Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Technical Report HL-94-3April 1994
US Army Corps
of Engineers AD-A279 016Waterways ExperimentStation
Ship Navigation Simulation Study,Houston-Galveston NavigationChannels, Texas
Report 1Houston Ship Channel, Bay Segment
by J. Christopher Hewlett
Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited
94-13621 MTC Q4.~x iG~
94 5 05 035Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston
The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising,publication, or promotional purpues. Citation of trade namesdoes not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the useof such commercial products.
M im ON RD0YaZD PAPm
Technical Report HL-94-3April 1994
Ship Navigation Simulation Study,Houston-Galveston NavigationChannels, Texas
Report IHouston Ship Channel, Bay Segment
by J. Christopher HewlettU.S. Army Corps of EngineersWaterways Experiment Station3909 Halls Ferry RoadVicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Report 1 of a seriesApproved for pubic release; dstribition is unlimited.
Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, GalvestonP.O. Box 1229Galveston, TX 77553
US Army Corpsof EngineoersWatemwoy E)perimnent
Waewy xeletStationCalgngnPbltonDa
HeNttN.ChitohrShpNvgtinSmltinSuy outnGleso aiaio hnesTxs e
1. Shys - Maeuver Sationy ComptelogrsimPublation. .Canl (Hdauafegner
Singp ea.3 Navigation Siuato Mexico,Guo.. Houso-avston Shvipaio Channels Trexa)s. UniedSAte.Arymorso EngineerDitcGavsto.GavsoDititI.USAryEgneWtrws
Experiment Station. Ill. Title. IV. Series: Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station) ; HL-94-3 rept. 1.TA7 W34 no.HL-94-3 rept. I
Contents
Preface ................................................. v
Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement ............. vi
1-Introduction ........................................... 1
Existing Conditions and Navigation Problems .................... 1Proposed Channel Improvement ............................. 4Purpose and Scope of Investigation ........................... 8
2-Data Development ..................................... 11
channel ............................................. 11Visual Scene .......................................... 12Radar ............................................... 13Current ............................................. 13Test Ship ............................................ 14
3- Navigation Study ...................................... 16
Validation ........................................... 16Test Conditions ........................................ 17
4--Study Results ......................................... 19
Final Questionnaire ..................................... 19Composite Ship Track Plots ............................... 20Ship Track Plots, Test Reach A ............................ 20Ship Track Plots, Test Reach B ............................ 21San Jacinto Track Plots .................................. 25Cargill Reach ......................................... 2.5Additional Runs Through Bridge ............................ 26Statistical Analysis ..................................... 26Statistical Analysis, Test Reach A ........................... 26Statistical Analysis, Test Reach B ........................... 28
5-Recommendations ...................................... 31
References ............................................. 34
Plates 1-119
SF 298
ill
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location and vicinity map ............................ 2
Figure 2. Actual Ship tracks recorded in Galveston Bay .............. 7
Figure 3. Hull clearance during meeting/passing maneuver ............ 8
Figure 4. Numerical model of meeting passing .................... 12
Figure 5. Meeting/passing based on pilot experience ................ 12
Figure 6. Comparison of physical model tests and simulator,6.5 knots ....................................... 16
Figure 7. Comparison of physical model tests and simulator,9.5 knots ....................................... 17
List of Tables
Table 1. Simulator Test Scenarios ............................. 4
Table 2. Test Ship Characteristics ............................. 10
Table 3. Scenario-Plate Number Cross Reference .................. 19
Table 4. Average Clearances for all Runs in Each Tests Condition, PilotedShip, Minimum Starboard Edge Clearance During Meeting .... 20
Table S. Average Clearances for all Runs in Each Test Condition,Minimum Clearance Between Ships During Meeting ......... 21
Table 6. Average Clearances for all Runs in Each Test Condition, PilotedShip, Minimum Port Channel Edge Clearance After Meeting ... 22
Table 7. Average Clearances for all Runs in Each Test Condition, TrafficShip, Minimum Starboard Edge Clearance During Meeting .... 23
Table 8. Average Total Clearances for all Runs in Each Test Condition .. 24
iv
Preface
"MTis investigation was performed by the Hydraulics Laboratory of the U.S.Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) for the U.S. ArmyEngineer District, Galveston (SWG). The study was conducted with the WESresearch ship simulator during the period April 1990-June 1991. SWG pro-vided survey data of the prototype area. Current modeling was conducted bythe Estuarine Processes Branch, Estuaries Division, Hydraulics Laboratory.This is Report 1 of a series. Report 2 discusses the navigation study for thebayou segment of the Houston Ship Channel.
This investigation was conducted by Mr. J. Christopher Hewlett of theNavigation Branch, Waterways Division, Hydraulics Laboratory, under thegeneral supervision of Messrs. Frank A. Herrmann, Jr., Director of the Hydrau-lics Laboratory; Richard A. Sager, Assistant Director of the HydraulicsLaboratory; M. B. Boyd, Chief of the Waterways Division; and Dr. Larry LDaggett, Chief of the Navigation Branch. Ms. Donna Derrick and Mr. KeithGreen, Civil Engineering Technicians, Navigation Branch, assisted in thestudy. This report was prepared by Mr. Hewlett
Acknowledgement is made to Dr. Thomas Rennie and Mr. Al Meyer,Engineering Division, SWG, for cooperation and assistance at various timesthroughout the investigation. Special thanks go to the Houston PilotsAssociation for participating in the study.
At the time of publication of this report, Director of WES wasDr. Robert W. Whalin. Commander was COL Bruce K. Howard.
Accesslon For
DTIC TABUn...tnounaed E
St1 lstifi l-l
|SpeelaLv
Conversion Factors,Non-SI to SI Units ofMeasurement
Non-Sl units of measurement used in this report can be converted to Sl unitsas follows:
Mumpay By To Ob_ _ _n
dsgr..s (angb) 0.01745=323k
fmet O.3046 mews
mnots O(Inmonal 0.5144444 mwisr pe second
mba (U.S. sWdAts) 1.609347 Idloniebm
mies (U.S. naulnl) 1.852 Idlbrmsr
VI
1 Introduction
The Houston Ship Channel
The Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels are located along the Gulf ofMexico coast in eastern Texas. These channels include the Galveston EntranceChannel, Galveston Channel, Bolivar Roads, Texas City Channel, and theHouston Ship Channel (HSC), which branches off the Bolivar Roads Channel,traverses Galveston Bay, and ends in Houston. This report focuses only on theGalveston Bay segment of the HSC, shown on Figure 1. This section ofchannel comprises three gentle bends separated by long straight reaches. TheHSC, which serves the Port of Houston, is one of the busiest channels in thecountry. As reported by Houston ship pilots, the number of ship movementsrecently has been approaching 1,000 per month. The channel is used by awide variety of traffic including tankers, bulk carriers, car carriers, and con-tainerships. Numerous refineries above Morgan's Point provide destinationsfor the tankers; bulk loading facilities also line the channel in the same area.Containerships call predominantly at container terminals at Morgan's Point andBayport, which is accessed via a privately maintained side channel. In addi-tion to heavy ship traffic, the HSC also handles a large amount of tow trafficinto and out of the area. Pilots entering the channel aboard large ships mustbe prepared to meet a wide variety of traffic passing the opposite way. Also,ship pilots usually have to overtake and pass other slower moving vessels(predominantly tow traffic). All this traffic leads to very congested and criticalconditions most of the time in the HSC.
Existing Conditions and Navigation Problems
In the existing condition, the bay segment of the HSC is 40 ft1 deepbelow mean low tide (mlt) and 400 ft wide. The three bends in the study area(Figure 1) do not have bend wideners. Ships with beams in the neighborhoodof 140 to 145 ft use the channel; however, meeting/passing of two such shipsis closely monitored and controlled by pilots and is not allowed except undercertain circumstances. On the other hand, smaller ships such as Panamax
1 A table of factor for converting non-Sl units of memuement to SI units is found on pogs vi.
Chap1 I, nductinu
•._ TFNrrY 13Y
P~wf
SAP SAPm nI=A710N' IBII
Im
Figure 1. Location and vicinityma
types (106-ft beams) meet and pass each other on a regular basis. Themeeting/passing maneuver is by far the most critical navigation problem in thestudy area. Winds and currents can cause problems at times, but their effects
2 c•. ¶ k•kt
~~~~~~~~GL OF. .n., MnWO m u nuun
on ship handling are insignificant when compared to the ship interactionduring a meeting/passing maneuver.
Proposed Channel Improvements
The U.S. Army Engineer District (USAED), Galveston, has proposed aphased improvement plan for the HSC. In the Galveston Bay segment thePhase I channel is proposed to be 530 ft wide and 45 ft deep and the Phase IIchannel is to be 600 ft wide and 50 ft deep mean lower low water (mllw)(USAED, Galveston, 1987). The two proposed channels along with the exist-ing channel composed the three channels tested in the navigation study at theU.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES). All the testchannels had the same alignment, with the exception of a slight 2-deg headingchange for the proposed channels in the Morgan's Point to Bayport reach. Thefeasibility report (USAED, Galveston, 1987) indicates realignment of the pro-posed channels in the Redfish Island area; however, during navigation studyplanning the District redesigned the proposed channels to follow the existingchannel alignment. Existing channel bottom and bank conditions (bank slopeand overbank depth) were obtained from the most recent postdredging surveyconducted by the District (May 1986). Bank conditions for the proposed chan-nel were the same as for the existing channel except deeper.
Objective and Scope of Ship Navigation Studyand Test Design
The navigation study was conducted using the WES Hydraulic Laboratory'sship simulator facility. The objective of the study was to test the adequacy ofthe Phase I and Phase II channels for two-way traffic using the design shipsproposed by the District. Since the channel geometry of the long straightreaches of the HSC through Galveston Bay is fairly uniform, simulation testswere limited to two short sections. These sections were in the vicinity of twoof the bends (boxed areas in Figure 1). One test reach was in the vicinity ofthe Bayport Channel just south of Morgans Point, known to Houston pilots asFive Mile bend. The other test reach straddled the channel bend in the vicinityof Redfish Island (Redfish Bend) near the center of Galveston Bay. Test con-ditions in the two sections were similar with the exception of stronger channelcurrents in the Redfish area. One simulator test of a proposed overtaking area(holding area) was conducted in the Bayport reach. The purpose of this testwas to evaluate the capability of a large ship to steer into the holding area,slow down, and allow a smaller, faster ship to overtake it and pass.
Ship meeting and passing was the primary objective of most of the simula-tor tests. The simulations were designed to test various combinations of chan-nel dimensions and ship draft and size (length and beam) to determine anoptimum two-way traffic condition for the proposed channels. Both Phases Iand U involved testing larger design ships than those used in the existing chan-
W I a3
nel tests. The simulation model replicated the actual meeting/passingmaneuver as closely as possible with interactive hydrodynamics affecting twoships moving in opposing directions. Modifications to the ship interactionmodeling were checked with scale physical model tests. One of the ships hadhuman pilot control while the other, the traffic ship, was controlled by anumerical line-following autopilot. Data input for the autopilot controlledwhen and by how much the traffic ship moved toward the side of the channelprior to meeting the piloted ship. The simulation tests were limited to fairlyshort runs with meeting/passing occurring after the bend in both of the testreaches. The channel/ship combinations tested for ship meeting and passingare shown in Table 1. Most of the tests were conducted with a 1-ft underkeelclearance; however, a few of the tests listed were with 2-ft underkeel clearancefor a comparison of effects. The test ships will be discussed in more detail inPart 11.
