SEAPORT Case Study

MSC THESIS
DEVELOPMENT OF A SIMULATION MODEL FOR THE

ASSESSMENT OF APPROACH CHANNELS – THE
TAMAN SEAPORT CASE
Author: Sebastián Rayo V.

Graduation committee
Chairman Prof. Ir. T. Vellinga
Ir. P. Quist
Dr. Ir. W. Daamen
Ir. J. De Boer
Technical University of Delft
Department of Civil Engineering
Chair of Ports and Waterways
Document title: Development of a simulation model for the

assessment of approach channels - The Taman
Seaport case
Status: Final report
Date: September 18th, 2013
Project: MSc Thesis
Author: Sebastián Rayo V.
Student number: 4179501
Graduation committee: Prof. Ir. T. Vellinga (chairman)

Ir. P. Quist
Dr. Ir. W. Daamen
Ir. J. De Boer
Cover picture: a) Elements of channel width. P. Siregar (1995), ‘A study on the conceptual design
rules for approach channels’. Graduate thesis, Delft University of Technology,
Department of Civil Engineering, Hydraulic Engineering Group.
b) Artistic impression of the future Taman Seaport. Witteven + Bos (2012), ‘Creation
of Taman Seaport dry cargo area’. Engineering services for RosTranModernizatsiya.
PREFACE
I would like to take the opportunity of this section to thank immensely to all those who have
accompanied me in one or another way, during this ‘Dutch’ experience.
First, thanks to all the members of my committee: Professor Vellinga, who was always open
to answer each of my questions, especially during those moments when the calendar was
becoming tighter and tighter; Peter Quist, who suggested me this research subject some
months ago; Winnie Daamen, who was always willing to check the simulation model and also
gave me many comments to improve the quality of this thesis; and Johan de Boer, from
Witteveen + Bos, who always had time to receive me, answer my e-mails and give me
feedback on my work.
Second, thanks to all the friends I met during my stay in The Netherlands. Many of them were
an important support, particularly during the cold winter season and some ‘changes of
addresses’. Regardless our cultural differences, we learned how to act as a large family,
helping each other in small and large things. I think many of these friendships will remain in
spite of the thousands of kilometers and some oceans that will separate us. To all of them, my
best wishes and success for the future!
Finally, my deepest gratitude and admiration to my wife Lucely and my sons Santiago and
Matías. They are the engine that moves me, and I am completely sure that without their
support and love, I could not have finished my studies in Delft. Also, I know the large sacrifice
that they have done to be with me during these long two years. To them, I dedicate my work
and my life, and I tell them that this experience has strengthened our family. I’m sure that our
future will shine back home… I love you with all my heart!
Sebastián Rayo
September 2013, Delft
‘Development of a Simulation Model for the Assessment of Approach Channels – The Taman Seaport Case’
SUMMARY
The correct operation of a port requires that all of its components need to work coordinated. In this context, the
design of the access channel is fundamental, allowing safe passage for a maximum number of ships.
Nevertheless, when the number of ships increases, congestion occurs. Then, congestion depends on the ships
arrival pattern and the vessels’ characteristics (especially the size and speed).
Two typical types of channels are identified on the PIANC rules (one and two-way channel), which provide a
detailed set of rules for dimensioning of this infrastructure. However, it does not provide an explicit definition
about when to use a one-way or a two-way channel.
In order to provide an assessment tool for the performance of an access channel (existing or in a design stage), a
new simulation model is programmed. This model permits the assessment of different type and widths of access
channel, and it incorporates several functionalities that allow the enhancement the number of ships using it with
an acceptable related congestion.
As an application of the new simulation model, the Taman Seaport’s access channel is assessed. This future
Russian port is in a design stage, and a one-way channel has been selected. Nevertheless, the information on the
projected delays of Taman during its different stages of development has not been calculated. Then, the
utilisation of the simulation model allows defining if the design is appropriate or if excessive delays due to
congestion will occur.
Simulation Model Development

The development of the new simulation model is executed in different phases. The sequence is a literature
review, the definition of a verbal model, the development of a basic and extended simulation model, and a final
analysis of its results.
Literature Review
Two main topics are discussed on this section: the available methods for design different parameters of an
access channel (alignment, width, depth) and a review of simulation model applied to port operations
(Harboursim).
Regarding the design of an access channel, two main methodologies are currently available: the PIANC and
USACE methods. It is better to apply the PIANC rules because it present a more detailed definition of the width
of an access channel (inner and outer), depending on several parameters (wind and waves field, vessel’s
characteristics, port characteristics, etc.). However, some PIANC rules are not quantitative, and assumptions
based on the experience of the designer are necessary. Particularly for the definition of the type of channel (one
or two-way channel), a simulation can provide an assessment that currently is not incorporated in the PIANC
rules.
The current available simulation models for simulate port operations are fast-time type. From it, it is
distinguished the Harboursim model, which has proved to be a useful tool on the assessment the master plans
of existing and future ports. Nevertheless, the focus of Harboursim is placed on the port as whole, and no
emphasis is made for the access channel’s processes. Additionally, the detail of it results (waiting time) does not
have sufficient information to detect where are the bottle necks in case of excessive delay. Then, a new
simulation model is preferred because it can be focused into the access channel, providing functionalities closer
to the real processes in the access channel and identifying the causes of delay.
II
Verbal Model
The verbal model definition is the description of all processes and establishing of the different assumptions to be
considered in the new simulation model.
The main processes related to vessels using an access channel are: obtaining authorisation to navigate, entrance
into the access channel, sail with cruise speed across the outer access channel, speed reduction close to the port
entrance, sailing with reduced speed on inner channel, tugs making fast and the final stop at the moment of
arrival to the turning circle. These processes are related to a ship sailing towards the port: if a ship is sailing
towards the sea, the processes occur in reverse.
The authorisation to enter into the channel depends on several requirements that need to be satisfactory
simultaneously. These requirements are: the access channel must be opened for navigation (tidal windows,
daylight operation, etc.), a sufficient quay length has to be available (only for ships sailing towards the port),
traffic conditions are suitable for a safe passage of a new ship, and the weather conditions are suitable for the
sailing of the new vessel.
Several assumptions are considered for the simulation model. The main assumptions are: the ship movement is
modelled in a one dimensional scheme, the channel is modelled as a straight channel (no bends), and the delay
of a ship is classified according to fourth reasons (port, berth, traffic and weather) in a hierarchical scheme.
Furthermore, some exclussions are considered too: the model does not consider the movement of ships within
the anchorage area and the inner basins, at it does not consider the dynamic status of cranes, storage yards,
stocking piles, etc.
Basic Simulation Model
The basic model allows the modelling of a channel considering all typical options available on other simulation
models (Harboursim), like one or two-way channel, a tidal / current window and a single entrance to the access
channel. The simulation model is programmed in Matlab® as a fast-time type, and it is divided in four stages: set-
up stage (user definition), data generation (model definition), model running (fast-time simulation status) and
output stage.
Several modules are identified on it: input modules (information about a certain port can be defined by the
user), data generation modules (projection of the environment conditions during the simulation time, based on
probabilistic functions and the user’s definition) and output modules (results regarding delay of ships, utilisation
of the anchorage and encountering on different sections of the access channel).
The logical structure of ships to receive authorisation to enter the access channel is based on five call functions:
queue in/out call, port call (port and access channel status), berth call (berth availability), traffic call (congestion)
and pilot call (weather conditions). These call functions represent the different clearances required by a ship to
enter the access channel.
Several ‘manager’ matrixes maintain dynamic information on different components of the simulation model:
anchorage manager (number of ships), queue manager (ships waiting to enter into the access channel), ships
manager (characteristics and relevant information on active ships) and nautical manager (current utilisation of
the access channel).
Because of the absence of real data information, the simulation model is not validated. Nevertheless, several
testing of its main functions (behaviour of ships for different situations) has been executed. Additionally, checks
of the model’s results compared with other accepted sources of information are presented. Comparison with
queuing theory data shows a good agreement between the results. The comparison between the model’s results
and the analysis of the Port of Beira (Mozambique) via Harboursim present large differences for some terminals.
III
Hence, future stages of this research should put emphasis on validating the model (with real data and other
master plans analysed via a simulation model).
Extended Simulation Model
The extended simulation model corresponds to the implementation of several functionalities that attempt to
enhance the number of ships using the access channel. These measures are classified as traffic measures and
enlargement of the nautical infrastructure.
The traffic measures corresponds to the possibility to operate the access channel in a mixed scheme (one-way
for large carriers, two-way for small vessels), allowance for multiple entrances (ships with small draught can
enter into the access channel via an intermediate entrance) and the possibility to allow speed reductions (faster
ships can adapt their speed when are being preceded by a slow ship).
The enlargement of the nautical infrastructure measures are the mplementation of a passing section (two-way
section on a section of the access channel) and the implementation of an intermediate anchorage site (ships
waiting for a berth to be freed can navigate to a position closer to the port).
From this set of alternatives, the mixed operation and the multiple entrances are good measures to reduce
congestion. Nevertheless, the real effect of these measures depends on the fleet composition (larger number of
small vessels generates a larger reduction of the congestion). The speed reduction option does not make
difference on reducing delays due to traffic.
Analysis of Results
The last part of the development of the simulation model is an analysis of its results. The analysis is divided into
two parts: on a first part, a relationship between average and maximum waiting time and several input
parameters is provided; on a second part, the effect of the available optimisation measures is analysed via some
testing scenarios.
The average and maximum waiting time depends on several parameters: the type of channel, the expected
number of ships, the length of the channel, the capacity of the channel, and the availability of the channel. Four
relationships are defined for average and maximum waiting time of a port with a single terminal and one fleet.
These relations are verified with the use of the simulation model, and the results shows good agreement
between results modelled and obtained via these equations.
The effect on reducing the congestion for each optimisation measure is analysed. The effectiveness of a mixed
operation of the channel and multiple entrances to it depends on the fleet composition. For a larger number of
small vessels, these measures present larger reductions of the congestion. On the other hand, the speed
reduction measure results do not show a reduction of the congestion.
The increment of the bottom width and the implementation of a passing section present progressive reductions
of the waiting time: the larger the modification, the larger the reduction of congestion. Nevertheless, because of
the capital and maintenance costs involved on expanding the nautical infrastructure, a financial analysis is
recommended (comparison between capital and maintenance costs against the benefit of reducing congestion)
for each specific case. Finally, the implementation of an intermediate anchorage does not present a positive
effect on reducing the delay due to congestion.
IV
Assessment of the Taman Seaport’s Access Channel

