familiar with container ships of 86 m x 9 m and

smaller. Prior to the actual simulations, the skippers

spent a day on the simulators during which they

could provide feedback on the realism of the new

mathematical manoeuvring models. The skippers

shared their experience before, during and after each

simulation. The human factor was taken into account

by repeating the scenarios with two different skippers

at the water level identified as potential limit. The

scenarios were also assigned to skippers based on

their particular experience (push convoy, container

ships…) so that the different nuances linked with

sailing with different ship types are also taken into

account.

3 DETAILED STUDY

3.1 Simulation protocol

The results of the first phase of the study with 11.45

m-wide ships showed that the limits for safe

navigation were reached at a lower water level than

the level up to which navigation is currently allowed

[1]. When the results of the first phase were presented

to VNF and stakeholders, skippers claimed that it was

possible to sail at much higher water levels with the

actual fleet (i.e. with smaller beam). Therefore, the

operational limits identified with 11.45 m wide ships

were used as a starting point to define the hydraulic

conditions for which the simulations had to be carried

out with narrower ships in order to investigate the

feasibility of navigation at higher water levels and

current flows. However, based on the feedback

received by skippers prior to the simulations, a

different bottleneck as the one identified during the

first study was expected for the smaller ships. Hence

the protocol did not consist only of repeating the

simulations at the bottleneck encountered by the

wider ships but also to sail further down the itinerary

until the next bottleneck.

3.2 Debriefing and skippers feedback

After each real time simulation, the skippers were

invited to the control room to give their opinion and

share their observations about the manoeuvres that

were performed so that the nautical expert could

already make a judgement of the accessibility level.

The difficulty as well as the safety of the manoeuvre

was rated on a scale from 1 to 6. In this study, the

skippers could immediately compare what they

experienced on the simulator with their real life

experience as investigated scenarios were similar to

situations encountered in real life. Skippers could

share their experience of water level limits set by the

crew on their own vessels (e.g. container ship of 86 m

x 9 m). These limits appear to be much lower than the

maximum water level allowed by the regulations (i.e.

lower than 4.30 m measured at the Austerlitz gauging

station) because the skippers knew the itinerary very

well and were able to estimate the safety limitations

related to the current flow and geometric restrictions

without taking any risks. Preliminary results obtained

during the simulations were useful to drive the

protocol and select the testing conditions in an

optimized way, but the final results depended on the

comparative and objective analysis of all the

parameters conducted after a detailed post-processing

of the simulation runs that was based on the safety

criteria that are described in Section 3.3.

3.3 Safety criteria

Different criteria were used to evaluate the difficulty

and safety of the manoeuvres. At high water levels,

the most critical parameters in the crossing of Paris

were the horizontal distance between the ship and the

line corresponding to the air draft of the ship and the

vertical distance between the ship and the bridge.

Three other parameters were monitored as well: the

reserve of the propeller, the reserve of the bow

thruster and the reserve of the rudder. In general, the

reserve of a control parameter n, written as R

n, was

the reserve that is available in case a problem occurs

and was defined by Eq. [1] in function of the mean

value

and the maximum value nmax of the

parameter n over the duration of a simulation.

max

= −

(1)

For the three criteria mentioned above, the control

parameter n was equal to the number of revolutions

of the main propeller, the number of revolutions of

the bow thruster and the rudder angle respectively.

Another parameter that was used as a criterion to

assess the safety margin of a manoeuvre was the

number of rudder variations (in °/s) derived from the

mean rate of turn. This parameter was a good

indication of the level of stress that the pilot

experiences during the manoeuvre. Three other

parameters were also considered in the analysis:

under keel clearance (UKC), the vertical distance

between the ship and a bridge and the distance to

moored ships.

For comparability purposes, the accessibility level

was evaluated based on the same criteria and colour

code as the one defined for the first study [1].

When the difficulty and safety of the simulations

had been evaluated using the safety criteria, an

accessibility level was attributed. A manoeuvre was

considered as impossible when at least one of the

safety criteria turned red. For each simulation,

comments were added by the nautical expert and

feedbacks from the skippers, given immediately after

each simulation, were included.

The results were grouped together in different data

sheets, providing an overview of the results per ship

and per sailing direction (upstream or downstream).

Figure 4 gives an example of what such a sheet looked

like for a 125 m x 9.65 m container ship. It can be seen

that the analysis indicated that navigation was

impossible in the first section of the simulated

trajectory from water level n°3 onwards.

Figure 4. Extract from a simulation sheet for a 125 m x 9.65

m container ship sailing downstream with a draft of 1.7 m.

Analysis of the section n°1 (between the two isles), n°2 (Pont

Neuf) and n°3 (Pont des Invalides) of the waterway.