Table ISimulator Test ScenariosNu.nber� DImensIons, Channel Reach
DImensIons, ft TestPiloted Ship Traffic Ship Test J92�t1 44�9 Inbound 77Sx106�9 Outbound Existing Baw�ortTanker Buk Curler
2 775x1 O6�9 Inbound 775x1 06��9 Outbound Existing BayportBuk Carrier Buic Carrier
3 920x1 44�8 Inbound 775x1 06x38 Outbound Existing BaypoitTanker Bulk Carrier
4 775x1 OSidi Outbound 920x1 44�9 Inbound Existing RedfishBulk Carrier Tanker
5 99�c1 56x44 Inbound 97 lxi 40x44 Outbound 530-ft BayportTanker Bulk Carrier
6 9�c1 58x44 Inbound 990x1 56�5 Outbound 530-ft BayportTanker Tanker
7 971 xl 40x44 Outbound 990x1 56x44 Inbound 530-ft RedfiuhBulk Carrier Tanker
8 971x140x44 Outbound 990xl56�5 Inbound 530-ft RedfishBulk Carrier Tanker
9 971x140x44 Inbound 971x140x44 Outbound 530-ft BayportBulk Carrier Buic Carrier
10 990x156x44 Inbound 775x106x44 Outbound 530-ft BaypoutTanker Bulk Carrier
11 1013x173x49 Inbound 971x140x49 Outbound 600-ft BayportTanker Bulk Carrier
12 1013x173x48 Inbound 971x140x48 Outbound 800-ft BayportTanker Bulk Carrier
13 971x140x49 Outbound 1013x173x49 Inbound 600-ft RedflshBulk Carrier Tanker
Oiapter 1 lnb'oductlon
2 Data Development
Description of Simulator
It is befond the scope of this report to describe in detail the WES shipsimulator, however, a brief explanation will be made. The purpose of theWES ship simulator is to provide the factors necessary in a controlledcomputer environment to allow the inclusion of the man in the loop, i.e., localship pilots, in the navigation channel design process. The simulator isoperated in real-time by a pilot at a ship's wheel placed in front of a screenupon which a computer-generated visual scene is projected. The visual sceneis updated as the hydrodynamic portion of the simulator program computes anew ship's position and heading resulting from manual input from the pilot(rudder, engine throttle, bow and stern thrusters, and tug commands) and exter-nal forces. The external force capability of the simulator includes effects ofwind, waves, currents, banks, shallow water, ship/ship interaction, and tug-boats. In addition to the visual scene, pilots are provided simulated radar andother navigation information such as water depth, relative ground and waterspeed of the vessel, magnitude of lateral vessel motions, relative wind speedand direction, and shiv's heading.
Required Data
Data required for the simulation study included channel geometry, bottomtopography, channel currents for proposed as well as existing conditions,numerical models of test ships, and visual data of the physical scene in thestudy area. Dredging survey sheets provided by the District were used forestablishing channel alignment Current data were obtained from a finite ele-ment numerical model of the Houston-Galveston navigation channels devel-oped for navigation and salinity studies (Lin 1992). A reconnaissance trip wascarried out to observe actual shipping operations in the study area. Videorecordings and still photographs were taken during the reconnaissance transits
1 'Hydraulic Design of Deep Draft Navigation ChouanV PROSPECT (Proponent Spomored
Engineer Corps Training) coume notes, US. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vickburg. MS. 19-23 June 1989.
Ocpler 2 Odaa Developmnt5
to aid in the generation of the simulated visual scene. Discussions with pilotswere also held during this trip so that WES engineers could become morefamiliar with concerns and problems experienced during channel operations. Aseparate reconnaissance trip was carried out to record the position of two shipsmeeting and passing in the existing HSC. The positions of the ships wererecorded using Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, and the resultsserved as a general verification of the simulation model of the meeting andpassing operation. Figure 2 shows results of these prototype measurements.Both of the ships involved were in ballast condition and, therefore, are notdirectly comparable to the ships used in the simulation study. The strategyused by the pilots on the light loaded ships was different than with heavilyloaded vessels. Because of the shallow draft, the pilots were less restricted intheir movements and, prior to meeting, moved over earlier than they normallywould with deeper ships. It is interesting to note that the larger ship actuallygave way to the smaller ship and passed over the dredged channel slope(Figure 3).
Test File
The test file contains initial conditions (ship speed and heading, rudderangle, and engine setting) for the simulation and geographical coordinates forthe channel alignment. The channel is defined in terms of cross sectionslocated to coincide with changes in channel alignment and current directionand magnitude. The information used for the development of the HSC databasewas obtained from the District's project drawings. The Texas state planecoordinate grid, south-central zone, was also plotted on these drawings andwas used for the simulator database coordinate system. Also included in thetest file are the steepness and overbank depth (water depth at the top of theside slope) adjacent to the channel. These data are used by the computer tocalculate bank suction forces on the test vessels. Specifications of other exter-nal forces such as wind and waves are also included in this file. Also, thedefinition of the autopilot track-line for both ships (piloted and traffic) andcommands controlling the numerical autopilot are included in the test file.
For the HSC project the simulator channel cross sections were placedapproximately 500 ft apart except where the bends occurred or where channelwidth changed, e.g., where the holding area opened up on one side of thechannel. Since the test channels in the bay segment were fairly uniform, thesimulator cross sections did not vary in spacing significantly. The simulatorprogram handles the transition between cross sections on an interpolative basis.
Water depths for the simulator were based on authorized project depths.For the simulated existing channel, the water depth represented the existingcondition taken from the most recent dredging survey furnished by the District.The simulator depth of the Phase I channel was a constant 45 ft, and for thePhase 11 channel it was 50 ft, also constant. Existing depths were maintainedin the proposed channels when they were deeper than the proposed depths.
6 Chapt 2 Data Devebrment
4-N
RAM WDRAL
NEW Ww*~PA ANDDI TOrAOfl
+ r
GALVESTON BAY ewumi cAwu.
)TOTOYPE SHP TRACKS 40 Fr DEW
SEALIFT ATLANTIL
7!1*ERAL- vFFigure~~~~~~~~BA 2. Acua sFptak eore nleTnBa
Also,~ ~ ~ DRF ban slpe an o8rn deth weeot+e rmth ititdeging~~~~~~~RF surey STese dat are usdF h aclTio fsiulbnocsBriefNy, bank focsocrwe hptaescoet umergd an
chaparCMAL 2 8W Frlpnn
EDGE OF CHNNEL E OF cHAN400 PT
FIF
--- =A FT . 4. F
NEW MAL 'T SEALFT 2F2&5 FT 42F ATLANTIC
EXISTING BOTTOM
LOOKIN NORTHNOU
Figure 3. Hull clearance during meetingapassing maneuver
(also, wall or docked ship), and the resulting effect is characterized by a move-ment toward the bank and a bow-out rotation away from the bank. Thesebank effects become crucial in narrow channels such as the HSC and have asignificant impact when two ships meet and pass each other in confinedwaterways.
Scene File
The scene database comprises several data rdes containing geometricalinformation enabling the graphics computer to generate the simulated scene ofthe study area. The computer hardware and software used for visual scenegeneration are separate from the main computer of the ship simulator. Themain computer provides motion and orientation information to a stand-alonegraphics computer for correct vessel positioning in the scene, which is thenviewed by the pilot. Operators view the scene as if they are standing on thebridge of a ship looking toward the ship's bow in the foreground. View direc-tion can be changed during simulation for the purpose of looking at objectsoutside of the relatively narrow straight-ahead view.
Aerial photographs, navigation charts, and dredging survey charts providedthe basic data for generation of the visual scene. The simulation testingrequired low visual resolution beyond the immediate vicinity of the navigationchannel. All land masses in the vicinity of the navigation channel were in-cluded in the scene. All aids to navigation in the vicinity of the study areawere included. In addition to the man-made and topographical features in thevicinity, the visual scene included a perspective view of the bow of the ship
8 r2 DON D*VWopnW
from the pilot's viewpoint. Visual databases for all design ships were devel-oped at WES for use in the simulation.
Radar File
The radar file contains coordinates defining the border between land andwater and significant man-made objects, such as docked ships and aids tonavigation. These data are used by another graphics computer that connectsthe coordinates with straight lines and displays them on a terminal. Theobjects viewed comprise visual information that simulates shipboard radar.The main information sources for this database were the project drawings anddredging survey sheets supplied by the District.
Ship Files
The ship files contain characteristics and hydrodynamic coefficients for thetest vessels. These data are the computer's defimition of the ship. The coeffi-cients govern the reaction of the ship to external forces, such as wind, current,waves, banks, underkeel clearance, and ship/ship interaction; and internal con-trols, such as rudder and engine revolution per minute (rpm) commands. Thenumerical ship models for the HSC simulations were developed by TracorHydronautics, Inc. of Laurel, MD (Ankudinov 1991a). The test ships werechosen based on the District's economic analysis of future shipping businessand operations. Table 2 lists the particulars of the ships used in thesimulations.
Current File
The current file contains current magnitude and direction and water depthfor each of eight points across each of the cross sections defining the channelalignment. Current data for a ship simulation study are usually obtained fromphysical or numerical models. In this study, current data were available froma numerical model of Galveston Bay (Lin 1992). The numerical model forexisting conditions was verified using prototype data, and the model bathy-metry was modified for generation of currents for the two proposed conditions.Model data were generated using a spring tidal range for use in the simulationtests. In the Bayport vicinity, maximum flooding tidal currents were generallyless than 1/3 knot. Maximum ebbing currents in the RedfisL Island area wereless than 1.5 knots. In both areas the currents were generally aligned with thechannel and did not have a significant impact on navigation.
chplapr 2 Data Dvepm.nt 9
Table 2Test Ship CharacteristicsShp Length Overall Bam Draft TestTO IR ft Channel
ulk Carwr 775 106 39 Exsq
38 ExisWVn
44 530-ft
Tanker 920 144 30 ExsVng
____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___36 Ex~stVn
go 156 44 530
______ _____25 W3-f
Bulk carier 971 140 44
49 600-ft
48 600-ftTanker 1013 173 49 6O0-ft
48 600-ft
10 ChwW 2 Daa Dorvdpnt
3 Navigation Study
Validation
One of the most important milestones in the simulation process is the vali-dation exercise for existing conditions. The purpose of validation is to uselocal pilot expertise to ensure that the simulation is as realistic as possible.While conducting validation tests, the pilots pay close attention to shiphandling, external force effects, and objects in the visual scene and make com-ments and recommendations for improvement. Normally one or two pilotsfrom the study area come to the simulator for validation; however, for the baysegment of the HSC study, additional pilots were required for check-outbecause of the complicated nature of the hydrodynamic phenomena beingmodeled.
For the HSC navigation study, the focus of validation was the simulator'smodeling of the hydrodynamic interaction between ships during meeting andpassing. Ship/ship interaction forces and moment on the simulator iscalculated with a numerical model developed by Tracor Hydronautics, Inc.(Ankudinov 1988). This model generates vessel interaction forces andmoments for the case of two ships meeting and passing on constant parallel(but opposite) courses. The calculation is based on inviscid potential flow andincludes semiempirical corrections for additional factors that affect interaction,for example, hull appendages and shallow and confined channels.