The assessment of the Taman Seaport’s access channel is executed in two phases: first, an assessment of the
current design is provided; secondly, the application of different optimisation measures is provided, indicating
the best alternatives for enhancing the performance of the Taman’s access channel.
Current design assessment
The current design of the Taman’s access channel indicates the access channel will be one-way type, with a
single entrance located at the outer edge of the access channel. The access channel’s length is about 14
kilometres. During an initial stage (year 2017), about 2,700 ships/year are projected to arrive into Taman; during
the final stage (year 2025 and later), the number of ships is increased to about 3,500 ships/year.
For the initial throughput, the average waiting time is below the typically accepted values (5 – 10% of the service
time for container terminals; 15 – 20% of the service time for dry bulk and general cargo terminals).
Nevertheless, for the final throughput, the waiting time for two terminals reaches values close to the threshold
(Container Terminal 1 and Coal Terminal 1).
While the Container Terminal 1 waiting time is mostly related with the berth availability, the Coal Terminal 1
waiting time is divided between berth and traffic reasons. Then, for the Container Terminal 1, the reduction of
the waiting time is related to a modification of the master plan (increase of service rate by adding more cranes,
combined and flexible operation with the Container Terminal 2, enlargement of the quay length), which does
not influences directly the congestion and is not part of this research. On the other hand, the Coal Terminal 1
can reduce its waiting time by the implementation of some optimisation measures. Finally, the average
congestion for all terminals during the final throughput is 20 minutes.
Application of optimisation measures
In order to reduce congestion, a sequence of traffic measures and enlargement of the nautical infrastructure is
applied.
With the application of a mixed operation scheme of the access channel, the average congestion is reduced from
20 to 4.6 minutes. With a multiple entrances scheme the average congestion is also reduced to 4.6 minutes.
When both measures are applied simultaneously, the average congestion is reduced to 2.2 minutes. Then, the
application of a mixed operation of the access channel with multiple entrances is recommended.
If the bottom width of the access channel is enlarged from 170 to 190 m, the average congestion is reduced
slightly (from 2.2 to 1.8 minutes). If a passing section in a middle section of the access channel is implemented,
the average congestion is reduced to 1.1 minutes. Each measure has related capital and maintenance costs,
which are 5.4 M€ for the width enlargement, and 6.6 M€ for the passing section. Nevertheless, no information
available on the benefit of reducing congestion is available. For a pre-feasibility level of engineering, the critical
benefit per hour of reduced congestion are 30,000 €/hr and 13,300 €/hr, for the width enlargement and passing
section, respectively. If the benefits are higher, then these measures are recommended, otherwise, the channel
should maintain its current layout.
Final conclusions and recommendations
The development of the simulation model for assessing an access channel was executed accordingly to the
established objectives and its results contains sufficient information to identify where the possible bottle necks
of a port are. Nevertheless, several improvement opportunities of the simulation model are detected. First, a
validation with real life data is crucial. Secondly, the model’s performance is recommended for ports with limited
V
number of ships per year (maximum of 6,000 ships/year for a one-way channel, and 18,000 ships/year for a two-
way channel). Third, with the purpose to improve the model’s performance, an optimisation of the algorithm is
recommended.
Finally, the assessment of the access channel of the Taman Seaport indicates that for most of the terminals the
delays are acceptable (during the initial and final throughput stages). Additionally, because of the presence of a
large number of small vessels on the Taman’s fleet, the application of a mixed operation of the channel and
multiple entrances are recommended. With these measures, the average congestion is reduced from 20 to 2
minutes. The enlargement of the nautical infrastructure (passing section or bottom width enlargement) are
recommended only if the benefits per reduced hour of congestion are larger than 13,300 €/hr or 30,000 €/hr,
respectively.
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY II
Simulation Model Development II
Assessment of the Taman Seaport’s Access Channel V
LIST OF FIGURES IX
LIST OF TABLES XII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XV
LIST OF SYMBOLS XV
LIST OF UNITS XVIII
1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Generic problem 1
1.2 Study case – The Taman Seaport 2
1.3 Thesis objectives 5
1.4 Research approach 7
1.5 Report structure 8
2 LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
2.1 Access channels design 10
2.2 Simulation models of ports operations 18
2.3 Conclusions 22
3 VERBAL MODEL………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24
3.1 System boundaries 24
3.2 Processes definition and description 24
3.3 Model’s description 34
3.4 Model’s equations 38
3.4 Conclusions 40
4 BASIC SIMULATION MODEL……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 41
4.1 Model’s features 41
4.2 Model’s architecture 42
4.3 Algorithms 54
4.4 Model checks 57
4.5 Model testing 64
4.6 Conclusions 68
5 EXTENDED SIMULATION MODEL…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 69
5.1 Description of the new functionalities 69
5.2 Modifications of the programming code 71
5.3 Verification of the new functionalities 80
5.4 Conclusions 85
6 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 87
6.1 Dependence of the delay on input parameter 87
6.2 Effect of the available measures on reducing the delay 99
6.3 Conclusions 111
7 TAMAN SEAPORT CASE – ASSESSMENT OF THE DESIGN…………………………………………………………………………. 114
7.1 Taman Seaport description 114
VII
7.2 Modelling of the Taman’s case 120

7.3 Evaluation of average waiting time 124
7.4 Conclusions 126
8 TAMAN SEAPORT CASE – DESIGN OPTIMISATION……….………………………………………………………………………….. 128
8.1 Traffic rules measures 128
8.2 Nautical infrastructure enlargement 137
8.3 Conclusions 145
9 FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………………………………………. 147
9.1 Research objectives 147
9.2 Improvement opportunities for the simulation model 148
9.3 Taman Seaport recommendations 149
10 REFERENCES…………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………… 151
APPENDIX A – AUXILIARY FUNCTIONS LIST i

APPENDIX B – TAMAN SEAPORT SET UP OF INPUT MODULES iv
APPENDIX C – TAMAN SEAPORT LAYOUTS xi
APPENDIX D – TAMAN SEAPORT LIST OF PROJECTED SHIPS xiv
VIII
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Location of Black Sea relative to the Russian territory 3
1.2 General location of the Taman Seaport 4
1.3 Preliminary access channel (straight) with respect to the Ukrainian border 5
1.5 General methodology and phases of study 8
2.1 Turning radius as function of rudder angle and water depth 11
2.2 Width of a swept track in a turn as function of rudder angle and water depth 16
2.3 Under keel clearance factors 17
2.4 Squat estimation chart for full-bodied ships 17
2.5 Steps in the simulation process 19
2.6 Configuration simulation model Harboursim_Pro 21
3.1 Processes of a ship using an access channel 25
3.2 Annual variations in day length at different locations in the North Hemisphere 27
3.3 Minimum distance between ships in a convoy 30
3.4 Overtaking manoeuvre 31
3.5 Scheme with classification of access channels 31
3.6 Encountering manoeuvre 31
3.7 Bow thrust as a function of tugboat velocity 33
3.8 Relationship between berthing speed, displaced volume and berthing conditions 33
3.9 Speed profile scheme of a vessel using an access channel 36
3.10 Effect of variations of the ship’s speed 38
4.1 Model’s architecture scheme 43
4.2 Algorithm of the main run module 54
4.3 Algorithm of queue in / out call functions 55
4.4 Algorithm of port call function 55
4.5 Algorithm of berth call function 56
4.6 Algorithm of traffic call function 56
4.7 Algorithm of pilot call function 56
4.8 Histogram of inter arrival results of 1,000 ships per year with NED distribution 57
4.9 Histogram of service time results of 1,000 ships per year with k-Erlang distributions 58
4.10 Single ship sailing towards berth; a) position, b) speed 59
4.11 Single ship sailing towards sea; a) position, b) speed 60
4.12 Two ship with opposite directions in a two-way channel 60
4.13 Two ship with opposite directions in a one-way channel 61
4.14 Four ships in a convoy (one-way channel) 62
4.15 Four ships in a convoy, one-slow (one-way channel) 62
4.16 Four ships in a convoy, one-slow (two-way channel) 63
4.17 Vessel’s path with different time steps 64
4.18 Comparison between theoretical and model’s results: a) 1 berth, b) 2 berths 66
4.19 Comparison between Van der Meer (2009) and the simulation model: a) daylight navigation, b) 24
hours navigation 67
5.1 Scheme of ‘mixed’ operability of an access channel 69
5.2 Scheme of multiple entrances points to an access channel 70
5.3 Scheme of speed reduction: a) without speed reduction; b) with speed reduction 70
IX
5.4 Scheme of a passing section in an access channel 71

5.5 Scheme of an intermediate anchorage area 71
5.6 Modifications to the traffic call function – ‘mixed’ operation 72
5.7 Modifications to the traffic call function – multiple entrances to the access channel 73
5.8 Modifications to the main run module – speed reduction 74
5.9 Modifications to the traffic call function – speed reduction 75
5.10 Modifications to the traffic call function – passing section 76
5.11 Modifications to the main run module – intermediate anchorage 78
5.12 Traffic call 2 function 79
5.13 Simulated path of ships within testing scenario of a ‘mixed’ operation of a channel: a) with ‘mixed’
operation; b) one-way operation 80
5.14 Simulated path of ships within testing scenario: a) multiple entrances; b) single entrance 81
5.15 Simulated path of ships within testing scenario: a) speed reduction available; b) speed reduction
non available 82
5.16 Simulated path of ships – channel with a passing section 84
5.17 Simulated path of ships – intermediate anchorage: a) with intermediate anchorage; b) without
intermediate anchorage 85
6.1 Average traffic delay for a varying number of ships per year, one – way channel 89
6.2 Maximum traffic delay for a varying number of ships per year, one – way channel 89
6.3 Average traffic delay for a varying length of the outer channel, one – way channel 90
6.4 Maximum traffic delay for a varying length of the outer channel, one – way channel 90
6.5 Average traffic delay for a varying capacity of the access channel, one – way channel 91
6.6 Maximum traffic delay for a varying capacity of the access channel, one – way channel 92
6.7 Average traffic delay for a varying availability of the access channel, one – way channel 92
6.8 Maximum traffic delay for a varying availability of the access channel, one – way channel 93
6.9 Average traffic delay for a varying number of ships per year, two – way channel 94
6.10 Maximum traffic delay for a varying number of ships per year, two – way channel 94
6.11 Average traffic delay for a varying length of the outer channel, two – way channel 95
6.12 Maximum traffic delay for a varying length of the outer channel, two – way channel 95
6.13 Average traffic delay for a varying capacity of the access channel, two – way channel 96
6.14 Maximum traffic delay for a varying capacity of the access channel, two – way channel 96
6.15 Average traffic delay for a varying availability of the access channel, two – way channel 97
6.16 Maximum traffic delay for a varying availability of the access channel, two – way channel 98
6.17 Comparison between delay time obtained by simulation model and relationships 99
6.18 Average waiting time with and without ‘mixed’ operability of an access channel – Fleet A 101
6.19 Average waiting time with and without ‘mixed’ operability of an access channel – Fleet B 101
6.20 Average waiting time with / without multiple entrances points to an access channel – Fleet A 103
6.21 Average waiting time with / without multiple entrances points to an access channel – Fleet B 103
6.22 Average waiting time with and without speed reduction on the access channel – Fleet A 104
6.23 Average waiting time with and without speed reduction on the access channel – Fleet B 105
6.24 Average waiting time of different fleets under different scenarios 107
6.27 Anchorage site utilisations for different scenarios 111
7.1 Projected location of the Taman Seaport 114
7.2 Taman Seaport layout 115
X
7.3 Wind climate of Taman’s area 118