3.4 Analysis of the impact of reduced beam

The first results showed that ships with beams smaller

than 10.00 m can sail under the bridge Pont Neuf at

much higher water levels than ships with a beam of

10.55 m and 11.45 m. Indeed, at the limit identified for

11.45 m-wide ships, 9.65 m-wide ships did not need to

be perfectly aligned to pass the bridge. However,

another bottleneck was identified further downstream

the itinerary, at the bridge Pont des Invalides which

has the lowest headroom in Paris. Indeed, due to its

flatter shape, the available width under the bridge

Pont des Invalides was wider at low water levels than

under the bridge Pont Neuf. As the headroom was

lower under the bridge Pont des Invalides, ships were

limited geometrically at this bridge at high water

levels, as shown in Figure 5. For example, the 9.65 m

wide ship models were geometrically limited to a

water level of 3.60 m at Austerlitz (considering a

margin of 50 cm between any point of the ship and

the intrados of the bridge). At a water level of 3.40 m

at Austerlitz, ships had an additional 1 m of width

available on each side, thus increasing the

manoeuvring space to pass underneath this arch.

Figure 5. Transverse view depicting the headroom under

the bridges Pont des Invalides (top) and Pont Neuf (bottom)

for a width of 12 m (simplified sketch).

When sailing close to the geometric restriction,

ships needed to pass while being perfectly aligned

under the bridge Pont des Invalides. Due to the

presence of the arch bridge Pont Alexandre III, which

was located only 200 m further upstream, the ship

would have had to make a quick zig zag manoeuvre

to be able to pass while being centred under both

bridges. This manœuvre was not feasible for container

ships of 86 m and any ship longer than 110 m.

Container ships of 125 m with a beam of 9.65 m

encountered also some difficulties in between the two

islands due large drift effect induced by high current

speeds at the exit of the second bend where the arch

bridge Pont d’Arcole is located which was the first

bottleneck for this ship. Those difficulties could also

be observed with the other tested ships, nevertheless,

they happened at higher water levels than the limits

identified at the bridge Pont des Invalides and were

not considered as a bottleneck for those other ships.

3.5 Challenges

3.5.1 Air draft definition

At very high water levels, the headroom under

bridges was reduced so much that skippers adapted

their trajectory based on the air draft of each ship

model and therefore this parameter needs to be

defined with care prior the simulations and in the

analysis of the results. For instance, bulk carriers

might be able to sail with some eccentricity under

bridges while container ships would have needed to

be centred during the full passage, as showed in this

phase of the study with the succession of the two arch

bridges Pont Alexandre III and Pont des Invalides.

The maximum water level at which a ship would

be able to sail would strongly depend on the actual air

draft of the ship and the ballasting possibilities.

Hence, when presenting the results to skippers,

questions about the validity of conclusions for ships

with reduced air draft or increased ballast were

raised. However, both air draft and ballast can vary

significantly for a ship and standards are difficult to

find, as investigated by PIANC [7].

For this study, the air draft of the different ship

models had been tuned after consultation with the

client and the pilots involved in the study in order to

be compatible with the air draft of the actual fleet in

Paris. Of note, the minimum height of the ship

wheelhouse may vary from one region to another. For

instance in Belgium, class Va vessels generally have a

higher wheelhouse (e.g. 8 m measured from the keel)

than in France. The wheelhouse of the self-propelled

container ship model used in this study could be

lowered almost to the level of the containers, so that

the wheelhouse top was at 6.45 m measured from the

keel and the top of the containers layers was at 5.80 m

measured from the keel. This gave very low visibility

for the skipper, which was critical because the use of

radar was forbidden in Paris. In practice, under low

bridges, the skippers would usually lower the

wheelhouse as low as possible and steer the ship by

passing their head through a hatch, as described in

the first phase of the study [1]. The height of the self-

propelled bulk carriers had been set at 5.70 m

measured from the keel (i.e. with an air draft of 4.00 m

for a draft of 1.70 m). Hence, in this study, the air draft

was defined by the height of the wheelhouse.

For smaller beams, for which the bottleneck is

related to simple geometric consideration under the

bridge Pont des Invalides, skippers could easily

estimate their water level limits depending on their air

draft. However, for wide ships the maximum water

level limits were more difficult to estimate by

considering only the air draft of the ship. Indeed, the

bottleneck was related to difficulties to pass aligned

due to the small available width under the bridge

Pont Neuf whereas ships with a smaller beam could

sail with a large drift angle and pass without being

aligned.

Although the air draft is ship dependent,

simulations investigating bottlenecks above the

waterline (e.g. arch bridges) should be executed in

those loading conditions where the air draft is

expected to be at a maximum on the waterway in

order to be able to draw generic conclusions.