Figure 4 shows a typical meeting/passing operation modeled by thesimulator prior to validation exercises. The most notable characteristic is thestrong bow-in moment after the bows pass each other, followed by strongbow-out moment from the time the vessels are abeam to when the stemsapproach each other. In contrast, Figure 5 shows a typical meeting/passingoperation as experienced by the Houston pilots. Thbe most significant differ-ence with Figure 4 is the lack of the strong bow-out moment when the shipsare abeam (frame 4). As indicated in Figure 5, according to the pilots, oncethe bows have passed each other during the meeting, there is a constant ten-dency for the ship to rotate away from the closest (in this case starboard) bankand toward the other ship. A large amount of countering rudder is usuallyrequired to regain a straight course in the center of the channel. It should benoted that in Figure 5 the pilots were referring directly to ship movement rather
Chopb S N g Sl 11
1 2 3---------- --------- ------------
O M.IIW SMALL. 30W-1,1OW M1OIT LARGE 3OW-N Ul1wlo LAIRAL SMRI ALL 119ILION NO EAR 0 LAIVOL. 1101M
4 5 6----- -I --- -- --.. ------. --. ----------- ...---- .-........--------C c -I . =F =• ' -,,.
LARG 30W-OUT MOMBIT L• 0WT44 MOJ4IF 0 MOiffT
LAWI*A•TRACMON CE SMALL mAJ•ICNF P E 0LA1,AL IO
Figure 4. Numerical model of meeting passing
1 2 3- - --a- - - - --- - - - -
WPPOX.31 1W. WAT OWPICIS BOW-off EAI FORME SOW Nsow-ou U VmlM ROM 'O10, 1IIS I3W-CIUr tJ00 U
4 5 6
8aPe SIAD IdOk•',Qa HAqD 30- SWNl 81HA01I1E I•U.
30W-N SWU• 0 CMASEU 3oW-Uor mO W UNE RUM TO CONTOL
Figure 5. Meeting/passing based on pilot experience
than moment and forces as referred to in Figure 4. However, the two descrip-tions are essentially synonymous since ship movement closely paralleled thechange of moment during the simulated operation. It became evident fromvalidation testing that the existing simulator model of the meeting/passingoperation needed modification to achieve an acceptable level of realism. Thefollowing differences are noted between the simulator modeling method andthe actual meeting operation:
12 Ch,*W 3 Nmvllon Slay
a. The simulator assumed the two ships were on constant parallel coursesin their own half-channel lanes. In the actual operation the two shipstravel down the center of the channel and move to the side prior tomeeting after which they return to the channel center line. It was appar-ent through physical model tests that the orientation of ships just beforemeeting, had an important impact on the sequence of events in themeeting/passing maneuver.
b. In the simulation, only one of the ships was controlled by a human pilotwhile the other was controlled by a line-following numerical autopilot.The behavior of the autopiloted ship had a significant impact on thestrategy of the human pilot in the simulation. The actualmeeting/passing operation is very much a joint effort between twohumans.
c. It was evident that the simulation model underestimated the effect of theextremely confined channel on the meeting operation. The most signifi-cant aspect of this appears to be the role that the very close, submergedbanks play in the behavior of the ships. Pilot experience indicates thatthe bow-in moment imparted to the ship by the closest bank seems tocancel the bow-out moment (Figure 5, frame 4) measured in the re-strained model tests, conducted in less confined water, on which thesimulator model is based.
d. Another problem with confined water is the impact caused by lowunderkeel clearance. The simulator model limits ship underkeel clear-ance to no less than 5 percent of the ship draft. In short, the simulatormodel maintains water under the keel at all times. This is standardpractice in simulation modeling at present because of the lack of reliabledata on the maneuvering of vessels whose hulls are very close to thebottom. In the HSC, ships with less than 5 percent of channel depthunder their keel frequently meet and pass in the channel. The simulatormodel is not sensitive to small differences in underkeel clearance whenship hulls are in close proximity to the channel bottom.
All of these factors indicate that the meeting4passing operation in the HSCis a very complicated, dynamic process that does not lend itself easily to simu-lation. Due to a combination of time and cost restraints and lack of reliabledata, detailed model improvements for most of these factors listed based onrigorous systematic testing were not possible prior to pilot testing. Modeladjustment focused on modification of the ship/ship interaction moment until asequence of events similar to that shown in Figure 5 was produced duringmeeting and passing on the simulator. This required continuing the bow-inmoment (Figure 4, frame 3) throughout the entire maneuver and increasing itsmagnitude, in effect, truncating any bow-out moment that the original com-puter model calculated. This modification forced the vessel to rotate towardthe other ship throughout the meeting to simulate the ship behavior that thepilots have experienced. Also, some modifications were made in the way themodel calculates bank effects by assigning higher weights to the forces
Chapt 3 Navogaon Suy 13
produced by the closer bank and reducing those from the opposite bank.These modifications were carried out with the help of a consultant (Ankudinov1991b) and additional validation pilots. The following section describes thephysic..: tests used for validation of the simulator model for the purpose ofdesign of the HSC.
Comparison of Simulation with Physical ModelTests
As part of the navigation study, a 1:100-scale physical model of a genericsection of the bay segment of the existing HSC was constructed at WES. Itsprimary purpose was to provide physical data for verification of the simulatorship/ship interaction modeling after making the modifications discussed in theprevious section. Some of the necessary details concerning the scale model arediscussed in the following paragraphs related to simulator validation.
Radio-controlled scaled ships were used in the physical model to replicateactual meeting and passing operations in the HSC. The tests were free-runningtests with an overhead camera tracking system that recorded ship positionduring operation. The model was a straight reach that represented a typicalGalveston Bay section of the HSC. Numerous tests were conducted withdifferent setups and strategies using WES personnel and Houston pilots toobtain a qualitative understanding of the hydrodynamic processes of the meet-ing and passing maneuvers. Generally, the professional pilots who conductedthese tests were pleased with the level of accuracy demonstrated in the scalemodel maneuvems. The modifications performed on the simulator numericalmodel were partly based on knowledge gained through observation of thesescale model tests.
Because of the combination of hydrodynamic and human factors involvedin meeting and passing maneuvers, a basis of comparison between simulatorand scale model results was difficult to develop. For the scale model, replica-tion is a problem, while on the simulator, the tests can be replicated with theuse of a numerical autopilot. It was decided that the preferred method ofcomparison was to remove, to the extent possible, the human influence in thecritical portion of the tests and compare only the hydrodynamic behavior of theships. For the comparison tests on the simulator, both ships were placed intheir respective half-channel lanes on parallel (but opposite) headings. Theautopilot kept the ships on a straight course until just prior to the bows meet-ing, at which time the autopilot rudder was returned to midships and the testwas completed without any further control. In the physical model tests, thesetup was the same except the ship had human control (via telemetry) until justprior to the meeting when, again, the ship was aligned parallel to the channeland steadied. The rudder was then moved to midships, and the test wasallowed to continue without additional human input For these validation tests,ship sizes on the simulator were matched as closely as possible to those in thephysical model. The following tabulation lists these ship dimensions:
14 Chupw S Naigmon St*d
Ungth Owrall
Sip iI Beam, ft Draft, f
Phyeclol model
1 806 19O 36
2 840 126 36
Simulaton Model
1 810 106 36
2 840 138 36
Figures 6 and 7 show comparisons of physical model tests with simulatorresults for 6.5 and 9.5 knots, respectively. The shaded regions indicate vari-ability ranges for physical model ship position (bow and stem), speed, andheading. These plots result from five separate runs for the 6.5-knot case andfour runs for the 9.5-knot case. Human control during the first half of each ofthe physical model tests resulted in much of the variability. The single linesshow simulator results for similar conditions.
For the 6.5-knot case (Figure 6), the paths from the two models are similarin general appearance. The primary difference is the way in which the sub-merged banks at the channel edge affected the behavior of the ships. In thephysical model, the depth at the top of the channel edge slope was 10 ft; there-fore, the ships were restricted from going out of the channel after the meetingoccurred. Instead, the ships sheered off the banks back into the channel. Thesame process took place in the simulator results, but not before the shipsdrifted outside the 400-ft channel edge. This is a result of the 5 percent under-keel clearance restriction, which was discussed earlier, and the lack of a modelof the physical restraint by the bank of the passage of the ship through thebank. Ship speed from the two models generally compares favorably. How-ever, the speed of the physical models appeared to increase slightly when theships first met, while the simulator results exhibited a slight dip in speed whenthe ship bows met. Ship heading indicates the occurrence of a process similarto that for ship position with the simulator ships maintaining a heading towardthe bank for a longer period of time while the physical models sheer away.For the 9.5-knot case, basically the same patterns are indicated (Figure 7). Thepaths of the physical model ships deviate less from the channel center line thanis evident in the 6.5-knot case. This is most likely a result of higher longitudi-nal momentum carrying the ship forward on a straighter course in the 9.5-knotcase. On the contrary, the simulator ships seem to deviate the same amount asfor the lower speed, but the bank sheer afterward is stronger.
Existing simulation models have limitations when predicting the hydrody-namic behavior of ships either very close to the bottom (or banks) or when thehulls are actually moving through fluid mud or sand. It is, however, indicatedby the foregoing comparison that the simulator modeling method, adjusted asdescribed in the previous section, will yield a conservative estimate of thewidth of channel required for meeting and passing operations in the HSC.
Ch"a 3 N•vafon StUdy 15
DISTANCE ALONG CKAWAEL IN 1,00 Fl
0 2
I~ y u r om
T -TA
- 01.09-300
vM0 IIN i I Sttig ...
..... ....
7.A0 .. SiSA AE
40600p"Ip
&.0 SIP IIS
7. .. .
&"0
NINON
&o I'
S1Mi ~~.. .. .. ....MQ. .00r
PHYSICAL MODEL BANK LINE PA~S-NG
SW 1: .060tH - 4110 n; KMI - NS MODERATE SPEEDCHANN4EL WIDTH =':fflII~lflllh SW1 2: L 'W'I - W. . KAM - 13 n' CHANNEL DEPT. :*OWRSANI DEPTH =,
Figure 6. Comparison of phrysical model tests and simulator, 6.5 knots
16 ~Ch@Psar 3 NwAvgalon Sb*d
OfT&RACE ALONG CHIANNEL N 1,000 FT
50 0
"IIIIIIIII"INNIII N07.0 Is
O~A0
501tl C
C 1 .....Ntit0l I0i
,twitCtoo kkitlitttil"..
5.0
,0 SOISI'.CEAlOG C'AD4NL W 1.00 E
PHYSCAL aCE BAN LIE PASINHsG 0PE
7.017-10b 3W 2almo ld
4 Study Results
Simulation Runs
A total of seven professional pilots (pilots F, G, H, 1, J, K, and L) from theHouston Pilots Association conducted simulator tests for the bay segment ofthe HSC. Table 3 shows the organization of plotted simulator results. Each ofthe track plots shows clearances recorded for the particular pilot run. Theminima. clearance (shown as an inset on the plate) at ship meeting occurredwhen the two ships were abeam of one another and took into account theorientation of the ships in the channel. Other information is also included onthe track plots such as approximate speed for both ships and the minimum portchannel edge clearance for the piloted ship after meeting the traffic ship(recovery clearance). Each track plot has another plot associated with it show-ing the variation of selected control measures for the piloted ship, i.e., propel-ler rotation rate (rpm), speed, and rudder angle. The recorded control mea-sures were averaged for each 250-ft segment traveled by the ship and thenplotted against distance along track. Caearance measurements constitute themost efficient means of comparison of simulator results from the different testchannels. Tables 4-8 show clearances as scenario averages (all pilots) andweighted mean averages for each of the test channels. The weighting wasdone according to the number of runs for each scenario. All negative clear-ances denoted on the individual track plots were assigned a value of 0.0 forcalculation of averages. In all the tests, only one run resulted in a collisionduring meeting and passing (Plate 49). This run occurred in the 530-ft chan-nel, and the resulting clearance values were not included in the calculations forTables 4-8.