7.4 Plan view of the Taman’s access channel 119
7.5 Cross sections of the Taman’s access channel 119
7.6 Average waiting time classification per terminal – initial throughput (units in minutes) 121
7.7 Average waiting time classification per terminal – final throughput (units in minutes) 123
7.8 Comparison of delays between scenarios with different service rate: a) berth delay, b) traffic delay 124
7.9 Comparison of causes of delay for initial and final throughput – Container Terminal 1 125
7.10 Comparison of causes of delay for initial and final throughput – Coal Terminal 1 126
8.1 Average waiting time classification per terminal – mixed operability the channel (units in minutes) 130
8.2 Longitudinal section of the access channel and proposed entrance points 131
8.3 Average waiting time classification per terminal – multiple entrances to the channel (units in
minutes) 133
8.4 Average waiting time classification per terminal – mixed operability and multiple entrances to the
channel (units in minutes) 135
8.5 Comparison of average traffic delay for different traffic measures 136
8.6 Comparison of maximum traffic delay for different traffic measures 136
8.7 Average waiting time classification per terminal – width of the outer channel increased to 190 m
(units in minutes) 139
8.8 Average waiting time classification per terminal – with passing section (units in minutes ) 141
8.9 Comparison of average traffic delay for different modifications of the access channel 142
8.10 Comparison of maximum traffic delay for different modifications of the access channel 144
XI
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Taman Seaport’s terminals 4
2.1 Basic manoeuvring lane 12
2.2 Additional widths Wi for straight channel sections 12
2.3 Additional width for passing distance in two-way traffic 14
2.4 Additional width for bank clearance 14
3.1 Principal semidiurnal constituents and its characteristics 27
3.2 Maximum speed for several ships 29
3.3 Admiralty constant 39
3.4 Typical values of coefficient As 39
3.5 Typical values of coefficient Bs 39
3.6 Typical values of coefficient Cs 40
4.1 Matrix structure for ships generation module 48
4.2 Vector structure for fog generation module 48
4.3 Vector structure for ice generation module 49
4.4 Vector structure for wind generation module 49
4.5 Vector structure for waves generation module 50
4.6 Vector structure for port downtime generation module 50
4.7 Matrix structure for ships manager module 51
4.8 Matrix structure for berth manager module 51
4.9 Matrix structure for nautical manager module 51
4.10 Matrix structure for queue manager module 52
4.11 Matrix structure for ships summary 53
4.12 Matrix structure for encountering summary 53
4.13 Matrix structure for anchorage summary 54
4.14 Inter arrival results of generation of 1,000 ships per year with NED distribution 57
4.15 Service time of 1,000 ships per year with k-Erlang functions of second and third degree 58
4.16 Ships characteristics, convoy of four ships sailing towards port, one-way channel 61
4.17 Characteristics of the scenario solved via queuing theory 65
4.18 Characteristics of the scenario solved via queuing theory (M/E 2/1) 65
4.19 Characteristics of the scenario solved via queuing theory (M/E 2/2) 65
4.20 Fleet characteristics of Port of Beira 67
4.21 Fleet service times of Port of Beira 67
5.1 Modification of matrix structure for ships manager module 72
5.2 Modification of matrix structure for ships manager module 77
5.3 Matrix structure for queue manager 77
5.4 Matrix structure for anchorage summary 79
6.1 Testing simulation characteristics 98
6.2 Scenarios for testing allowance of ‘mixed’ channels capacity 100
6.3 Vessels’ characteristics 100
6.4 Channel’s characteristics 100
6.5 Summary of encountering for different vessels 100
6.6 Entrance points characteristics 102
XII

6.9 Channel’s width for different scenarios 106
6.10 Summary of encountering allowance for different vessels – Scenario 1 106
6.15 Characteristics of the passing section for each scenario 108
6.17 Service time characteristics per fleet 109
6.18 Service time characteristics per fleet 110
7.1 Summary of port requirements 115
7.2 Terminal’s list 116
7.3 Summary of vessel’s characteristics 116
7.4 Summary of service rates 117
7.5 Significant wave height against wave direction 118
7.6 Summary of access channel dimensions 119
7.7 Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – initial throughput 120
7.8 Average service time and normalized average waiting time – initial throughput 121
7.9 Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – final throughput 122
7.10 Average service time and normalized average waiting time – final throughput 122
8.1 Summary with allowed and non-allowed encounters for a mixed operation of the access channel 129
8.2 Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – mixed operability of the
channel 129
8.3 Average service time and normalized average waiting time – mixed operability of the channel 130
8.4 Multiple entrances position and maximum admitted draught 131
8.5 Entrance per vessel type 131
8.6 Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – multiple entrances to the
channel 132
8.7 Average service time and normalized average waiting time – multiple entrances to the channel 132
8.8 Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – mixed operability and
multiple entrances to the access channel 134
8.9 Average service time and normalized average waiting time – mixed operability and multiple
entrances to the channel 134
8.10 Average traffic delay considering different traffic measures 135
8.11 Effect of width enlargement on encounter allowance 136
8.12 Summary with allowed and non-allowed encounters for a mixed operation of the access channel 138
8.13 Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – width of the outer
channel increased to 190 m 138
8.14 Average service time and normalized average waiting time – width of the outer channel increased
to 190 m 139
8.15 Taman’s passing section features 140
8.16 Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – with passing section 140
8.17 Average service time and normalized average waiting time – with passing section 141
8.18 Average traffic delay considering different traffic measures 142
8.19 Costs per alternative 144
XIII
8.20 Yearly gained congestion hours per alternative 145
XIV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CD : Chart datum
CDR : Conceptual Design Rules (PIANC, 1997)
DWT : Dead weight tons
ICORELS : International Commission for the Reception of Large Ship
ID : Identification
IMO : International Maritime Organization
LNG : liquefied natural gas
NED : negative exponential distribution
NH : North Hemisphere
PIANC : Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses
ROM : Recomendaciones de Obras Marítimas (Maritime Works Recommendations)
SH : South Hemisphere
TEU : twenty-foot equivalent unit
USACE : U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
LIST OF SYMBOLS
2
a : Acceleration (deceleration) rate for a vessel [m/s ]
d : Guaranteed depth of a channel [m]
d : Accuracy of a set of results [-]
d1MAX
in : Maximum waiting time arriving ships, one – way channel [min]
d1MAX
out : Maximum waiting time departing ships, one – way channel [min]
d 2MAX
in : Maximum waiting time arriving ships, two – way channel [min]
d 2MAX
out : Maximum waiting time departing ships, two – way channel [min]
d1in : Average waiting time arriving ships, one – way channel [min]
d1out : Average waiting time departing ships, one – way channel [min]
d 2in : Average waiting time arriving ships, two – way channel [min]
d 2out : Average waiting time departing ships, two – way channel [min]
XV
f : Stopping distance factor [-]

2
g : Acceleration due to gravity [m/s ]
k : Degree of a k-Erlang distribution [-]
m : Safety margin or net under keel clearance [m]
n : Factor of ship float shift [-]

n : Number of data in a set of results [-]
n : Access channel’s availability [-]
r : Vertical motion due to wave response [m]

s : Standard deviation of a set of results [-]
smax : Maximum sinkage due to squat and trim [m]
u : Current velocity [kn]

x : Calculated inter-arrival time [min]
x0 : Ship’s position in time step 0 [m]
xi : Ship’s position in time step i [m]
xt  : Ship’s position in time step t [m]
x : Average interval [s]
A : Width of manoeuvring lane [m]
As : Ship type coefficient, IMO formula [-]
B : Ship beam [m]
Bs : Engine type coefficient, IMO formula [-]
C : Admiralty constant [-]
C : Access channel’s capacity [ships/hour]
Cs : Ship length and speed coefficient, IMO formula [-]
CB : Block coefficient [-]
D : Ship draught[m]
D : Daylength [hr]
Fnh : Froude depth number [-]
Hs : Significant wave height [m]
XVI
J : Day of the year [-]
L : Ship length [m]
L : Latitude [°] (positive for North Hemisphere, negative for South Hemisphere)
L : Outer channel’s length [km]
L pp : Ship length between perpendiculars [m]
N : Number of ships [ships/year]
Pb : Installed power [kW]
Ss : Stopping distance factor, IMO formula [-]
T : Tidal elevation above reference level [m]
V : Ship speed [kn]
V0 : Ship speed in time step 0 [m/s]
Veff : Ship speed with respect to channel bottom [kn]
Vmin : Minimum ship speed for rudder control [kn]
V t  : Ship’s velocity in time step t [m]
W : Bottom width of a waterway [m]
WBM : Basic manoeuvring width [m]
WBg : Bank clearance on ‘green’ side of the channel [m]
WBr : Bank clearance on ‘red’ side of the channel [m]
WP : Passing distance [m]
Wi : Additional widths for straight channel sections [m]
Z : Value of a standard distribution function with a probability of exceedance of 5% [-]

 : Angle between current and channel axis [°]
 : Drift angle [°]
 : Offset angle due to wind and current pressures [°]
 : Wave length [m]
 : Average arrival rate [1/min]
 : Total weight (ship plus cargo) [ton]
XVII
t : Time step [s]
 : Volume of displacement [m ]
3
LIST OF UNITS
°C : degrees Celcius
kn : knot (1 kn = 0.514 m/s)
kW : kilowatt (1 kW = 1,000 W)
hr : hour
m : meter
3
m : cubic meter
nmi : nautical mile (1 nmi = 1,852 m)
s : second
t : ton (1 t = 1,000 kg)
kton : kilo ton (1 kton = 1,000 t)
XVIII
1 INTRODUCTION
The research consists of several topics. The first one is the definition of the generic problem (assessment of the
design of an access channel) that will be studied. The second one is the assessment of the design of a projected
access channel, which will be part of the future port of Taman, in Russia.
This chapter consists on a definition of the generic problem, a description of the Taman Seaport study case, the
definition of the thesis objectives, the research approach and the report structure.
1.1 Generic problem