3.5.2 Human factor

As described in the first phase of the study [1],

skippers used different techniques to tackle a specific

bottleneck. In this phase of the study, the influence of

human factor could be identified between the bridge

Pont Alexandre III and the bridge Pont des Invalides.

Since the headroom of the bridge Pont Alexandre III

was higher than under the bridge Pont des Invalides,

skippers with ample experience with this passage

could avoid the zigzag manoeuvre by sailing as off-

centre as possible under the bridge Pont Alexandre III

to be able to pass perfectly aligned with the bridge

Pont des Invalides, as shown in Figure 6. This

technique required a good estimation of the available

space under the bridge Pont Alexandre III and was

obviously limited to certain water levels and certain

ships and was strongly dependent on the air draft. It

is clear that allowing navigation at such water levels

for these ships to new skippers with no prior

experience of sailing in Paris who might not anticipate

these bottlenecks, would be dangerous. Therefore a

certification system (in which the waterway manager

would make an exception for a ship exceeding the

maximum dimensions allowed), training strategy (e.g.

by using ship handling simulators) and other

recommendations were formulated when the

accessibility could not immediately be validated

based on simulation results.

Figure 6. Simulation of a 9.65 m wide ship sailing with an

eccentricity under the bridge Pont Alexandre III to be

perfectly aligned with the bridge Pont des Invalides.

4 DISCUSSION OF THE SIMULATIONS

The results of the fast time simulations and real time

simulations of the two phases of the simulation study

(i.e. this phase and the first phase [1]) were combined

to recommend a level of accessibility for each of the

sections of the 12 km long trajectory. The main

bottleneck for 11.45 m- wide ships was sailing under

the bridge Pont Neuf, where the ship must arrive

perfectly aligned due to the restricted width. This was

especially difficult to achieve when sailing

downstream after passing the bends in between the

two islands and the non-aligned bridges. Ships with a

beam of 10.55 m could sail at slightly higher water

levels but encountered similar difficulties under the

bridge Pont Neuf. For ships with a beam of 9.65 m, the

bridge Pont Neuf was not the main bottleneck

anymore because the ships could sail with a certain

eccentricity under the bridge. However, the low

headroom of the bridge Pont des Invalides further

down the itinerary limited the maximum water level

at which a ship could sail and became the first

bottleneck. Shorter ships (i.e. length < 110 m) could

pass while being centred and are therefore only

limited by their air draft. Longer ships had to sail in a

zigzag manoeuvre due to the proximity of the

upstream bridge Pont Alexandre III. Depending on

the air draft of the ship and the experience of the

skipper, the zigzag manoeuvre could be avoided by

sailing off-centered under the bridge Pont Alexandre

III. The succession of a sharp bend and two arch

bridges was however considered as very difficult and

not feasible for the average skipper. As a successful

passage involved being repeated on the simulator and

a certain advance knowledge of the problems

involved, the manoeuvre could not be considered as

acceptable unless some measures were taken. Hence,

the critical water level could not only be based on

simple geometric considerations for the longer ships.

For ships with shorter beams the limitations were

mainly geometric and could be estimated by the

skippers before deciding to cross Paris.

After the two phases of the study, the accessibility

level of the actual fleet could be assessed for the full

crossing of Paris in order to easily visualize the

operational limits (i.e. water levels) of the different

ships, as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. This helped

the waterway manager in assessing the relevance the

present regulations for sailing in high water

conditions (which are based on ship length only) as

well as their possible optimization. The results were

then discussed with VNF and stakeholders.

From figure 7, it can be seen that the simulations

executed during the first study were in agreement

with the present regulations. Only bulk carriers of 110

m x 11.45 m would be able to sail above the current

limit of 1.60 m measured from the Austerlitz gauging

stations..

Figure 7. Synthesis of the first simulation study showing the

operational limits (i.e. water levels) for the possible future

fleet in Paris.

From Figure 8, it can be concluded that the

regulations based on length were too restrictive for

ships with a beam smaller than 10.00 m. Ship with a

beam of 9.65 m and a length shorter or equal to 110 m

were only limited by their air draft due to the low

headroom under the bridge Pont des Invalides

(simple geometric consideration). Ships with a length

shorter or equal to 68 m and a beam shorter or equal

to 7.25 m could sail at the maximum water level

currently allowed (4.30 m at the Austerlitz station)

thanks to their reduced beam and air draft which

allowed them to pass the bridge Pont des Invalides.

Of note, the simulations showed that a difference of 5

m in length did not have a significant influence, hence

only the results of the 110 m ship were presented and

were applicable to the 105 m ship.

Figure 8. Synthesis of simulation studies showing the

operational limits (i.e. water levels) for the actual fleet in

Paris.