Plates 1-34 show the result of the runs conducted in the existing 400-ft by40-ft channel. Scenarios 1, 3, and 4 with the 920x144x38 tanker and the775x106x38 Panamax bulk carrier were not considered safe by the pilots.They had limited experience handling these ships in two-way traffic and haddifficulty with the meeting/passing maneuver. Loaded ships of dimensionssimilar to the tanker do transit the channel regularly, but the pilots try to avoidmeeting and passing other ships with them unless they have no choice.Scenario 2 (two 775x106x38 Panamax bulk carriers) was considered a morenormal meeting operation.
Choeer 4 ft* Rsud m
Table 3Scenario-Plate lumber Cross Reference
Scemrdo1 Track Plot jRPM, Speed, and Rudder Angle
1 1,3.7,11,15 2.4,8.12.16
2 27,29,31.33 28,30,32,34
3 5,9.13.17 6.10,14.18
4 19.21.23.25 20.22,24.26
5 35.37 36.38
6 30,41,43,45,47,49 40,42,44,46,48,50
7 61.63.65.67,69.71 62,64.66,68.70,7273,75.77 74,76.78
8 79,81.83 80,82.84
9 51,53,55 52,54,56
10 57,59 56,60
11 85,89,93.97 86,90,94,96
12 87,91,95,99 88,92,96,100
13 101.103.105.107 102.104,106.106109.111,113 110,112,114
1 See Table 1 for description of scenario.
The control measures plots for the existing channel generally show that alarge amount of ship rudder was used in the existing channel. In nearly all ofthe runs in the Bayport vicinity, hard-over rudder was used to control the shipduring meeting/passing. The pilots said this was normal practice, especiallywith deep-draft vessels. For the runs in the Redfish vicinity, the autopilot haddifficulty controlling the larger tanker and it drifted too far toward the edge ofthe channel. In response to this, the human pilot kept his ship closer to thechannel center line prior to meeting the traffic ship. This resulted in less inter-action with the bank, requiring less rudder for ship control.
For the 530-ft channel (Plates 35-84), much the same pattern is seenregarding rudder activity during the tests. Most of the pilots had to use hard-over rudder to control the larger ships tested in the Bayport vicinity. Again,the results in the Redfish area indicate that less rudder was used because of thedifficulty with autopilot control of the traffic ship. This same pattern is alsoevident in the 600-ft channel results (Plates 85-114).
For the existing channel, the clearances recorded in Tables 4-8 cannot beconsidered indicative of a safe channel. There were a number of very smallclearances between the piloted ship and the bank (Table 4) and between thetwo passing ships (Table 5). The average minimum clearances between thepiloted ship and the bank and between the ships were 44 ft and 63 ft,
c0ate 4 Sb*dy Reats1919
ID
al "I S
CcIZ h %
lot 0 v v NI
C C
U)R
20u~N
Omb 4W* 1f
C C CY
E CUF I cc V V I Y N a v I
0 II 'ia.
0
.C A
cjc
IL r. I0 Z ;s-
C) lz
x Pc n ~ qCI 6 I w % ~ p
O~pw S* Rwf 2
- - =-= * - m
c t I.i-x~i
0. 3E .1 l al a a C4
E u -
CL
CE
0. 0
0
C) xc Q;z ;
c*.3l
x
c.2 ol
22 hpw4f*P A
I
Ei zi 01CcI
*y 0C) lo 3 9 30 )I
ii I4£ I
CF
0S
c ZE v) le 41 V) a V) ) cm V N- v
o6
c c
=L
23Omptw 43 St* -a
II
z Icc T Tcrc
~~rp
I o~A.
24OI Sd 'f
respectively. The average total clearance (Table 8) is between 127 ft and131 ft. This is a very small total clearance value.
Table 6 shows average values of the recovery clearance for the piloted ship.This clearance is a measure of the pilot's ability to control the ship after meet-ing the traffic ship. For the existing channel in the Bayport vicinity, control ofthe piloted ship following the meeting operation was very difficult. Theweighted mean average clearance is less than 50 ft for these tests. The resultsin Table 8 show an increase in this recovery clearance in both the proposedchannels compared to the existing case.
The pilots had two different strategies for the meeting maneuver. (a) slowthe engine to half-ahead prior to meeting and go to full-ahead when themeeting occurred, and (b) keep the engine at full-ahead the whole time.Results indicate a possible dependency for the recovery clearance on strategy(a) because of a decrease in the average clearance when the piloted ship wastraveling slower than the traffic ship at meeting. (The autopilot for the trafficship maintained a full-ahead strategy in passing.) Calculations show that whenstrategy (a) was used in the existing channel, the average recovery clearancewas 20 ft. When the piloted ship was at full-ahead, strategy (b), the averageincreased to 65 ft, still a small clearance. In the 530-ft channel the same pat-tern resulted with the corresponding values of 98 ft and 186 ft, respectively,for strategies (a) and (b). In the 600-ft channel, only one run was conductedin which the piloted ship moved slower than the traffic ship. As in the othercases, the recovery clearance for this run was 92 ft, the lowest recorded in the600-ft channel, and less than half of the 194-ft average of all the rest of the600-ft channel runs. This suggests that the slower ship in a meeting situationwill be affected more than the other and in order to optimize ship control andsafety both pilots should try to follow the same strategy and especiallymaintain similar speeds.
All measures of clearance show improvement in meeting/passing situationsfor both the 530- and 600-ft channels compared to the existing condition. The530-ft channel provides some improvement and the 600-ft channel provideseven more. However, in the 530-ft channel, the meeting/passing ship com-binations (156-ft and 140-ft beams) proved to be too large. The minimumtotal clearance (Table 8) was 165 ft. The design guidance for two-way naviga-tion channels in EM 1110-2-1613 (Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers, 1983) calls for a 60-ft bank/ship clearance for both ships and 80 ftbetween ships for a total clearance of 200 ft. In order to bring the 530-ftchannel to this standard, the channel width would require an increase of 35 ft.To help determine what combination of ships could meet and pass in the530-ft channel, tests were conducted (pilots K and L) using ships whose com-bined beams totaled less than 280 ft. This value was used because it wasapproximately 35 ft less than the largest combined beam tested originally(156 ft and 156 ft), and there are a number of ships with beams of about 140ft used in lightering operations in the HSC. Ship combinations of 140-ft/140-ftand 156-ft/106-ft beams were tested. Plates 51-60 show the results for theseparticular tests. Clearance values are shown for the restricted beam tests for
25chapwr 4 Study Rewits
the 530-ft channel in Tables 4-8. In two of these tests the pilot had difficultyafter ship meeting had occurred and drifted beyond the left channel edge;however, both of these cases were first runs, and the difficulty was probablybecause of unfamiliarity with the scenario. The most significant result is thatthe total clearance (Table 8) during meeting for the two test conditions wasvery close to 200 ft, indicating an adequate two-way passage.
The 600-ft channel tests resulted in average total minimum clearances of atleast 214 ft (Table 8). Although some small clearances between the trafficship and the bank (Table 7) resulted from poor control of the largest trafficship (1013x140x49), most of the clearances are considered adequate. The onecase that resulted in a grounding of the traffic ship had minimum clearancebetween the ships of 171 ft and between the piloted ship and the bank of 91 ft.Another case resulted in a minimum clearance between the ships of 58 ft and123 ft between the piloted ship and the bank. If the piloted ship had movedover toward the bank more, the resulting forces on the traffic ship would haveallowed the autopilot to control it better. Considering the other two test condi-tions for the 600-ft channel, the average minimum clearances are adequate andno groundings occurred.
Comparison of results in Tables 4-8 from tests with 1-ft and 2-ft underkeelclearances indicates insignificant differences in channel edge and ship/shipclearances. These tests did not account for the effects of squat, the potential ofstriking the bottom, and the resulting reduction of headway (which could affecttraffic congestion).
Plate 115 shows one pilot run conducted in the 530-ft channel with a pro-posed overtaking area (holding area) in place. The holding area tested was4,000 ft long with a total width of 830 ft. The loaded tanker (990x156x44)and the bulk carrier (775x106x39) were moving in the same direction with thesmaller ship overtaking and passing the larger ship as it slowed down in theholding area. The autopilot on the overtaking ship was replaced by humancontrol for this one run. Engine speed and rudder of the overtaking ship werecontrolled via computer keyboard instructions from a WES engineer who couldsee the position of the ship on the simulator radar. The most significant resultof this test is the track-line of the large ship as it tried to slow down in theholding area. The relatively short length provided (approximately four shiplengths) forced the ship to reduce to a speed at which the pilot had difficultycontrolling the vessel. In addition to this simulation, a few overtakingmaneuvers were performed in the HSC physical model for general observation.It was evident from these tests that the overtaking ship actually pushes theother vessel to the side and drags it along the channel during the maneuver,causing a critical loss of control in the overtaken ship. The simulator test didnot model this phenomenon; and, therefore, the test results give only an indica-tion of the amount of time involved in the overtaking and a general sense ofthe level of ship hanc" 'S difficulty. According to the pilots' comments afterthe simulator run, the holding area should have a length of 2 miles (approxi-mately 12,000 ft or 12 ship lengths) and a channel width of 1,000 ft in ordertr allow enough maneuvering room for such large vessels.
26 Chapter 4 Sldy RFaults
Concerns
Evidence has been presented indicating that the simulation results in thebay segment of the HSC yielded conservative predictions of the behavior ofthe design ships in the proposed channels. However, the following discussionpoints out concerns to be kept in mind when interpreting the simulation results.These points define areas needing improvement for future simulationsinvolving similar hydrodynamic processes.
The simulation could have been enhanced greatly by providing pilot controlfor the traffic ship. Meeting and passing situations are a joint effort betweentwo pilots; therefore, if one ship does not react as an actual piloted ship would,the entire maneuver does not develop normally. Although the same modelingapproach was used successfully in a Baltimore Harbor study, the extremelynarrow channels and small underkeel clearances in the HSC resulted in verylarge dynamic forces that were not as successfully controlled by the autopilot.In some instances during the simulation tests, the autopilot allowed the trafficship to break too far to the side of the channel in preparation for the meeting.The real pilot on the other ship reacted to this as he normally would by notmoving over as far to the other side of the channel, creating an unusualmeeting/passing maneuver in which the loaded traffic ship drifted well out ofthe channel.