According to Ligteringen (2009), “the primary functions of a port are a traffic function (nodal point in the traffic,
connecting water and various land modes); and a transport function (ports are turntables for various cargo
flows)”. The typical components of this group are the wet infrastructure (access channel, inner basins, turning
circles), the dry infrastructure (storage areas, roads, foundations), the superstructure (sheds, silos, offices), the
equipment (cranes, conveyor belts) and the human resources (Ligteringen, 2009). In order to provide an efficient
service, all of these components are required to work coordinated.
In this context, the design of the access channel is fundamental. When an access channel is correctly designed, it
provides passages for different ships without generating excessive congestion. Nevertheless, the capacity of an
access channel is finite: it allows safe passage of a maximum number of ships. If the number of ships is larger
than the capacity, congestion occurs. Consequently, congestion depends on the arrival pattern of ships, as well
as on the ship characteristics (dimensions, speed, etc.).
The inter-arrival time of ships to a port is not fixed. In contrast, that pattern is a stochastic process. Thus, there
are some periods of time when ships arrive without saturate the utilisation of the access channel and no
congestion is obtained. But, there are other periods that the arrival periods are so short that the utilisation of
the channel reaches capacity and congestion occurs. Furthermore, ships can arrive to the access channel from
two different sides (outside and from the port): the arrival characteristics of both processes are very different.
Because the pattern of arrival ships is stochastic, it can be modelled via a probabilistic distribution function.
Additionally, not only the arrival of ships is a stochastic process: the service time at berths is also random. The
service depends on several factors, like the type of cargo, differences between exporting and importing, the
available equipment, etc.
Not only the stochasticity of the arrival pattern of ships or the service time plays a role in the design of an access
channel. There are other factors that may reduce the capacity of the access channel during limited periods of
time. Among these factors are weather conditions, channel availability or port downtime, tidal and/or current
windows, etc. In simple words, if a ship arrives while the access channel is closed, it will have to wait until the
channel is re-opened. The problem is that during that waiting period, other ships could arrive as well as some
ships may finish their process at the berths and want to sail towards the sea. When the channel is re-opened,
several ships will be waiting for authorisation to sail and some type of protocol to assign priorities should be
defined.
The sum of all this factors leads to delay. But, what is the problem with delay? It is represented by an increment
of the waiting time of ships (both average and maximum). When a ship is waiting to obtain authorisation to
navigate to its assigned berth, its costs increase. The increment on the ship may be such high that the ship will
finally decide to navigate to an alternative port. For a port authority, that is an undesired situation because of
the loss of income, an obvious reduction of the net benefit and perhaps more important, a decrease of the ports
reputation for shipping companies.
1
Subsequently, when a new design is being developed or when a change is considered in an existing port, the
main goal is to maintain the waiting time within the accepted margins.
1.1.1 Design of a channel

The design of an access channel is based on several parameters (alignment, depth and width). These factors
(especially the third one) define its capacity: a channel with more than one lane allows the encountering and/or
overtaking of two or more ships in a single section of the channel. Here a question arises: how to come up with
an optimal design of the channel?
While a wide channel has a large capacity, it will probably have lower indexes of congestion and the income will
be higher. Nevertheless, the construction of a wide channel enhances capital and maintenance dredging costs.
Moreover, the environment needs to provide space for such a wide channel, which is not always possible
(especially in built areas and existing ports).
A first answer could be that the optimal design will be that that maximize the benefit between capital and
maintenance costs versus the income obtained from visiting ships (financial criteria). Nevertheless, this criterion
may lead to the definition of several alternatives of design. If that is the case, a multi-criteria analysis is the best
alternative to assess the different alternatives under different criteria (financial, environment, safety, etc.).
1.1.2 Which option: one or two-way channel?

The selection between a one and a two-way channel is not very easy. Although the CDR rules define precisely
the width for both options, it does not present an explicit definition about how to make the selection. Presently,
the definition of the required number of lanes is made in terms of the experience of the designer. CDR rules
consider the selection of one or two-way channel as an input parameter.
The situation is not complicated in case of large or small ports. The large port will provide service to a large
number of ships per day; at the same time, the small port will only receive a few. But the question is important
when the number of ships is a middle value (not ‘very’ large or ‘very’ small): where is the threshold? The
threshold is a single value or a region? Is it possible to define a channel that will behave like a one-way channel
for large fleets, and as a two-way channel for small fleets?
1.1.3 Research purpose

The main purpose of this research is the creation of a generic tool that will help designers in the assessment of
conceptual design of access channels, especially for the type of channel and width. The generic tool functionality
should allow the assessment of a channel’s design by applying the PIANC’s rules to it, considering the expected
fleet characteristics, the weather conditions and the dimensions of the channel.
To achieve this goal, a new simulation model will be programmed. This model will permit the assessment of
different type and widths of access channels, in terms of the ships delay. The model will be sufficiently flexible to
assess different ports as well as to be able to incorporate several functionalities (like the implementation of a
passing section). A proper description of these functions is given in Chapter 5.
1.2 Study case – The Taman Seaport
1.2.1 General context

The majority of the Russian ports were built in 1960–70’s; hence, there is a deficit in the capacity of providing
service to modern vessels: a limited depth creates a problem when the trend in vessels design is to increase their
2
dimensions, including their draughts. This deficit was increased at the moment of the Soviet Union splitting,
because Russia lost direct access to Odessa and Sevastopol ports, which are now part of Ukraine. These ports
continue exporting Russian cargo, but the related costs are higher (import duty) than in case of using a port
located in the Russian territory.
Almost half of the Russian ports are shallow (capacity of service of 10,000 dwt) and currently, only ten ports can
handle vessels up to 50,000 dwt (UK Trade & Investment, 2012). The situation is even more delicate considering
that there is only one port (Murmansk, in the northern part of the country) that allows modern vessels over
150,000 dwt. Because of these limitations, future expansions of the total Russian turnover are difficult to be
executed by the use of the existing ports. Hence, new terminals and ports will be built in Russia: Sabetta and
Mursmansk in the Artic Basin; Ust-Luga, Saint Petersburg and Bronka in the Baltic Basin; Novorossiysk, Sochi and
Taman in the Azov – Black Sea Basin; Olya in the Kaspian Basin; and Vostchny – Nakhodka in the Far East Basin
(UK Trade & Investment, 2012). The expected turnover will increase largely (46% with respect to 2010 turnover),
reaching 770 million tons.
In order to increase the annual export of dry cargo in the Russian Federation, the Russian authorities have
decided to build a new port in the Taman peninsula, facing the Black Sea. According to UK Trade & Investment
(2012), the Taman Dry Cargo Port will provide 100 million extra tons turnover by the year 2030, providing service
for vessels with a draught up to 14 metres. With an intended start of operations during the year 2016, “Taman is
the first in modern Russian dry cargo port project…” (Malisheva, 2012).
1.2.2 Location of the Taman Seaport

Figure 1.1 presents a map of Russia and the location of the Black Sea.
Figure 1.1. Location of Black Sea relative to the Russian territory (WorldAtlas.com)
1.2.3 Taman’s general description

The Taman Port will be divided in several terminals, each one will provide service for different type of cargo.
Table 1.1 presents a summary with the port’s terminals.
Figure 1.2 presents a general layout of the Taman Port, which include the different terminals presented in Table
1.1.
3
Table 1.1. Taman Seaport’s terminals (Witteveen+Bos, 2012)
Total turnover
Number Name Type Operation
Mton/year
1 Container terminal 1
Container Import / export 10
2 Container terminal 2
5 Steel terminal Break bulk Import / export 4.4
6 Grain terminal Dry bulk Import / export 13.4
8 Fertilizer terminal 2 Dry bulk Import / export 8
9 Fertilizer terminal 1 Dry bulk Export 10
10 Iron ore terminal Dry bulk Export 15
11 Sulphur terminal Dry bulk Export 5
12 Coal terminal 1 Dry bulk Export 12
13 Coal terminal 2 Dry bulk Export 16
Figure 1.2. General layout of the Taman Seaport (Witteeveen+Bos, 2012)

The nautical infrastructure also includes three inner basins, a turning circle and an access channel.
1.2.4 Taman’s access channel

The access channel design indicates that it will be a one way channel with a length of approximately 13
kilometres. The outer channel will have a bottom width of 170 m and a dredged level of -23.6 m. The inner
channel will have a bottom width of 244 m and a dredged level of -22.7 m. Because of the proximity of the
Ukrainian border and the possibility of reduce the total extent of the approach channel, a bend has been
considered. At that location, the bottom width of the approach channel is increased up to 220 m.
Figure 1.3 shows a preliminary access channel (straight) and its relative position with respect to the Ukrainian
border (Witteeven+Bos, 2012).
4
Ukrainian border
Taman Port access channel
Figure 1.3. Preliminary access channel (straight) with respect to the Ukrainian border (Witteeven+Bos, 2012)
1.2.5 Taman’s problem definition

The access channel was designed as a one-way channel. Information of the number of calls of the Taman Ports
indicates that an access channel of these characteristics should have sufficient capacity for a correct port
operation, but that information has not been confirmed. Additionally, there are two important features of this
approach channel that must be considered:
From 2017 to 2025, there will be an increase in the total throughput to 93.8 MTon/y. This increment is
reflected in a larger number of calls per year (2,689 to 3,503), equivalent to an increase of 30%.
The stochastic nature of several processes in port operation makes it difficult to estimate the real
capacity of the approach channel.
Hence, an assessment of the Taman’s access channel is required, in order to define if the design is appropriated
or if excessive delay due to congestion will be obtained during the different stages of the port development.
1.3 Thesis objectives
1.3.1 Research questions

The main question that will be answered is:
What are the features of a generic tool that allows the assessment of an access channel’s width, and
how it is application to the specific case of the Taman Port?
5
The following questions will be answered with this research:

What are the input parameters that influence the waiting time for arriving vessels?
What are the characteristics of a simulation model that will allow designers to asses and optimize the
design of an access channel?
Under the current design conditions, how are the projected conditions of delay of the Taman’s access
channel, considering its initial and final throughput?
Which are the best measures (considering both technical and financial aspects) that can be considered
in order to increase the capacity of the access channel of the Taman Port?
Considering the problem formulation, several objectives are stablished for this research. These objetives are
divided into primary and secondary.
1.3.2 Primary objective

The main objective of the thesis will be to develop a simulation model that will serve as a tool for the design and
assessment of access channels. The capacity of an access channel will be estimated in terms of average and
maximum waiting time, compared with typical tolerated values.
1.3.3 Secondary objectives