Case by case studies with an optimized ship (e.g.

with a reduced air draft and increased ballast) were

furthermore recommended to optimize the navigation

condition, while respecting safety margins at all time,

for a ship sailing regularly in the area for which

operational limits could be accurately defined. For

example, cruise companies set their own water level

limits for each passenger ship in Paris using

experience and in-situ measurements. However, such

scenarios were beyond the scope of this study.

5 CONCLUSIONS

A study was carried out to optimize the operational

limits for which present and future vessels of varying

types and dimensions cross Paris. Fast time and real

time simulations were executed at Flanders

Hydraulics for different water levels of the river with

experienced skippers. The first phase of the study [1]

showed that for 11.45 m wide ships the main

bottleneck was located at the narrow width under the

bridge Pont Neuf, where ships had difficulties

aligning in order to pass safely. The second phase of

the study, presented in this paper, showed that this

passage was not a bottleneck for ships with beams

lower than 10.00 m but the bottleneck jumped further

downstream to the bridge Pont des Invalides, due to

the low height of the bridge and the difficulty to pass

perfectly aligned just after a sharp bend.

A critical water level up to which ships would

safely sail could be successfully identified for the

different ship models that were tested and it appeared

that the small ships were mainly limited by the air

draft due to the low headroom under the bridge Pont

des Invalides which geometrically restricted certain

ships to pass underneath even if navigation was

allowed.

Moreover, recommendations on the optimization

of the operational limits by means of further measures

were formulated. To open the navigation to larger

ships or at higher water level, regulations could be

subject to a system of certification granted by the

waterway authorities based on the vessels

characteristics and the level of familiarity of the

skipper with the waterway. Training on simulators

could also help in familiarising skippers with the

bottlenecks and to have the skippers certified to cross

Paris safely at high water levels. Finally, tests in real

life conditions could also be organised to increase

progressively the water level threshold. The results of

simulations showed the possibilities for improvement

of the accessibility level if such measures were taken

(orange color on Figure 6 and 7). However, it should

be noted that the safety margins of the validated

scenarios were already greatly reduced and very close

to the limit for the navigation of inland ships under

narrow bridges.

After simulations executed with ships of reduced

beam (closer to the actual fleet characteristics), the

question arose whether the accessibility level of ships

with reduced air draft could be better. However, this

is a parameter which varies a lot depending on the

ship type and which might be complex to implement

in practice. Similar question arose about the loading

conditions. When crossing Paris at high water levels,

the critical loading condition was the empty

condition. However, some skippers indicated that

they could navigate in loaded conditions with higher

drafts than those tested (and therefore lower air

drafts). These two cases were outside the scope of this

study and were therefore not investigated.

The results presented in this paper were presented

to the waterway authority (VNF), stakeholders and

end users. VNF would use the results to adapt the

regulations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was commissioned by Voies navigables de

France (VNF) and the Direction Régionale et

Interdépartementale de l’Environnement, de

l’Aménagement et des Transports d’ Île-de-France (DRIEAT

Île-de-France). The study was coordinated by International

Marine and Dredging Consultants (IMDC) in collaboration

with the Maritime Technology Division at Ghent University,

Flanders Hydraulics and Siradel. The results of the analysis

were discussed on several occasions with representatives of

the inland navigation sector and with skippers familiar with

navigation in Paris, whose valuable input is acknowledged.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Mansuy, M. Candries, K. Eloot, and S. Page,

“Simulation study to assess the maximum dimensions of

inland ships on the river Seine in Paris,” in Proceedings

of PIANC Smart Rivers 2022: Green Waterways and

Sustainable Navigations, vol. 264, Springer Singapore,

2023.

[2] Préfecture de la Région d’Ile de France - Préfecture de

Paris, Arrêté inter-préfectoral portant règlement

particulier de police de la navigation intérieure sur

l’itinéraire Seine – Yonne. 75- 2019-05-23-002. 2019, pp.

1–39.

[3] PIANC InCom WG 141, “Design guidelines for inland

waterway dimensions,” PIANC, Brussels, 2019.

[4] F. Deplaix, J.M. and Daly, “Evolution du

dimensionnement des voies navigables,” in Smart Rivers

2019 Conference, 2019.

[5] J. M. Hervouet, Hydrodynamics of Free Surface Flows:

Modelling with the finite element method. John Wiley

and Sons, 2007.

[6] J. Verwilligen, G. Delefortrie, S. Vos, M. Vantorre, and K.

Eloot, “Validation of mathematical manoeuvring models

by full scale measurements,” in MARSIM 2015,

International Conference On Ship Manoeuvrability And

Maritime Simulation, 8th – 11th September 2015,

Newcastle University, United Kingdom: proceedings,

Newcastle University. School of Marine Science and

Technology, 2015.

[7] PIANC InCom WG 179, Standardisation of Inland

Waterways: Proposal for the Revision of the ECMT 1992

Classification. PIANC, 2020.