During the tests conducted by pilots F, G, H, and 1, questionnaires werecompleted after each run. The pilots were asked to rate the difficulty of therun and the realism of simulation on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 correspondingto very easy and very unreal, respectively. Comparatively these pilots onaverage rated both of the proposed channels slightly easier than the existingchannel. Average realism ratings were in the 3-5 range with the pilots ratingthe proposed channel simulations slightly less realistic than the existing chan-nel. Throughout the test program the pilots were concerned that the numericalsimulation was not modeling the behavior of the ships correctly. The pilotsdid not believe the larger ships would handle as easily in the proposed chan-nels as the simulator indicated, even in the one-way situation. Even thoughthey have little experience in these situations, the pilots believe that the shipswill be rather unstable and difficult to control. This could be a result of thevery small underkeel clearances used in the simulations, which existing numer-ical simulators may not model well. No data are available for these condi-tions, and the existing state of the art is to extrapolate the ship behaviorchanges for larger underkeel clearances to those for small depth to draft ratios.Furthermore, the effects of a moving bottom, i.e., mud or silt, on ship handlingare not known. These are factors that require extensive study and research inorder to enhance existing simulation models.
champ 4 St*y PAiuts 27
5 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made for the Galveston Bay section ofthe HoustM Ship Channel.
a. Based on the simulation results, the proposed channel width of 600 ftfor the fully deepened (50 ft) project is recommended.
b. If the intermediate channel project (45 ft) is to have a channel width of530 ft, it is recommended that meeting/passing situations be limited toships whose combined beams total less than 280 ft (53 percent of chan-nel width). This criterion may result in operational restrictions beingemployed, e.g., holding other large ship traffic so that the channel istemporarily one-way or with restricted ship sizes traveling in the oppo-site direction of the large ship. Tlese restrictions will most likely causedelays that may have to be accounted for in any economic analysis ofchannel improvements. If such operational procedures cannot be used,then it is recommended that the intermediate channel be widened by atleast 35 ft.
c. It is not recommended that the overtaking area be constructed as testedin the simulation unless the overtaken ship can be slowed to a speed thatallows tug control before the overtaking begins. If such is the case, thetugs would have to hold the ship in position throughout the overtakingmaneuver and could cause traffic interference and delays. This opera-tional procedure would probably require additional width depending onthe size of the tugs used.
d. The tests were conducted without bend wideners and no passing in thebends. Based on these test results, it is recommended that no bendwideners are needed.
28 ch@ws Romm Pod
References
Ankudinov, V. (1988). "Mathematical and computer models for predictingship-ship interaction forces for use on WES ship maneuvering simulator,"Technical Report 87018.0124, prepared for U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, by Tracor Hydronautics, Inc., Laurel,MD.
Ankudinov, V. (1991a). "Development of maneuvering simulation models forfive full form vessels for use in the WES Houston Ship Channel (HSC)navigation study," Technical Report 90062.0122, prepared for U.S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, by TraoorHydronautics, Inc., Laurel, MD.
Ankudinov, V. (1991b). "Improvements to ship handling model for meetingand passing situations in the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) navigationstudy," Report No. 510-91-007, Document No. 5101007R.D12, prepared forU.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, byBritish Maritime Technology, Inc., Columbia, MD.
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1983). "Hydraulic design ofdeep-draft navigation projects," EM 1110-2-1613, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC.
Lin, Hsin-Chi J. (1992). "Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TexasProject; Report 2, Two-dimensional numerical modeling ofhydrodynamics," Technical Report HL-92-7, U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston. (1987). "Final feasibility report andenvironmental impact statement, Galveston Bay area navigation study,"Galveston, TX
29PWMnW"
i'•,c eH
\. -N-
00• 'I
T CIS* NS-r A \\.
•" o'I* ' c4•
"0 PW2OrU3ap
",7 FT 7u1" 3P 4gmdi• '.,C,
MIOTED SH TANK:ER (900XW42,*) - INOUDOq .,PLOT S.O•:4 DOWN oEFOSE '<"""
UK. FORT' CLEARANCE AFTER WE'TNM -61 Fr "7RFR SHP• BUL.K CARRUIE M5=4) - OUTBOUND
SPEED - AMIRKX. &.4 KNO78 " ,
a' """_______
%
SHP TICI--LIN P EXI,"TN CHANNEL
BAYPORT VZANOATFLOOD T PLOT T, RUN 1
PLATEE1
CO.
0 10
ff 4
-0 W~
s3-C
PLATE 2
TRAFFIC
SEE WSET A ,
G&E T34~ WM
".•r '-R-N-
*1
q 0-',•V•Ng
"S E '"A •LEGEN
"MN 62 Fe a~ Ft-
G~i~ST0 I~cR \ ' \ s \.w
f r 'r
SAWOAT CHANNE
96 Wr ToWALE 2D
PLOlTED SH TANKMER (920,S1449) - MOUND "PLOT SLOWE DOWN BEFORE MEETING
- APPX. 6A3 KNT1O9",S"
MN. POW CL.EAPANCE AFTER l : 47 Fr ,,TRAFED SIUP BV(.,X C(SOERI •IMM) - OUTBOUND,"SP~ - APPROX 6V KNOTS
SHIP TRACK-LUNE EXIS`TNG CHANNELBAYPORT VMICITY
F.OOD TIDE, PLOT F, RUN 2
PLATE 3
-M CL Z
UJ00
0
0 i8±ON)I
PLATE 4
*, 54--*
, \ m*•PqeSPu"
.4 I
* -N-
SEE c"SET A ".
0 4
• , • , TL AT li "4 '5
m 1 4'r *~ \ 5. '
BAtMV W SET A
*q- \ 41:1 LEGEND
sak CLEARAMM AT Or9 METh4
NfT TO SCMALEM
PLOTED SHIP TANKEI (920w144i3) - UO ", "PL.OT SLOWDDOW •BEFOREMEET1M .• ,.
SPE• - APPROX $A KNOTSMN. PORT CLEARANCE AFTER MWhN 28 FrTRAFFIC W BULK CARRIER (775x106x3S) - OUTBO• N
S - APPROX. 7.0 KNOTS At.
4~4(
S" S.
SHIP TRACK-LINE, EXISTING CHANNELBAYPORT V1CINITY
R.OOD TIDE, PLOT F, RUN 3
PLATE 5
-% co
IIIiUC4
a__lIN4MU SNOunfloAa
PLATE 6
%* %
%1,-N- ~i .
RMAM . 7
0
C*I'o NST TA
0
N.t %CR MLAAC AFTAAMA W M
.4e4
SHPRCK-UE, EITNCHNEL
MN. ~ ~ ~ ~ BAPR POT LARNCIFTRWNIN:5YF
FLOOD TIDE, PLOT(, N1
PLATE 7
uJou
9 Ii
Si1~LU OW 00A
PLATE 8
%
.' 1. It* -N-
J~liag 'vwcPLOD Or
SEEINSET A %
0 , % '
a~o"L AIV 04APRIVZW#TD
*-- C-.'
LECEPO
*~'~ 'K~~. \u - nLo= or ThAU. CawION
UK QEARAMiMUAT *rMOM
.0' 2Lrsor"u
PLOTED SW TANKER (MXOWM1Q) M fOUND84M UL AHEAD .
S -APPROX. 6.6 KNOTSMR PORW CLEARLANCE AFTM &lEEO :34 FT
TRA"C SW. SAJ CAWM~ CM x) - CTOUNDWSPE-APPROX. 7.1 KNOTS X..
SHIP TRACK-LJNE, EXIS8hO CHANNELBAYPOR VIC24fl
FLOOD TMDE PILOT G4 RUN 2
PLATE 9
Ic
~~iiO ii ii
aim 00IIMNPLATE 1
SEE INSET A
RAG 1.
,,s• •' \ 04 'IIIG
SEEn S "vNSET A -w-
• , • • IIJWt CLFAR•¢M8 AT Or11 MEETM•
22 FT 4- NFT 700 8T
' '
PIL.OTED SHIP: TANKER (g20XI44z39) - INBO)UND Al:PILOT SLOWED BEF-OREMEETING "~- APPROX. 6.3 KNOTSU""" ,
WL POR~r CLEARNEAFTER MEETNG-120Fr ',,TRAFICI SHP SULK CARE (775X10x39) - OUTBOUND .•,
SED-APPROX. 7.0 KNOTS ,•
SHIP TRACK-LINE, EXISTING CHANNELBAYPORT VICINITY
FLOOD TIDE, PILOT K- RUN 1
PLATE I1
S... . m~ ~~ill m m mi
aO.I3%.OltI.If
_____ C
IIUser
.0.
I I I F II I I I I I
9saao
PLATE 12
* ~-N--
.1w
SEE' % tJT SET A \
awwe
a FT 70 PT NOl-. .-- *5 I
c.I.. 5' HETA r
siAt
PLOTE SHP1 TAKE (9hAUSxW - flO
APRO 7.1KNTSd ol
PLOTED~~FOO TIM PLOTE K9Od~~S RU 2OI
B4WPLATE 13
-Cf) 0
ly U
W00
-UnfM WUd SNouJTIOA3U
PLATE 14
I
G.AL'VESTON I P,
f~/1
• ~~ C7 €'. .• ISET A 'o3."\-" P LO= PLO1B.39
• ~ ~ ~ M • eI18I.EAPANME AT Or4 WET• .7ft 7O4 '
SDGE INSET
,, ,, NOT TO SCALJE
PILOT"ED 3-6 TANKERl (92MUUMx3) - 15NCBMND.' ,,,
ENGINE F=ULL AHEAD ,SPEED - APPROX. 7A KNOT
MIN. PM CLEARAN AFTER iEE11 -W FT ,
TAC SHP BULK CARIE (775MXU0x) - 0U/TMUND
SHIP TRACK-LINE, EXISTING CHANNELBAYPORT V.CIH*T'Y
FLOOD TID, PILOT I, RUN 1
PLATE 15
•- -- m m m mam mm umau amu aimi ll n iil~ I
co
U~ o iwI~
PLATE 16
-N-
RA. 1 *3" •3 PLO s\
jS
SEE -.SET A" A
CI.,VrSTD4LPN
•MKE -I ,
SAVOT C"A"I 14T A
64AS Of CVMal"
-* ,• .,, .e.
PL OLOW SW TDAWN BOOcTON
.T• LIM EARAtE AT SW lMEEli-O
% .
o 2•L"V
S a 4 J wax e
SHIP TRC-LI EXITN CANE
BOR TO CIMAE
PILOTED SHP. TANKER (920044M) T PTMUDPILOT SLOWED DOWN BEPOR OPA M7
SPW- APPROX 6.7 KNOTSL41K PORT CLEARANCE AFTER MEETIO :-7 FT
TRAFFIC SHP- SULK CARRM (775xIOx3S) - OUTBOLINDSPEED - APPO 7.1 KNO~TS 0
,fil
SHIP TRACK-UNE, EXISTING CHANNELBAYPORT VICN1Y
FLOOD TDE, PLOT It RUN 2
PLATE 17
MCg)
w mJ
0 ~ w
ci2
7u0
I.-k
-Ulm 0
SION~I
PLATE 18
• , INt CLEAPAHM AT Or WIFHN,6 lT 56FT -20 P FT
LENN
""\ ""06"
', �', TO Se i'RAm, CP
-dg -PLO7 M VAI WE
A' %
%
INSE A", SEE INSET A
PILOTED SHIP. MILK CARE (775x10x39) - OUrBOMN O•" T1 I,,,r.PLOT SLOWE B ESOE ',
SPE - APPROX. 7.0 KNOTS "MN. PORT CLEARANCE AFTER MET40-:133 FT•R ",
U'
T RA F R C S H T A N K E R (92 0X144I M ) - M M N %.SPEED - APPSOX 6.0 KNOT%
SHIP TRACK-UNE, EXISTING CHANNELREDFISH ISLAND VICINITY
EBB TIDE, PILOT F
PLATE 19
hi w
C4I
7--J
in in i
PLATE 20
xee
• , " IMK L Eq• APAN M• AT 8HP WaE=IWO
""",54 FT 73iFT 0F'r
NOT TO UCDLE
LEGEND
`Oft---- FLOt W Or IAVE OFECTION
S..