Secondary objectives of this research are:
To identify the parameters that influence the capacity of a single access channel.
To identify all processes related with the arrival, service and departure of vessels into a single port.
These real life processes (arrival, waiting time at anchorage, entrance to access channel, sailing to
berth, service time and sailing to leave the port) will be translated into simulation processes with
several assumptions and decision trees.
To construct a generic fast-time simulation model that includes all identified parameters. This model
should allow the assessment of the average and maximum waiting times under different demand
conditions, comparing it with typical tolerated values.
On each simulated process, to identify options to optimize / improve the capacity of the access channel,
including each option in the simulation model.
To adapt the generic simulation model into the specific case of the Taman Port, assessing its access
channel for both beginning and maximum expected throughput.
To propose the best alternative to increase the capacity of the Taman’s access channel, taking into
account the maximum allowable waiting time and financial aspects (investment, maintenance costs)
1.3.4 Innovations to science and practice

The creation of a simulation model with it focus on assessing an access channel will have several innovations to
science and practice.
Allowance to recreate detailed process of ships sailing in an access channel, including interactions
between different vessels.
Allowance to model an access channel with different traffic rules and layout configurations, closer to
real life configurations of the access channels.
The simulation model will be available for designers as a tool that will permit the assessment of an
access channel by a classification of the different causes of delay, allowing the identification of the
different bottle-necks present in a certain port’s operation.
6
Identification of the degree of dependence of congestion on several parameters related with the
operation of an access channel.
1.4 Research approach

This study will be divided in several phases.
Problem definition and analysis of results
o Literature review: it incorporates a review of two main topics: design of access channels and
simulation models.
o Verbal model: corresponds to the identification and description of all processes related with
the operation of an access channel, incorporating a definition of the boundaries of the system
that will be modelled.
o Evaluation of the results: the results will be summarized into a proper description of the
service and delay time (including a classification of it), a summary of the number of encounters
occurred on the channel and a summary of the utilisation of the anchorage site.
o Definition of optimisation measures: several measures to reduce the delay of ships will be
described and modelled.
o Analysis of results: a comparison of the delay of ships when using or not an optimisation
measure will be performed.
o Recommendation for engineers: based on the analysis of results, some basic recommendations
will be given.
Generic simulation model
o Base code programming: it consists on the ‘writing’ of extensive code lines on the software
Matlab®.
o Base simulation model: the conjunct of modules and functions will be named as a base
simulation model. The original capabilities will be comparable to Harboursim.
o Checking / testing: the behaviour of the model will be checked (correct functioning of each
programmed function and module) and tested (comparison of results with other accepted
sources).
o Output: corresponds to the generation of summarized data from the simulation, which can be
used to assess the performance of an access channel.
Extended simulation model
o Extended code programming: it consists on the ‘writing’ of additional code lines on the
software Matlab®.
o Generic simulation model: corresponds to a final version of the simulation model, which
incorporates extra options (traffic and layout modifications) that can be used by a designer.
o Checking: the checking will correspond to a verification of the correct functioning of each
programmed function and module, as well as the verification of the behaviour of ships under
different conditions.
o Output: corresponds to the generation of summarized data from the simulation, which is used
to assess the performance of an access channel.
Taman base case
o Taman case description: corresponds to a description of the different features considered in
the design of the Taman Port, especially those that have an impact on the performance of its
access channel.
7
o Model set-up: corresponds to the identification and valorisation of the different parameters
required by the simulation model, incorporating it in the simulation model.
o Current design assessment: corresponds to the execution of the simulation model, the
obtaining of results and the assessment of the current design of Taman Port.
Taman optimised case
o Optimisation alternatives: corresponds to the definition and description of alternatives that
will incorporate some of the optimisation measures available on the generic simulation model.
o Evaluation of alternatives: corresponds to the application of the measures, the execution of
the generic simulation model and the obtaining of results.
o Final recommendation: based on the evaluation of alternatives, the best alternative will be
identified and proposed to the designers of the Taman Port.
Figure 1.4 presents a block diagram with the different phases of this study.
Problem definition
- analysis results Generic simulation model Taman base case
Base code Taman case

Literature review
programming description
Base simulation Checking /

Verbal model Model set-up
model Validation
Access channel Current design

Output
operation assessment
Evaluation
Extended simulation model Taman optimised case
Alternatives of Extended code Optimisation

optimisation programming alternatives
Generic
Checking
simulation model
Evaluation of
Analysis of results Output
alternatives
Recommendations Final
for designers recommendation
Figure 1.4. General methodology and phases of study
1.5 Report structure

The report is divided into several chapters, which are described below:
Chapter 1 – Introduction: basically, it includes the motivation of this research. It includes the definition
of the generic problem and a brief description of the Taman Port case, the definition of the thesis
objectives and the research approach.
Chapter 2 – Literature Review: corresponds to a review of related literature of two main topics: design
of access channels and utilisation of simulation models for port operations.
8
Chapter 3 – Verbal Model: corresponds to the identification and description of the different processes
that are related with the operation of an access channel.
Chapter 4 – Basic Simulation Model: corresponds to the development of the first stage of the simulation
model.
Chapter 5 – Extended Simulation Model: corresponds to the implementation of different measures that
expand the capabilities of the model.
Chapter 6 – Analysis of Results: corresponds to the analysis of the results obtained via the extended
simulation model. The analysis is divided in two sections: the first one is the estimation of the effect of
different parameters on the average and maximum waiting time, due to congestion; the second one is
the quantification of the effects of different measures (modification of traffic rules, in reducing the
congestion.
Chapter 7 – Taman Seaport Case, Assessment of the Design: corresponds to the simulation and
assessment of the access channel of the future port of Taman.
Chapter 8 – Taman Seaport Case, Design Optimization: corresponds to the application of several
measures in order to optimise the operability of the Taman’s access channel and reduce congestion.
Chapter 9 – Final Conclusions and Recommendations: corresponds to the definition of the main
conclusions obtained within this research, as well as incorporating recommendations for future
researchers.
Chapter 10 – References.
9
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The development of this thesis needs a review of references that are related with the design and optimisation of
access channels. In this context, two main themes are highlighted. The first is a description of the current
procedures and tools for designing an access channel. The second is a review of the state-of-art of simulation
models related with ports operations.
The objectives of the literature review are:
For the access channels design, to give a framework of the most accepted methodologies of design for
access channel. This framework will be used for the development of the simulation model.
Furthermore, an identification of those parameters that are not explicitly defined will be provided.
For the simulation model for port operations, to give a description of the available software for ports
operations (Harboursim), identifying its capabilities and its improvement opportunities. This
information will allow the definition of the desired capabilities for the simulation model to be
developed.
2.1 Access channels design

Ligteringen (2009) defines an access channel as “the waterway linking the turning circle inside a port (or an open
berth at an offshore jetty) with deep water”. According to the same text, the design of an access channel
depends on three parameters: alignment, width and depth. The design condition for the three parameters is
presented below.
2.1.1 Alignment
PIANC (1997) gives several requirements that should be applied to design the alignment. These influencing
factors are useful when a conceptual design is under development, and are often related with environmental
conditions (waves, currents, winds) and the layout of the channel.
i) The shortest possible length.
ii) Conditions / basins at either end of the channel.
iii) Avoid obstacles or areas of accretion.
iv) Prevailing winds, currents and waves.
v) Avoid bends close to the port entrance.
vi) The edge of the channel should be such that ships passing along it do not cause disturbance or damage.
Thorensen (2010) indicates that the access channels should be located in areas where the natural depth is the
maximum. In this manner, it is possible to reduce the capital and maintenance costs of dredging.
For scenarios where a more accurate level of engineering (detailed engineering stage) is required, PIANC (1997)
provides more recommendations, most of them related with the design and verification of bends. The
verification is usually done with the use of ship simulators. The assessment of the bend layout is recommended
by the use of real and fast time simulations, over a large range of tidal and wind conditions. Ligteringen (2009)
indicates that fast time simulations are useful when comparing different alternatives, while real time simulations
are more suitable for final check of the alignment and also training of pilots under different weather conditions.
Ligteringen (2009) specifies that the radius of bends depends on the maneuverability of the design ship (length
between perpendiculars, water depth and rudder angle). Figure 2.1 presents the dependence of turning radius
with respect to the other parameters.
10
Figure 2.1. Turning radius as function of rudder angle and water depth (Ligteringen, 2009)
Mayer et al. (1999) did an extensive comparison of the design common practice in America and annotated
bibliography. They remark that the channel alignment is dictated by the natural course of the river or estuary. By
this, it is possible to minimize the capital dredging costs (length reduction and channel alignment in deeper
areas) with a criterion that is comparable to those defined by PIANC.
The USACE (2006) recommendations are in line with PIANC recommendations. Shortly, USACE recommends that
the alignment of the channel should avoid crosswinds, avoid areas of accretion, and maintain a small angle with
respect to predominant waves. If some of these criteria are in conflict, then several alternatives can be
evaluated via a multi-criteria analysis (manoeuvrability, capital and maintenance costs, etc.).
2.1.2 Width in straight sections

A good definition for the determination of the width of a channel is given by Mayer et al (1999): channel width
has to be sufficient to accommodate manoeuvring lanes for each passing ship, clearance lanes between ships
and bank clearance. This definition applies for a two – way channel, but if the channel has only one lane, then
the clearance lane between ships can be discarded.
For conceptual designs, PIANC (1997) gives a detailed method (conceptual design rules or CDR) to estimate the
bottom width of straight sections of an access channel. The design depends on several parameters, which can be
grouped into channel characteristics, vessel and fleet characteristics, and environmental conditions. The PIANC’s
definition for the bottom width of a waterway depends on the channel configuration (one or two-way):
n
W  2WBM  2 W  W
i 1
i Br  WBg  W P (one-way channel) (Eq. 2.1)
n
W  2WBM  2 W  W
i 1
i Br  WBg  W P (two-way channel) (Eq. 2.2)
The basic manoeuvring lane WBM depends on ship manoeuvrability and the design ship beam. Related values are
presented in Table 2.1. The ship manoeuvrability is a qualitative definition. It depends on the ships
11
characteristics (like the shape of the hull) and the hydrodynamic aspects for different operations. The judgement
of the level of manoeuvrability is typically performed by experts.
Table 2.1. Basic manoeuvring lane (PIANC, 1997)
Ship manoeuvrability Good Moderate Poor

Basic manoeuvring lane (WBM) 1.3B 1.5B 1.8B
PIANC (1997) gives a complete description and definition for all additional widths W i, which are presented in
Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Additional widths Wi for straight channel sections (PIANC, 1997)
Vessel Outer channel Inner channel

Width (Wi)
speed (exposed to open water) (protected water)
(a) Vessel speed [kn]
- Fast > 12 0.1 B 0.1 B
- Moderate > 8 – 12 0.0 0.0
- Slow 5 – 8 0.0 0.0
(b) Prevailing cross wind [kn]
- Mild ≤ 15 (≤ Beaufort 4) all 0.0 0.0
fast 0.3 B -
- Moderate > 15 – 33 (> Beaufort 4
mod 0.4 B 0.4 B
- Beaufort 7)
slow 0.5 B 0.5 B
fast 0.6 B -
- Severe > 33 – 48 (> Beaufort 7 –
mod 0.8 B 0.8 B
Beaufort 9)
slow 1.0 B 1.0 B
(c) Prevailing cross current [kn]
- Negligible < 0.2 all 0.0 0.0
fast 0.1 B -
- Low 0.2 – 0.5 mod 0.2 B 0.1 B
slow 0.3 B 0.2 B
fast 0.5 B -
- Moderate > 0.5 – 1.5 mod 0.7 B 0.5 B
slow 1.0 B 0.8 B
fast 0.7 B -
- Strong > 1.5 – 2.0 mod 1.0 B -
slow 1.3 B -
(d) Prevailing longitudinal current [kn]
- Low ≤ 1.5 all 0.0 0.0
fast 0.0 -
- Moderate > 1.5 – 3 mod 0.1 B 0.1 B
slow 0.2 B 0.2 B
fast 0.1 B -
- Strong > 3 mod 0.2 B 0.2 B
slow 0.4 B 0.4 B
12
Table 2.2. Additional widths Wi for straight channel sections (cont.) (PIANC, 1997)
Vessel Outer channel Inner channel

Width (Wi)
speed (exposed to open water) (protected water)
(e) Significant wave height Hs and
length  [m]
- Hs ≤ 1 and  ≤ L all 0.0 0.0
fast 2.0 B -
- 3 > Hs > 1 and  = L mod 1.0 B -
slow 0.5 B -
fast 3.0 B -
- Hs > 3 and  > L mod 2.2 B -
slow 1.5 B -
(f) Aids to navigation
- Excellent with shore traffic
0.0 0.0
control
- Good 0.1 B 0.1 B
- Moderate with infrequent poor
0.2 B 0.2 B
visibility
- Moderate with frequent poor
≥ 0.5 B ≥ 0.5 B
visibility
(g) Bottom surface
- If depth ≥ 1.5 D 0.0 0.0
- If depth < 1.5 D
- Smooth and soft 0.1 B 0.1 B
- Smooth or sloping an hard 0.1 B 0.1 B
- Rough and hard 0.2 B 0.2 B
(h) Depth of waterway
- ≥ 1.5 D 0.0 ≥ 1.5 T 0.0
- 1.5 D – 1.25 D 0.1 B < 1.5 T – 1.15 T 0.2 B
- < 1.25 D 0.2 B < 1.15 T 0.4 B
(i) Cargo hazard level
- Low 0.0 0.0
- Medium ~ 0.5 B ~ 0.4 B
- High ~ 1.0 B ~ 0.8 B
Thorensen (2010) mentions that when a ship is displaced from the centre of the channel, it experiences a bank
suction effect due to the asymmetrical flow. The result of this effect is a yawing movement. To counteract it, a
clearance lane should be considered. Thorensen indicates that this clearance lane should be the beam of the
largest ship, with a minimum value of 30 m.
PIANC (1997) also gives additional widths for passing distance in a two-way access channel (Table 2.3) and
additional width for bank clearance (Table 2.4).
Ligteringen (2009) indicates that only in cases of a very large tidal range, the PIANC rules can be modified into a
width equal to the total length of the design ship. This width may help a ship to avoid going aground with its
stern when it is heading to the channel’s bank.
13
Table 2.3. Additional width for passing distance in two-way traffic (PIANC, 1997)
Width for passing distance Outer channel Inner channel

WP (exposed to open water) (protected water)
Vessel speed [kn]
- Fast > 12 2.0 B -
- Moderate > 8 – 12 1.6 B 1.4 B
- Slow 5 – 8 1.2 B 1.0 B
Encounter traffic density
- Light 0.0 0.0
- Moderate 0.2 B 0.2 B
- Heavy 0.5 B 0.4 B
Table 2.4. Additional width for bank clearance (PIANC, 1997)

Width for bank clearance Vessel Outer channel Inner channel
(WBr or WBg) speed (exposed to open water) (protected water)
fast 0.7 B -
Sloping channel edges and
mod 0.5 B 0.5 B
shoals
slow 0.3 B 0.3 B
fast 1.3 B -
Steep and hard
mod 1.0 B 1.0 B
embankments, structures
slow 0.5 B 0.5 B
The PIANC method (CDR) does not give an explicit definition of when to design a channel as one-way or two-
way, which should be a definition based on an expected number of ships using the channel. Siregar (1995a)
analysed real port’s information and compared it with the CDR method, defining that the CDR rules calculations
for one-way channels are much closer to the reality than the results for two-ways channels. Sigerar formulates a
rule of thumb: when the channel width is lower than six times the design ship beam, the channel is one-way;
when its larger, then the channel is two-ways. Nevertheless, no references to the type of ship against the
number of ships are mentioned.
Sigerar (1995a) mentions that the CDR rules uses the design ship, which in reality is not necessarily the largest
ship. A channel may normally have a two-way traffic for ships whose dimensions fit the design ships. Only as a
matter of exception, when the ‘largest’ ship enters or leaves, the channel allows one-way traffic only.
In addition, PIANC’s (1997) detailed design recommendations for width incorporate ships manoeuvring
simulation models as the definitive design tool for designers. With the aid of this type of models (real – time
models), it is possible to include the behaviour and reaction of the human factors in the design process.
Although PIANC rules are widely used, there are other methods available. USACE (2006) methodology gives less
detailed guides than PIANC to estimate the width of a channel. In case of a one-way channel, the design of the
width can be in the range 2 to 6 times (even 7) the design ship beam. The same reference indicates that a final
range has been developed from 2.5 to 5 times the design ship beam has been developed. Nonetheless, the
method still requires the definition of the traffic pattern (one-way or two-way) as an input.
USACE (200s<sz6) indicates that, after several simulator studies, it was concluded that is possible to control ships
navigating in narrow channels, which means that the design rules and criteria are conservative. Demirbilek and
Sargent (1999) indicate that for straight channels and low currents, a width of 2 to 2.5 times the design ship
beam should be conservative. Nevertheless, it is difficult to provide a similar recommendation for a two-way
14
approach channel because of the lack of information from simulations. A rule of thumb is given for two-way
channels: the width has to be from 4.5 to 6 times the average beam of opposing ships.
Gray et al. (2002) concluded that the channel width is treated somewhat similarly by PIANC and USACE methods.
Nevertheless, USACE does not provide the level of detail and attention to the channel width. In many cases, the
channel width is reduced to decrease capital and maintenance costs. This reduction can go down to the point
where a ship can no longer sail through a channel, based solely on its width. Some other impacts are the limited
definition of one versus two way and reduced vessel speed. An important remark is that the current trend is to
expand ships beams whereas the width of channels does not.
Finally, a simple definition of the width for a two way channel that incorporate the effect of wind and currents is
given by Xingyan et al (2011), which correspond to the Chinese Standard. According with this reference, the
width of the channel is given by:
W  2 A  B  2c (Eq. 2.3)
A  nL sin   B  (Eq. 2.4)
In case that opposing ships have different dimensions, the width of the manoeuvring lane A is calculated
separately for each vessel.
2.1.3 Width in bends

All the information presented previously refers exclusively to straight sections of an access channel. In case that
the design of an access channel requires sections with different alignments, one or multiple bends needs to be
included. PIANC (1997) indicates that the movement of a ship who is turning has an important dependence on
the depth/draught ratio. Basically, when the depth/draught ratio is small, the additional width (expressed as a
percentage of the ship’s beam) is also small.
Figure 2.2 presents a graph with curves that represent the relationship between the additional width in a bend
versus the rudder angle and the depth/draught ratio. The additional width in a bend is added to the base width
in a straight section of the channel.
Thorensen (2010) gives some practical rules:
i) If the deflection angle of the curve is larger than 10°, the channel should be widened.
ii) The width of the manoeuvring lane should be increased from 2 to 4 times the design ship’s draught.
iii) If multiple curves are necessary, a straight section of at least 5 times the length of the design ship or
1000 m should be provided between two consecutive bends.
2.1.4 Depth
Mayer et al. (2009) mention that the channel depth should accommodate the draught of the loaded design
vessel, with allowance for squat, sinkage, tidal variations, effects of waves, wind and currents. Additionally, they
indicate that a concept design should establish the initial estimates for the depth: the detailed design refines
alternatives and finalizes the design with more extensive information (like a more detailed bathymetry or a
wave’s propagation study for different sections of the access channel). Nevertheless, for a fast – time simulation
model, an initial estimation for the depth is sufficient.
15
Figure 2.2. Width of a swept tract in a turn as a function of rudder angle and water depth (PIANC, 1997)
USACE (2006) indicates some extra considerations to those mentioned by Mayer et al. The extra considerations
are the effect of fresh water and allowances for dredging tolerance and advance maintenance.
Ligteringen (2009) defines several factors that influence the depth of a channel:
 Draught of the design ship.
 Other ship-related factors like squat and trim, and the vertical response to waves.
 Water level, mostly related with tidal levels.
 Channel bottom factors.
The depth can be determined according to the following equation (Ligteringen, 2009):
d  D  T  smax  r  m (Eq. 2.5)
In simple words, for estimation of the required depth of a channel it is necessary to consider the draught of the
design ship, the maximum sinkage of the ship, the vertical motions due to wave response and a safety margin.
Additionally, it allows the designer to introduce a tidal window, which represents an opportunity to reduce the
volume to be dredged and therefore the capital and maintenance costs. Lighteringen (2009) describes a tidal
window as a restriction to navigation, “at least for the biggest ships, to a limited period of the tide”. Restrictions
may apply as a current window (tidal currents) and even as a wave window.
Figure 2.3 presents a scheme of the cross section of a channel and the related under keel clearance factors.
According to PIANC (1997), the calculation of the sinkage of the ship (squat and trim) can be obtained by three
different options:
i) Huuska / Guliev expression (ICORELS)
ii) Graphical method
iii) Minimum value for on water depth/draught ratio
16
Figure 2.3. Under keel clearance factors (Ligteringen, 2009)