w~
PIL.OTED SHP B"tJ CARE C773SXM 9,) OU•TBOUND " U• b *,&,,,
.&q*,X AS KNOTS ,,
TRFI SHP. TANKER 1920XU, I9) - MOID0SPEED-APPROX, 6.0KNOTS"'°'i
SHIP TRACK-UNE, EXISTING CHANNELREDRSH ISLANM VICINITY
EBB TIDE PILOT G
PLATE 21
" " i i " i
co
w
CMI
PLATE 22
TRAFFC 8W9
, a.EAPARClM AT O MIM
100 T 34 FT -pr
NOT TO *CAIFI•EDFtU OL.AND ' ' ,•'"s•
, ,,4,
TRAF. ,,•I .SW.ML04) **
PLO711 %1 ~
INSET A SEE INSET A
PILOTED SHP BULK CAR ('7RidO6R l) - OUTBOUN ,EV'S. WA
PLOT SLOWED DOWN BEORE MSETHOmtbmSPE - APPROX. 6.6 KNOTS
N. POMT CLEARANCE AFTER M: 107 FT ,,
TRAPRC SHPF TANKER (920X%144i) - INBOUCND ",0
SPEED APPROX, 59 KNOTS .,
SHIP TRACK-UNE, EXISTING CHANNELREDRSH ILAND VICINITY
EBB TIDE, PILOT HPLATE 23
c~ca
I I I I I I I "
I I Iii7l
v 0
PLATE 24
M WLEAPAMC AT W [ r [
xx., *aleNO TOW F
.. t T SCALEND
FLOMD or39L rco
': ~-IN- '
SETA ". ,SJSETA
RCVKFSH 3I
PILOTED SH B"lK CARFV Cfl59dMM) - OUTBOUND d OrQT* am",
ENINiE FULL AHEADSPEE - APPROX. 15 KNOTSUKt PORT CLEARANCE AFTER MEE1O: 123 FT .~
TRAFFC SIP TANKE (920x144&U) - INBOUNDSPE - APPROX. 6.1 KNOTI ""S
SHIP TRACK-UINE, EXISTING CHANNELREDFISH ELAND VCNITY
EBB TIDE, PLOT I
PLATE 2
I I
SIkNil
S336mPLT 26
I-N
SEE TN*C SA
. It A LEOEN
ma.o
~I r'ft ftM
PLT *911 M" ftMC~~ta eU
SW -f AMft.VS'W
7f" %rt M"ft M M)-OMN
SP - AMO & NMA
;01 %t
~M.~Cyell ellN
\
Ut ~ ~ ~ LT 27~uiASW 14
Ic
0 0
.0
rit
S U MJI Wi d ffl o u n moA w C
CM 1 0 in
PLATE 28
1. %
"A" r 0
11%'
C ql, 0
-i %%N?
IM ~ 7 F.M~ T 39 THO
q6 ED= WT TO SCALEm
PLOTED SHIP. WLK CARIERMUM) - N901W
SD- APPROX1.5 K.NOSWL PMPI CLEAPAI4E AFnM METO 11F
TRAPFFC SHIP S"L CAM (775MXW0z) - OWUT9IW
SPW-APPROX. 7.2 KNOT
SHIP TRACK-UNE, EXISliNG CHANNELBAYPORT VIKiNITY
FLOOD IDE, PILOT 0, RUN 3
PLATE 29
ow
II -SR ii
iico
S j
CMi
B~mU1NV SNOfL1mOAMi
R±ON~I
PLATE 30
SEE SET A"
"C'I'. SET A
A<,• = • I•' "
MEE FISETAMX AT\ E
,,hNOT TO W
uAWPO PORT CLAAC AFTER METIG:2F
T I P CA (5 - O U' .N
S 0o
* ~ 1 4.4~uEoj
SHIP TRAK-E EXISTIN CHANNEL
S-APF• . .OKNT ",,
,",
0\
BAYPORT VICINITY
FLOOD TIDE, PLOT H, RUN 3
PLATE 31
:D a- 3
2 Cfo
OOz
owc
-J11: Iii0U
coEl4IIL
~ SNOflOA3
I I I I 1 I I I
00
I I I , -7
PLATE 32
4* /m
C.S3'oo \C7*,., WSE A
C-N-
OAS ~P R~ U 'PL] '
SEE INSET A A
*i' , i': ; I.ENSE D ',* ,, 39.. OcCrc1ON-,
• , ".'8 TapM~TN• • •44 fT om r 71=1"
% NOTTO ac"E
'*
PLOTED SHIP BULK CARRIER (775x40649) - IBOUNDENGIN FULL AHEADS- APPROX. 10 KNOTS
MN. PORT CLEARANCE AFTER MEET-IN -2 FTTRAFC SHP 8ULK CAf ('75xt06x3) - OUTBOUND
SE- APPOX. 7.3 KNOTS 0 ' 'i
SHIP TRACK-LINE, EXISTING CHANNELBAYPORT VICIWrrY
FLOOD TIDE, PILOT L RUN 3
PLATE 33
~cIi _IIC.)
C03 TI
I<IoJ<I I I ~ I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _o i iI~~ ~ ~ ( I IIII
P -IQ r0
S±ON)I
PLATE 34
530-ft Channel Simulator Tests
CII). . I TA %
°.S. W:W
C'1° % C*7
% IN M EN
MK CLAASSA H OM
36E Fr *r \9 \pr
.. . •O.O. . eAL.A
PLOTd SLOWED ~ j DOM--- BEFORE METING cnci
,, P OT CLAACATATUI.I I9TlNF
SHIP A 530FT
R. ' NOT TOCA, LE
PLOTEO W TANM• (O156z44) - INBOUPL 35PLOT SLOWI• DOWN WIOfl h "I°" "
SP - APPROX. 66e KNOTS , ,Wt Po~r CLAAC AFT~ l TO I=lfl , PT ,
TRAFFIC SI• 9LK C• (r/40z44) - oursoiw~ ","SP, :)- A.P,,OX. °.o KNO,- .,"'.
SHIP "[RACK-LUNE, 5,30-FT CHANNELBAYPORT VICINITY
FLO0D "riDE, PILOT F, RUN 1
PLATE 35
40
I I I I I I 1 7 -co 0 v
PLATE 36
It I
It.S. 1
sm INw r A "
... ; .INSET
A '
t CeAT"
% 25r r
.5,. '. I',I
LE o SAL
.lSE SW TANKER (g-)x15U41 -
T.Au,,
ENIN FULLui AHEADUT~b
SPEED~O~l - SCOA&IKNT
MkN PORT CL A A C AFUTER M IEE NT 174 I= ,r,'RAPI SWI 6 CARRIER (971ft40)
- OUTUDOS- ,,,iOX. Si ,a,,o1U-. ... "..• ,
SHI RICK-LENA, 530--IFT CI-HANNEL
BAYPO•RT VKXATYFLOOD TM PLOT q' RUN I
PLATE 37
m,, ,,m mmm m Di to mI
II
co-
?C,
a~fM HUI;n-OS
JifMdSLOWTOB
PLATE 38
NST
Ell
cut'
* Orr
-St* MOM~ Ar \A 099=
UK CUS ATO MO
~~45"'5- S
PL\ MViT IISETA I'M)- MN
TAMSAW.TAN O*Og~ - O~KMj. J
\~~LO TM PLOTW F, 1RUN 2UCT
- ~ ~~~~LT 39 ~~.cmA H
hii hi
mwg
I I I II I 1 -7 I
M8ta
PLATE 40
vi * TPI 4
44O o
SEE WSE AN .
W&V4 4M
'MMZ \ w
SEE INET A ETASAW~~S SOMML f
% 53F 0 op
-~C 4 4
oCI To 4
PIOI SH TNERETAx4)IA4JL AHEAD.4.
3AAPPROX UWUNO4MN.~~~~~~ POT 4ERNEATRMEM17F
CSHP TRC-UE 53rCHNEBAPR VOIT
FLO TM PLT.^* RN
PLT 41
I-
-
t
sasua
PLATE 42I
IFAFC ow
'\,~ -N-
*lim o
W W4SET A
.4. CM* C'M5 ,
Aq- PLO= Or 1PAW C9flOW
5'UK ozCL inA AT SW i,.of0 &r r p
'Sj
MOT~NT1 aSOMDOEmi
SHM - AMW9X. 7.1 KNMT %FORMW CLEAPAtCU AF EM -7M FT '
TRAPMi SHP TANM (990u15M25 - OUTBOUMSMSM - APPOX. 9.5 KNOTS 00*
SHIP TRACK-UNE, 530-FT CHANNELBAYPORT MACNY
FLOOD TIDE, PLOT H, RUN 1
PLATE 43
III I1I4
w
I i I I I I I I L oL
I I i ' I I I I I0P E
N C4i
PLATE 4
4.. ,,J.&
" ./-N- "., ",
4 ",SEE IIJSET AETA
GMLVtSTCH IPE \ TFADMCU OrI4
mr,.
• I" I WSETA1
""ll* clLr..RA~lA 4PlE IN
S- •-rpqai. 7. KNOT8 ,. -,
% ~ Wt OZa.EJECU AT Or METH*1 464r I
S• CHANK-LH CHAANEL4 4.FI
-it
MLOED SHP TANKER (990POT44) - F0N
ENE FLEADU - APPROX. 7.6 KNOTS
M~ PORT CLEARANCE AFM ?WEH: 11112 Fr
TRARC: SIW. TANKE (960MM620 - OUTBUND~t
8M- APPROX. 92 KNOTSV 4.
SH IPRACK-UINE, 530-fT7 CHANNELBAYPORT VIOF4TY
FLOOD TME PLOT K, RUN 2
PLATE 45
COT
w
CM)
LLJW
I I'
le 2i SLON)I
PLATE 46
-N-
'S 0.
SEE WSET A S
~~gq a41l- ISET A
. t* A n
~n \
S,0C FULPTA
SW'MACK-LIN U!, 53F CHANNE
FLOODo~ TM LO kTM
~~~~~~4~~~LT 47TCERNEAT TO 2~>"
i w
0 0
Sa~oaPLATEII
%hC
a RF SW
RwI,
OcII*1%~ *4
a' 5 OEND
SEE CLEAPIAAC AT&\LS
a ar
q.4~ *3E EIDGENO0O CU
PILOTED SHP AKRa9Of" M
ENGINET FULL AHEADSPE* -APRXW N7
UFMCLERAC Aa E WEIN 6 F
SH RAKLWI 530ARF7 ATHANNEL
PLO~~FLOO TMW PLOT L900RUNx)2
WE ~PLATE 4i
100ANN-
a filU SI-#&
I I I -T 7 7 1 1
PLATE 50
SE ME A
*PF SW
/E MI*0SET IN E A
DAWO4AT CMAW OWSS-AIN
Mk4 CUTMC T WMET
9x . EDG NOT T MCA
PLOThi SLOWED DOW SE' MEEIN
41~10
SPFLOO TM PILOTX K. RUN S
1PLATE 5
C0
1.w
CM~
I I I - I I 7 r I
PLATE 52
Rum II
ii S
wr,.