The volume of displacement is estimated by the following equation:
  CB  L pp  B  D (Eq. 2.6)
In addition to the Huuska / Guliev expression, other expressions suitable for prediction of the squat are available
(Barrass II and Eryuzlu et al. formulas). Nevertheless, the Huuska / Guliev expression gives quick results and it is
valid for unrestricted waterways and restricted channels. An important restriction of this method is that it
should not be used for Froude depth numbers larger than 0.7.
The graphical method for squat estimation is presented in Figure 2.4. The method returns an estimation of the
bow or stern sinkage, based on the ship speed, the water depth, the contour of the bow or stern appropriate to
the at – rest trim of the ship and the ship’s length.
Figure 2.4. Squat estimation chart for full-bodied ships (PIANC, 1997)
17
Dand (2004) comments “the vertical motions due to waves are usually considered only at the detailed design
stage with the use of mathematical models. For concept design a depth/draught ratio, based on experience, is
used to allow for wave-induced vertical motions.” PIANC (1997) gives some quick and simple factors to predict
the squat, draught and sounding uncertainties, by setting a minimum value of the depth/draught ratio. For calm
waters, the depth/draught ratio usually may be 1.1, although values of 1.15 can be found. For channels with
waves, the coefficient can be 1.3 or even larger.
A last method is the inclusion of safety factors, expressed in terms of the ship’s draught. Witteeven + Bos (2012),
in its conceptual design of the Taman Port, define a simpler criteria basis for the gross underkeel clearance. For
outer channels, the minimum clearance is 20% the ship’s draught, while for inner channels the clearance is
reduced to 15% the ship’s draught.
Several methods are presented. For the application of a fast – time simulation model, it is advisable to use a
simple approach (like definition of Witteeven + Bos) because the results are typically used or assessing a design
during a conceptual engineering stage.
2.2 Simulation models of ports operations
2.2.1 General characteristics

Nowadays, simulation models are very useful in different fields (like a flight simulator for a new air pilot or a
complex modelling of the traffic in a large city). The use of these models allows a quick assessment of a future
operation or design, allowing several actions with it (like training of a crew or modification of a particular
design). In the last decades, the development and use of models with increasing complexity has been possible
because of the improvement of the capacity of computers.
“A model is a representation of the construction and working of some system of interest. A model is similar to
but simpler than the system it represents…” (Maria, 1997). The purposes of a model are various, but typically a
model is designed to represent, study or predict certain properties of the reality. Its main objective is to study
the reality in a simple way by eliminating or simplifying components.
A simulation model needs to be validated by the comparison of its results with real life data. Groenveld (2001)
indicates the procedure necessary to create a simulation model. The required steps are the following:
1. System boundaries: dependent on the problem that needs to be solved.
2. Model description: within the system boundaries, the reality needs to be schematised.
3. Selection of the simulation language.
4. Verification: are the input parameters and logical structure correctly represented? Is the model
correctly implemented in the code?
5. Validation: comparison of the model results with real data; discrepancies are used to improve the
model (feedback for calibration)
6. Experiments with the model (model application).
Figure 2.5 presents a scheme with the steps of the simulation process.
Maria (1997) indicates that the simulation models can be deterministic (input and output variables are fixed
values) or stochastic (at least one of the input or output variables is probabilistic); static (no time dependence)
or dynamic (time – varying interactions among variables that are taken into account). Frequently, the simulation
models are stochastic and dynamic.
18
Figure 2.5. Steps in the simulation process (Groenveld, 2001)

Groenveld (2001) indicates that logistic simulation models are typically used for capacity estimation (waiting
time of clients and capabilities of a port (wet infrastructure, terminals, hinterland connections, etc.). Other types
of model are the manoeuvring simulation models, which provide rules for ship traffic.
According to Groenveld (2001), the logistic models are used for:
Consequence analysis of minor changes of the master plan: estimation of the consequences of minor
changes used to improve an existing port.
Development of a new port: check whether the design requirements (minimum level of operational
conditions) of a new port are met.
Safety: registration of the potential number of exposures, which are related with safety levels.
2.2.2 Real and fast time simulation models

Simulation models can be classified as real or fast time. The differences between both groups are well explained
by Siregar (1995b).
Real-time simulation: the physical effects are mathematically reproduced, while the control effects are
physically reproduced (human interaction with the simulator). All actions and responses of the model
are executed with a time step equal to reality. Therefore, with models it is possible to test the
behaviour of the controller of a certain process. A direct application in the port engineering is the
reproduction of a ship’s bridge: the human – computer interactions are executed with controls, while
reality is represented with the readings of instruments and a large screen. On it, it is also possible to see
whether a bridge team is able to manoeuvre a ship through a certain situation (design stage).
Fast-time simulation: the physical and control effects are mathematically reproduced. In simulations,
the human does not continue interacting with the simulation: all the control measures are executed by
the computer. The elimination of the human component allows the simulation to be run faster than
reality. The speed of the simulation depends on the computer capacity and the expertise of the
programmer. A direct application in the port engineering is the simulation of a port as a complex
system: it includes sailing ships, working cranes, and status of storage yards (dynamic components).
These models help designers to develop an optimised design of a new port, as well as to evaluate the
effect of a certain measure in an existing port.
19
The assessment of an access channel design can be performed via both methods. However, the real-time
simulations are mainly attempted to evaluate the manoeuvrability conditions of a ship sailing through a certain
channel. On the other hand, the fast-time simulation models can allow the simulation of several ships in a short
time, while the configuration of the model (port layout, fleet composition, number of ships, etc.) can be easily
varied. Then, when the design of an access channel is needed to be evaluated in terms of congestion, it is
preferable to use a fast-time simulation model.
2.2.3 Fast-time simulation model for designing a channel width

The work developed by Siregar (1995b) was the creation of a fast-time simulation program, which could simulate
the manoeuvres of a ship entering a port. It was considered a single ship, which sails under the effect of several
forces (wind, waves) and stochastic process (like errors in estimating the ship’s position and/or human errors).
In order to do this, Siregar combined three different fast-time languages: Columbus, Shipma 4.30 and Prosim
3.01. The general characteristics of each one are:
Columbus: is a program that evaluates the aids to navigation. It was designed to study the
effectiveness of navigational aids, which is measured in terms of the accuracy of the skipper’s
estimation of the ship’s position.
Shipma 4.30: a fast-time simulation software for ship manoeuvring. It models mathematically the
manoeuvring of a ship under several influences (like wind, waves and/or tugs assistance).
Prosim 3.01: allows the modelling and simulation of different random processes.
With the combination of these languages, Siregar applied this methodology to study the entrance of the
Ijmuiden port, in The Netherlands. The port was selected because it has a long and straight entrance, avoiding
bends that would complicate the manoeuvres and the simulation.
Nevertheless, Siregar’s work was focused in the modelling of manoeuvres of a ship instead of determining if the
width of a channel is suitable for a port with a certain throughput. The model does not include interaction
between ships, utilisation of berths nor the generation of queues to access or leave the port.
2.2.4 Fast-time simulation model for a port

Groenveld (1983) developed Harboursim with the utilisation of the language Prosim. Harboursim is a simulation
model for several systems that are related with a port, and it can be used to evaluate the design of new ports as
well as the modification of existing ones. Among the systems that are modelled, it can be found:
a) System of signals.
b) Anchorage for use while a ship is waiting due to tidal conditions or congestion.
c) Pilot system.
d) System of towage.
e) Quays with cargo handling facilities.
f) Undercover and cover storage.
g) Inland transport system.
Figure 2.6 presents a scheme with the processes that are incorporated in Harboursim, presented on a particular
configuration of a port.
20
Figure 2.6. Configuration simulation model Harboursim_Pro (Groenveld, 1983)

Harboursim allows the possibility to determine the results of an intervention (like increasing the throughput of
an existing port, enlarging the available quay length, or changing the priority rules, among others). The
indicators are the average waiting time and the time when a certain number of ships are using the anchorage.
The model also permits the assessment of the design for both the access channel and the quay length for
different terminals of a port.
A model of these characteristics makes it possible the determination of the critical parameters that affects the
port operation. In this way, it is possible to filter these parameters (during the design’s assessment stage) from
those that only affect the system slightly. The model output is useful to determine if the proposed design
satisfies the design requirements.
The Harboursim main features are:
Allows modelling of a large number of ship types, with different arrival patterns, service time
distribution and priorities.
Includes tidal conditions on each channel section.
Includes weather conditions (storm and fog).
Incorporates day and night navigation.
The model is composed by different actors, which interact between them and simulates the processes of a ship
entering, (un)loading and leaving a port. The actors are: ships generator, ship, pilot, harbourmaster, and
administrator 1 (quays) and administrator 2 (ships).
Harbourmaster process: takes a ship in a queue and checks if there is enough free quay length, tidal
conditions and the occupation of the channels. If all these checks are satisfied, a ship priority is
calculated.
Pilot processes: verifies if there are no restrictions concerning weather conditions and day length.
Administrator 1 processes: registers the utilisation of different quays and berthing points used in the
model, in the respective histograms.
Administrator 2 processes: orders the ship to enter or leave the ports and carries out the necessary
administration tasks.
21
Ship processes: the ship passes through the port system. Several components (pilot, harbourmaster and
administrator 2) run this process.
Procedure occupation channels: the procedure determines the possibility of entering or leaving of a
ship, related to the occupation of the channel section, turning circles and berthing areas.
Harboursim is a model that has been used widely, because it allows the evaluation of a port like the sum of
several systems. It is easy to find examples of researchers who have used this model in the evaluation of master
plans for different ports (like Budiyono (1998), Van Driel (1993), Deville (2011), etc.).
Nevertheless, Van der Meer (2013) found some errors in the model, which were corrected. Van der Meer’s
conclusion was a recommendation of do not use the original Harboursim model until it has been adapted to the
found errors. Nevertheless, the functionality of Harboursim has been tested for different evaluations of master
plans and its results are widely accepted. Hence, even considering that the software can be improved, its use is
still positive, especially for the assessment of master plans during the conceptual engineering stages.
Other simulation models (like those presented by Solari et al (2010), Demirci (2003) or Hofseth (2007)) are in
different stages of development and/or use. Nevertheless, these models were not available for this literature
review, hence, an identification of its capabilities and limitations should be performed during a next stage of
research.
2.3 Conclusions
2.3.1 Access channels design

There is a set of diverse codes and norms that allow the design of an access channel, during the different stages
of an engineering project. For a conceptual engineering, the PIANC method appears to be the best option to
design an access channel. This method takes into account several parameters, such as weather conditions (wind,
waves, currents), vessel characteristics (speed, manoeuvrability), and ports characteristics (cargo hazard, aids to
navigation, etc.), among others. Other methods (like USACE) do not give this level of detail.
Nevertheless, several input parameters of the PIANC rules are qualitative, and no explicit definition on how to
define it is present on it. These parameters are the ship manoeuvrability and the encounter traffic density. While
the first parameter can be judged by an expert, the second is more difficult to estimate. Ideally, the traffic
density of encounters should be judged in terms of a number of ships per unit of time (day) using the access
channel. But currently, it must be determined by the criteria of the designers; hence, an effort on defining a
single criterion should be performed.
One important input definition of the PIANC rules is when a channel should be one or two – way channel. The
method gives a correct estimation of the width for each case, but it does not give an explicit recommendation on
the definition of the type of channel. Hence, the choise is made by the designers, based on their criteria and,
probably, on financial aspects (there is a trend to narrow the dimensions of the channel in order to reduce the
investment and maintenance costs). Ideally, the definition of the type of channel should be made based of the
number of ships per year and the length of the channel. Because no relationship or method is available for this,
the assessment with a simulation model appears to be a good solution to this problem.
2.3.2 Simulation models of ports operations