, '5 .Io
S•.EI•%ETA;D NST
C*' c• Isl"e"m
S.,~.\ , ISETA
c.1" • \ c\,\
', r e .4, *1"
SEEDO EDGEA\
PILOTED SH BULK CARE 1971x14x441 - MNOUND .4'",PLOT SLOWED DOWN MEETING
PID- APPRFOX 6.7 KN"OT",MI• PORlT CLEARANCE AFTER: MEET1NG 148 Fr ,,,
TRAFFIC SHIP B~LK CAIIE (97UMX1044) - OUTBOUNDS-s APPROX. 6.1 KNO\TS'.' ,,,
* '
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 530-FT CHANNELBAYPORT VCN\TY
FLOOD TMDE PILOT K. RUN 2
PLATE 53
CO)
SorI-
I r d1ii11
Si I
SLON)I
PLATE 54
SEE N*SET A\\
GALVgSTM gupm
0
mwr' '
3A'groR @41MG.o NSE AI 1.M 1m~aI
X. LEGEN
FLOW Wr7AW OICone
*\t O.1DAPAN AT SW bdIM4547pr 41 Pr
9.E0 NOT 70 SCAL.E E
PILOTED M-P B" CARRIR(7M4)-MM
SRJLL AHEADSD- APPROX 8.2 KNOTS
M-lt~ P upjr CLAAC AMRMEW 239 Fr '
TRAFMiC SHP, BLK CAmFE C97Ux1sz4) - OVJTOUNDSPEE - APPROX 6.0 KNOTS 0,S
SHIP TRACK-UNE, 530-FT CHANNELBAYPORIT VACtHFli
FLOOD TIDE, PILOT L, RUN 1
PLATE 55
IM a.
ini
I ~ I I I II IIA
PLATE 56
-N-
14E A I
FLO IITAE ~CM
aAOI FTWG 71 Fr6Fca 1= \=
MOTM~~ SHP TMM(xw)- ON
PIOT SLOWM DOWN BEFOM E LTMO'S -APPRX. W. KNOT
Wt PMR CLEAMtANCE AFT5 MEln: o FTr .
TRAMFC SM" WXLI CAFF MUM"1x4) - O'JTSO'JS -APPRO7 6.3 KNOTS 0 ' x
40V4
SHIP TRACK-UNE, 530-FT CHANNELBAYPORT VICINTY
FLOOD ilDE. PILOT K
PLATE 57
w w
I IN
CM)
ISI
a~~rC IdSNI-KII I I ,I I I Il
PLATE 58 MWA
-N-
* S3
S 0.
X 65F oP 2P
9. EMV NO TA9MAN
AWITaWO- \, %
PLOTED SH. TANKE \*O~" -\*XM
MK PM0EPNEAF ET 5F
\ SHIPOJ TRCKA-UNE 530FTCHANE
~~~~-~LT 59W5 TAE OOO
CL
II
4 C.I
Lo J,3WM W3d SNournoA%
PLATE 60
qL' ~ ~ U CLW .EhAPAH AT IW LWIM
.5OO
S. LEWJD
PLsS -M---- PL1UX RAU CAF*R(7tft )- NTO
GU-t AI
ENWE~~ FUL S
TPARTC SHIU- TAM(M CA9 O7IgdOg) -VOUTLO A R
S -APMAX. &9 KNOT
SHIP TRACK-UNE, 530-FT CHANNELREDAISH LGLAND 'J1CVflEBB TME PLOT F, RUNJ I
FPL-AT'E6 61
C,,
h;IILa L
~- - ~ . u C
Lu0
K,
SLOIsamlii
PLT 62
MK4 CLEAPAMM AT SW USEM
",, ", POT TO WCA."
""., SLAW
*, - EM •
NSET A ". , SEE SE•T A
PLOTED SH BULK CAFE (97k140x441 - OUTMMUN ' u,• E,PL-OT SL.OWED DOWN BEFORE MEETM0 ,SPE - APROX. 62 KNOTSMKt PORIT CL.EARANCE AFTER IEE-nNO : V9 FT, .,
SPEED - NAPPRX 6.7 KNOo ,
4cU
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 530-FT CHANNEL\ ISLAND VICINIYEBB TIDE, PLOT F, RUN 2
PLATE 63
C,,
II I II III
0 II
II I I C
RUM NWI U SNofLmOASW
I I I I I I I 0 -
sPaT
PLATE 64
S',, ,,K CLEATANCEAT S MTI40
S:~.,, *• r r
•19 1 Ndd•k4
NOT TO SCALE
" "H I.AM "
LEMND
YP*M SM
INSEI" A ,",',SEE INSE A
PILOTED SH MILK CARE (97blxWs44) - OU'rBcxt ou-rbt ot,€IENGIE FULIL AHEA=D ,,S - APPROX. 7 KNOTS " 1,
iLl PORIT CLAAC AFTER MEEING 200 FiT •,
S O
TAFCSPTANKER (ggox1ft144) - IN.BOL" MS D - APPROX .0 KNOTS %
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 5,30-FT CHANNELREDFIH IILAND "KV \
EBB TIDM PLOT ON RUN 1
PLATE 65
00%
as
II, .6
r-7--T
________ S~uii 4,
SLON)I
PLATE 66
q6 MN. CLEAMANCI AT IHP MTEi"". "•*, 4T oPT 47 F
NOTrTO SCALA
* ' • 4I•DP1•Q IFE. ", OLAND
FLOTW o TM" O"C"",
q%
TRFI SHP
,\ PLO1rE 8
1NSET A SEE NSET A
PILOTED 81-0b, ULK CARRE (97Mdds44 - OTW Ojybt mRicB4MNE FULL AMEAD8P• - APPROX. U KNO78MN. PORT CLEARANCE AF1nff MErETI : 42 FT , .*
TRAFRC SHIN TANKER (W02d5•x44) - P"O- .6,1** "5 5,
SP - APPROX 6.0 KNOTS
SHIP TRACK-UNE, 530-FT CHANNELREDFISH ISLAND VIcINrrYEBB T•E, PLOT G, RUN 2
PLATE 67
co
wOin~ 0
0
-0 .1
SLON)I
PLATE 68
q.NOT T SCALE
RqEDFIS,. ISLA, ND",
owiA " ,, "O 9At
PLO"DS•CJ• (7x4x4 -OUUN___: •,r,
LOTE 1 SHIPE DRWN DIRECTION
*F0•)- PP•. . KNOTS LEGNL
TTRAFFI S HI
%%
SHIP SHIA
FIEDFQEIIS IWAD I
EBLOT PLOW DW RUN M
9IIvSPEED A PLATE A9WL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J[ POTCAAANEFTGMM89F
TRAFFC SHP TANKER (990K15b44) - MMIDO* 0* .
SPEE - APPROX. 6.6 KNOTSTRFI
SHIP TRACK-UNE, 530-FT CHANNELFREDF~IS ISLAND VICIITEBB TOR, PLOT q, RUN 3
PLATE 69
clCM)
i~~I ii -7y
N 1 C4
PLATE 70
UK CLEAPANCE AT SW WEE34O
* S.
NOT TO ODDE
FE'U BLAND
* ',, S
Svs
PLTEDI SH BUKT AFE (970kift4 ) -INOUTBUNDyb t~
'S.PX 6.0 KNOTS" "
SHPPI 8RAK4LN, 53.F CANE
EBB TM PLOT K, RUN I
PLATE 71
Iao
ItT
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
PLATE 72
". ,,~. ta CLEDAPAH AT WV WEThf
*~~~lh. s OTO SCALE
F9CFW OLAN
.--- lop
" ' ~LEGOEN
*E SW
MAM' SOW
%a lowI
fjSE A* SE ftOT A
SPE -. APRX.9 NT
MINE P 5I CLAAC AITR E' 6 F
PLTW sir SHIM TAKE (999=x")044 - INOUND~R o~
-APPROX. 90 KNOTS ''
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 530-FT CHANNELREDRISH MLAND V1CHTfYEBB TME PLOT k, RUN 1
PLATE 73
1 av07 T yi
I I I I I I I I I 5I
PLATE 74
3 0 Fo r o" l ur r 9 17 IF r.4' .4
.• oNOT TO SCALE
,, ', ,••, o
* *
%*' ~~ LEGED
RLOTP IDVI OWW• DOWVO BD-FIECTIION, .%
SSHP
S.., ,,
PLIORT SOWED DONE 11 ME-TINO : 2*1I ,, .SP E - APPROX .7.5 KN OTS.,'
"TRAFFIC SH- TANKER MOM44) - INDOUND
~TA. SHP*
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 530-FT CHANNELREDRISH ISLAD VK3CrTYEBB TIME PLOT J, RUN I
PLATE 75
elifi t Ii I
CM)
II
sas~xm
I P L A T E I I I6 '
PLATE 76I III I
M. CLEAAN= AT 8W SMn
-"72 FT N FT a Fr
- ~NWT TO SCALE
"', ',SFE" SLA
% '',i
40T -LEcEE 1
SM : X . ,, ',,.
%.Jo
NS ~ ~ ~ S A . SE*E
MR PORT CLEARANCE AFTAR METING: 2W S Fr
TR FR HP: TANKER (gg09WSX44) - INBOUNSPD - EX. 65 KNOTS, - A
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 530-F7 CHANNELR)RSH ISLAND VICMI"EBB TE PILOT J, RUN 2
PLATE 77
riI•- -- C.)
OI
I I I I I iI 'I I I I IP a l 8 1
slow
PLATE 78
7,
l Wt CZLEARANCES AT IMP WET11Oso ,, lFT a FT 10 FT
CHNE CHANNEL
NOT TO SCALE
* S"
It
*5. 'LEOND~
. ',
INS T ", " ' I•', T
TRAFFICSHI RAFFI IMP(gO~g)-
WS
*LO.SI ow -N
NSET A ' SEE INSET A
PILOTED SH BULK CARSE W11071"dO) -OUI1OMR Dajb mm"
SPE - APPROX. 0.5 KNOTS"MN. POW CLEARANCE AFTER I.EI?4O :09 FT * '.
TRAFC SlWITANKEC9002d5625) - ?OLRO '
SPEE - WFPJ. &.D KNOTJS
SHIP TRACK-UNE, 530-FT CHANNELREDAISH OLAND VK*MlEBB TM PLOT F, RUN 3
PLATE 79
CO)
Hi j
5I CL 4'
I3N
0 r
SiON~4
-7-
PLATE 80
um 'L4NC89 AT Or WE , [
.0
NWT TO ShLE
Co. ''
% LEcEIID
PL0O• 4= Or . 9M0x4 UgU
PILOT' LOWED DOWN BFORE MIEM
SPEED - APPROX &0 KNOTS,
MN.PORT'CL.EARANCE AFTER MEINO: VS ITFT ',".•
TRFI SH TANKER (99OxlS5) - INBOUJND .. o' 'S- APPROX V. KNo7r3 ,'",
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 530-FT CHANNELPADS ISLANM VK3HYEBB TM: PLOT K- RUN 2
iPLai 81
PPLATE 8
I I IllI Ii I HiI • I I f mmmerHa1
C (IOhi~H CiI ! i4c~V)
CM'
I C2
Lri~i1NlU~9O<l
I I I I I I I I IM
~ q L74
PLATE 82
X- wt CL.EDAANCIS AT HFWEETIO
AA NOT TO SCALEE
.. ~%6"4' LEGENDe
40'
'Swo MILOICO
INE A. SE NES
TRAFI SH SE 90M O
-I VPRO V -N
TPAVIS Or..a
WE PLATE 83
- C-4
w
C4.C7
7,mg
II I I I I I I -7
v 0
PLATE 84
600-ft Channel Simulator Tests
-.'reA
\ 'p
i ."a0i 0
W P M r ',SEE ME•T A .
'w I 1 INSET A ''mr- \ qv wr
T 19 %I EJS*r'S ** xvocwlw;h"5" C1o° \ \gOrr
sem aJ @S~fs. LEGEND
-" "LO.EAM ATI P MO•M
•ILOTD SW TANKER 00203M1. - t4KX.
PLJOT SLOWED DO WN BEIFI IETS • APPROX. 6.6 KNOTS
MN. PORT' CLEARANCE AFIVR MEETM - FT
WFC SB EUK (97d40f4) - OUTBOUNDSPAD- A &PROX 0 KNOW7 8". %,
doo
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 600-FT CHANNELBAYPORT VCWfrY
FLOOD TDE, PLOT F, RUN I
PLATE 85
LIL2
I I I I I I
Cd4C
PLATE I8,
WQ I ' I'I'I
.It
SE MI A"
Amu~ I
MIN
PLO OrI'C
SEEIJETAorM1 CLOAP TOrUM
aAwc n @W-
c1*. I I S
W& PMr CIIEAPIMM ALEWED
s~- -~i #"W ao oxm
*. \\N.do
FLOOD TIF PLO WRU0
8P~ PLATE 87
Iim
A I8
i
ii i i i 0
I I I 'I I I I I I I I I
PLATE 88
1. %
r. S.PAFW4o FO H
SE SET A
RM*r 7W
SEHSEEA\A
S~ l S.
04. OR'O1M 4
G~d.WSLEGEND
-ws*~wsummm
R*1 Or
-N- mqs~WLCEUM TOrMv
44 Or-
SMW --- FXU
MIQ .CLX*X A -. 3U s
~2\uuISHPO1 TRACK aEM 60 AT CHANNEL1
BAP5r M KP1
FLOOD IMPO'C^ U
.pSSPLAT 89eu
~ý- 4 0z
3U WJ fouihM
MOM833I:
PLiT 90
S. % 7 Smt H
SE ISE
WSE A
.5 Iv
+q* S *
im. an W4 a~o\ \
LEEN
-N-IWU HST0~ LAA f rK~M
74 T 4
SAWO% r IW
A. I
SPM -~U~~ AMT 7J) 3f
M~~~~S PMCEFN F ET:MF
FLOO M PLOT ah RUN
PLAE'9
slaw
I
Nir
I I I II J i I I t'
PLATE 92
.14
SEE WSGE1A
GM.V"V %rim\
+
0n cur
Mi SLMN AT OrT MMOM
-N-o
PL=' SLW OM mf
SMM APPRX. 7A KNOMW&t PCM FCLEARIANC AMM MEEHO 17I
mw LFa Cwm Wwn - 5'um ABMW - APMRX. U KNMl S.\
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 600-FT CHANNELBAYPORT VKICWY
FLOOD IDE, PILOT H, RUN I
PLATE 93
Cfo
I3f
Chi
PLATE;9
COT*
.759'
SEEWSEjrAT A
RAW = u' , '. ,
My To \S rA1. _
..,l, cr r
-- Ew*- INO1 Or IRVAL DEn
r r
CHAIM oum
PL-OTED SH TANKER (VOU) - INBOUNEGN FULL MIEFAD"•:""
SPE - APPROX. &2 KN¢OTS'"m w. PO W C.E MAW AFTER E M F r ", %,
TRAfic sw~l 0Ux. c•f (Ofti0) - OUT"BOUND ,SPEE - APPRIOX .0e KNCOTS 40,'," ",
S 0
SHIP TRACK-LINE 600-F71 CHANNELBAYPORT VOlN*Y
FLOOD 7M PLOT H, RN2
PLATE 95
-- , Cii
haw
S- -m
P 1 9
Iii
II I I I I I
PLATE 96
SEE WSET A
+ e ll * 'C\ 1 g 'r
24~ pr\r u
*r r
AOT SWTOMSOX~ US.FM RU AHEADCA 5 Ti
SPEED -P AI7PWTN
SHP* T -U 600TFTO CHANNEL
PLOTED~~FOO TMF PLOT~ k11x134 RU Im
Wt~~~~LT POTCLAANEAF*~
CC
00
00-
C, CM
RI M IE I I I I
PLATE 98
0S '. I % .I
04
*lell
*r r
u~wr Togo
PCOT SHP 0~ Mua o
5400
5-LEPAT 99 Wf4
CCI
doleh
I,
aU~fl W3d 9NO~fLOABMAS
PLATE 100
co 1,
~~,pM Ct LEAPANM AT SWI' 1W0
",, NO TO MAL.E
mS * LEr
PLO= Or
NINT A SE 'SE A
IMLOTED SH BU..K CAFE (97t6Ix4000) - OUTBOUND -Ac obt *mmM'IOT SL.OWED) DOW IE•-Oi Lies='14
S'•)- AP'MqOX. 7.7 KNOTSMkL IMt CL.EARANCE• ,AFTERl ME1•=11, 307 Fr %, ,•
1TAWt=1 MH* TANKRMGII(01XV73109). -NI•UND ,o
%. Ar
~~~~~~~V -# .,,P'••e •..,o,,
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 600-I=I CHANNELFEDFIS SLAND VKVMrEBB TM PILOT F, RUN I
PLATE 101
a - " sil e s c a q
I! ii I
I I I
PLATE 102
,IW CLEARACE AT &V V1HO
72 Fr P4 0Pa oPr
9 D NOT TO UC ,.D
-, - PLOB OV .1RA• , D Ml M
%w
.5 %i a n O W %
NSET A SEE ,I . . A
PILOTED SH UKWMER(7Ax - OUBONDcot m
PLOT SLOWED DOWN BEOR METINOSPEE - APPROX. UKOT
ram FOTCERNE FE EIG FT6TRAFMC SIW TAW MCO Xfad3z4) - INBMINDAr
8 -APPROX0. 63KNT
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 600-FT CHANNELFEDFISH OLAND VKXVY
E8D3ET PLOT F, RUN~ 2
PLATE 103
MII
SION~I_______iim
PLATE 104
% Ile MikW CEARAM AT Or MEW M
"1 ',, . prr I'
EDW. am~a"', TO WLE
. , ", •S• ", 'b1 'AO
C, , ",•
IlSET A SEE WSET A
" M E 0 - "O
PLOT SLJOWE DOWBEOF MEEHO94M - ,PPf,•O KNOTS
MkR FM CEAPANCE AFTER MTWO: :92 FT
TRAOC SIP TANE (10X1309) -"O,,
SPEE - APPROX 6.5 KNOTS
SHIP ThACK-"NE, 600-FT CHANNEL.EDFI-H BLAND VK2,,fEBB TMEN PLOT F, RUN' 3
PLATE 105
C,,
(w)
ar d amNOUiOABM
Ri g joi n I n ! I I I
PLATE 106
MU CLEAAAi•MAT 04P &1011M
";v 75P '"T inPT l4PT
" . ,~~~ ", " [r[rEDGE " ',NOT TO CALE
FEBDPM O.LAND",,
iVil
5. S.P
"". \
INWSEI" A SE SE; F
,.AEE INSET,.
PLT•SI TBaIK CA (9071a140z4) -NKJO , 'W uibmSPEED - APPROX. 0.7 KNOTSMKt PMR CLEAPANOE ARER METWO 122F
S E - APPROX 6.0 KNO.-
SHIP TRACK-UNE, 600-FT CHANNELREDFISH ISLAND VICN1
EBB TIM PILOT GPLATE 107
e rll
III
PT1
1 lipsaagm
PLATE 1I
| |x
",, ,, M AT SW Pb
< ,
S. '
M I L O R C E A A N E F T M E 1 N M E C 2A IF T M.,
W TO SCALE
... ,.
*BB TDPLOT 3, RnUN 1
iiii PL TE 10
IPAMIC Or \
4%I
PILOTM 84 UKWFAM(7doa OUTBUD ab MA
ENGIE FULL AM.ADSPEE - APPROX .5 KNOllIIwil POTCLERAC AFrE MEIWHO z240 FrT
7RAFlC: SHP, TANKRM(~(OMad3x) -INOD
SPEE PRX6 KNOTS
SHI-P TRACK-LINE, 600-FT CHANNELRED~H GAND VCWY
EBB TME PLOT H, RUN I
PLATE 109
CO
"-v 0
IIII
PLATE 110
w5 FIOP Up 7 ou
% -INT T4F
%, %
MLOTED OW WA 00mw
SE-S
I'S
FLOT SHPWX AFFM07UOMS)- OUBO=F43r SA
ENEFULAMAW
OPM~~~~ - .X9.
M WCEPW AMWT 0F
FLO1 Hý A( (~r4)- AX
PLOTW~~EB TMP PLOT H, OU1OW 2 ib n
B4~~PAT 111. AEA
CO)
LLu
.1L
ii v 0
aau
PLATE 112
bUK CLARANCES AT SW WETH
% F f T 7 Fr
*0
NOT TOWSAAFIEDUH a-AM0q
% PLO1ED a
TPFFC SW
PILOTED 59
INST ASEE INSET A
PILOTED SHP BLILK CARRE C97W24014) - OUBON mis AW
FU~LL AHEADSED- APPROX .5B KNOTS
MIN. PORT CLEARANCE AFTER MEETING: 226 FTrTRAFRC SHIP' TANKER (VO~hd72i49) - I~lBOXO*1*
SED-APPROX 6.0 KNOTS
7PAFC 598.&
SHIP TRACK-LINE, 600-FT CHANNELREDFISH ISLAND VICINIY
EBB TIDE, PILOT!I
PLATE 113
0
v 0
SIONI
PLATE 114
'•.O• SHiP (77 )
A
OVEMTAKENSHIP
(9000MX44)
"TRAVE.. DFC) FOR BOT1.. SM4P
OVERTAKING SHP (775XkU)
PLOT 1$ TANKER (9902d•56zW) - INBOUND
WES PLOT. BLI.K C (775doGM) -
SHIP TRACK-UNE, 530-FT CHANNELBAYPORT VICINY HOLDING AREA
FLOOD TIDE, PLOT H AND WES PILOT
PLATE 115
I Form AppowvdREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE o0B No. 07"-0188
Ptubfi reporting burden for this CO1ection of information is estimated to averge I hour per resiponse, in•luding the tlme for e*wn nStrucions. searching existing data -,uues.
gteigand maintaining the data nded,. and comffeing and rtevieing the Collection Of information, Send commenllfith regarding thi burden estimate or any other aspect of thiscoe of information. Including suggetionS for reducing this burden. to Washington Headquarters ServKie. Directorate for Information operations and Reports. 12•15 eferionDavis Highway. Suite 1204. Arhinton. VA .2202-4302. and to the Office of Managemefnt and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Profect (0704-0 IN). Washington. DC 2053
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
I April 1994 Report 1 of a series
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS
Ship Navigation Simulation Study, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels,Texas; Report 1, Houston Ship Channel, Bay Segment
6. AUTHOR(S)
J. Christopher Hewlett
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 HL-94-3
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING / MONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER
US. Army Engineer District, GalvestonP.O. Box 1229Galveston, TX 77553
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Available from !,'ational Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
12a. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
A ship computer simulation study for Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TX, is performed. Thestudy includes existing conditions and two proposed channel widths. The primary design question is related toships meeting and passing in the narrow channels. Recommendations are made concerning channel width.
I4. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels 153Ship navigation simulation 16. PRCE CODEShips meeting and passing
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACTOF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED INSN 75A0-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)
PrKrinbed by ANSI Std. 1Z39-1296-102