Nowadays, the assessment of a master plan (new port or modification of an existing one) during a conceptual
engineering stage is correctly covered by the use of the currently available simulation models (like Harboursim).
22
These simulation models are focused on the evaluation of a port as a complex system, including several
processes (anchorage, access channel, service at the berth, yards utilisation, etc.). Nevertheless, these
simulation models do not have a focus on assessing the access channel.
Harboursim executes a simulation run based on a process approach, which in simple words is a sequence of
processes for an arriving ship (arrival, sailing to berth, service time, sailing to sea, leave). The processes are
defined as time cycles: each time a cycle is finished, the next process begins. When a certain ship is willing to use
the access channel, the model checks if the current utilisation of the channel allows the entrance of a new one.
Nevertheless, the process is simplified: if the channel is two – way type then encounters will be admitted;
otherwise, the ship will have to wait.
If an assessment of the access channel is needed, a more detailed simulation of the processes related to it is
required. Then, a verbal model of the different actions that ships can perform on an access channel is required
(speed reduction to enter into the port, overtaking of slow ships, etc.). Additionally, a new simulation model
should have enough capabilities to model different configurations of access channels (intermediate anchorages,
presence of a passing section) and related traffic rules (intermediate entrances for smaller vessels, operation of
one – way channel for large carriers and two – way channel for small vessels).
Finally, the results of Harboursim indicate the average waiting time for different fleets, both for arriving and
departing ships. Although the characterisation of these results is correct, there is no classification for the reasons
behind this delay. The delay can occur from different sources (berth unavailability, congestion, weather
conditions, etc.): if the access channel is being assessed, it is crucial to know if the waiting time of the vessels is
due to congestion or because of a lack of free berths. This type of results can give more information to the
designers in order to know exactly what processes are being the bottle-necks and what could the more suitable
measures to diminish the delay.
23
3 VERBAL MODEL
The generation of a simulation model to assess an access channel requires a previous description and
schematisation of the reality. These actions need to be done within the system boundaries, which depend on the
specific problem that is being studied.
This chapter presents the system boundaries, the definition and description of the main processes involved, the
model’s description and the equations considered to translate reality into the model.
3.1 System boundaries

The main purpose of this study is to assess the design of an access channel. Therefore, the system boundaries
contain all the processes that are directly related with it (ships sailing towards the port or towards the open sea).
The physical boundaries are:
 Outer edge of the access channel.

 Turning circle, fixed to the inner edge to the access channel.
Within this borders, the model will simulate in detail the movement of the ships, sailing towards the port or
towards the open sea. Interactions between different vessels (like overtaking, encounters and minimum
distance between ships sailing in the same direction) are also taken into account.
The permission to ships to navigate will depend on several factors, such as congestion, existence of free berths,
mild weather conditions and the port status.
Although there are other processes that are related with the ships navigation through the access channel (such
as the navigation through inner basins or the tasks of loading and unloading at the berth), these processes will
not be modelled in detail. On the contrary, proper simplifications will be considered (like definition of the
required time per process via a specific probability function). Hence, the level of detail of the processes related
with the navigation of ships within the access channel is high, while the other related processes outside the
access channel are simplified. These processes cannot be discarded, because they influence the arriving and
departing patterns of ships, then, they have direct influence on the access channel status.
3.2 Processes definition and description

The processes of a ship which is using the facilities of a port are:
 Arrival to port
 Wait at anchorage
 Navigation towards the berth (through access channel and inner basins)
 Berthing
 (Un)loading
 Wait at berth
 Navigation towards open sea (through inner basins and access channel)
 Leave port
It is necessary to emphasize that some of the processes listed before (navigation through inner basins, berthing
and (un)loading) are outside of the defined boundaries; hence, they will not be modelled in detail. Nevertheless,
they cannot be neglected because they are part of the natural sequence of ships and the time to execute these
tasks must be considered in the complete cycle.
24
The typical sequence of these processes is schematized in Figure 3.1. Green boxes represent simplified
processes, while blue boxes represent detailed processes.
Arri va l
Yes Sa i l to port No Wa i t a t anchorage

pos sible?
Enter i nto outer Sa i l through outer Reduce s peed to

cha nnel cha nnel entra nce speed
Enter i nto i nner

Fi nal stopping Tugs ma ke fast
cha nnel
Na vi gate within the

Berthi ng
port (tug a ssisted)
(Un)l oading
NaEnter
vi gate
i nto
within
outer
the Yes Sa i l to sea No Wa i t a t berth
port (tug
cha nnel
a ssisted) pos sible?
Enter i nto turning Speed up to entrance

Tugs release fast
ci rcl e s peed
Speed up to cruise Enter i nto outer Enter i nto i nner

s peed cha nnel cha nnel
Sa i l through outer
Exi t outer channel
cha nnel
Lea ve
Figure 3.1. Processes of a ship using an access channel

A description of each process is presented.
3.2.1 Arrival to port

The ships arrival pattern is a stochastic process, and typically it follows a NED distribution. There are some cases
where the arrival pattern follows a different function of probability. If the arrival ships belong to a company that
has a contract to maintain regular services, the arrival pattern can follow a k-Erlang function.
The arrival position for different ships is usually at the anchorage location, and it depends on the direction they
come from. Nevertheless, some large ports have more than a single anchorage site. The selection of the
anchorage location depends on several factors, such as the ships origin, the available maximum draught or the
current utilisation by other ships.
If a ship is authorised to navigate towards an assigned berth, it will enter the access channel and no entering to
the anchorage site is required. The authorisation for a ship to enter into the access channel depends on various
conditions: traffic conditions are suitable to allow navigation of a new ship without reducing safety, there is
sufficient quay length available for the ship’s dimensions, the pilot indicates that the weather conditions are
suitable for sailing through the access channel and the port / access channel are in operation.
25
3.2.2 Waiting at anchorage

An anchorage is that portion of a harbour or area outside a harbour suitable for anchoring. Ships use the
anchorage sites for several reasons: wait their entry to the port, crew change, repairs, small supply, etc. (Deville,
2011). For assessing the design of an access channel, the waiting for authorisation to navigate towards the berth
and the entrance of the vessel into the access channel will be considered.
Basically, the ships that do not have authorisation to navigate to the port have to wait at the anchorage area.
The anchorage areas are typically located close to the outer edge of the access channel, although there are ports
that have available intermediate anchorage area, like the port of Rotterdam. The location of the anchorage
areas is relevant, because it defines the position where the ships that were waiting on it will enter into the
access channel.
3.2.3 Authorisation to sail towards the berth

The final approval to a ship to navigate to its assigned berth depends on several authorisations:
 Port is currently open.

 Navigation within the access channel and the inner basin is allowed (tidal and/or current window).
 There is enough free quay length at the terminal of destination, considering the specific ship length.
 The current weather conditions (wind, waves, currents, ice, fog) allows safe passage of the ship.
 The traffic conditions permit the utilisation by the ship of different sections of the wet infrastructure
(access channel, inner basins).
3.2.3.1 Port status

A ship can enter into a port only if it is operating (traffic control and pilots are active) and its approach channel is
open. A port may be closed during several periods of time due to these reasons:
 Working days: some ports offer service seven days per week, others may be restricted or closed during
weekends.
 Channel opening: some approach channels may be accessible 24 hours per day while others may be
accessible only with daylight.
 Other events: other irregular events can force the port to close for a certain period of time.
If a certain port has a channel that operates only with daylight, it is important to know the duration of the day.
This duration depends on the latitude and the date. Figure 3.2 presents a graph with the daylight variation due
to these factors.
3.2.3.2 Operational windows

Sailing conditions refer to the current status of the access channel and if these conditions allows a certain ship to
navigate in it. The design of the access channel can consider the presence of a tidal, current or wave windows.
The tidal window depends on the tidal constituents, which are grouped as semidiurnal, diurnal and of long
period. According to Bosboom and Stive (2013), “for practical purposes, the tide can be seen as a sinusoidal
semi-diurnal water level variation modified with a fortnightly spring and neap tide amplitude variation…”.
Hence, if no specific information is available, in a conceptual design process it is possible to consider only the
principal semidiurnal constituents (M2 and S2). Nevertheless, the definition of the tidal components for the port
in study is highly recommended.
26
Figure 3.2. Annual variations in day length at different locations in the North Hemisphere
(PhysicalGeography.net)
Table 3.1 introduces the characteristics of the constituents M2 and S2.
Equilibrium amplitude Period

Tidal constituent Name
[m] [hr]
Principal lunar M2 0.24 12.42
Principal solar S2 0.11 12.00
Table 3.1. Principal semidiurnal constituents and its characteristics (Bosboom and Stive, 2013)
Cross and longitudinal currents affect the manoeuvrability of the vessel. According to Lighteringen (2009), “the
ship has to maintain an angle within the channel axis in order to counteract the forces due to winds and
currents. This drift angle is limited to about 14° because for greater angles the rudder control reduces too
much”. Additionally, the ship must maintain a minimum speed of 4 kn for rudder control.
Equation 3.1 represents these restrictions.
Veff  Vmin cos   u  cos  (Eq. 3.1)
The definition of the current behaviour in a specific area is much more complicated to estimate than the tides.
Although currents in a coastal area may have its origin in the tides, they depend more strongly on the
bathymetry and the propagation of the tides. In addition, if the port is located near an estuary, residual currents
could be found. Hence, no practical rule can be defined. A current window can be defined only if specific
information on the currents pattern is available.
Due to the stochastic behaviour of waves, is difficult to develop precise prognosis of the wave field during a
certain time. No practical information is available in this subject.
3.2.3.3 Free quay length

The port structure is compound by several terminals, which can handle different type of cargo. Every ship that
arrives to a port has a specific terminal of destination. When a ship asks to navigate to a berth, it is necessary
that a free quay length exists at that moment. The required quay length is defined as the length of the ship plus
a gap of 15 m to separate it from other ships. If the ship is using an outer berth, additional 15 m are required for
extending the mooring lines (Lighteringen, 2009).
27
3.2.3.4 Weather conditions

A ship will be authorised to sail if the weather conditions are suitable for. The weather characterisation includes
wind, waves, ice and fog.
Each one of these components depends on the specific location of the port. Hence, specific information must be
obtained.
 Wind: a wind-rose with the yearly distribution of the wind direction and forces (or velocities) in
percentage of time.
 Waves: a waves-rose with the yearly distribution of the wave’s direction, amplitude and period.
Additional statistics of extreme events (significant wave height versus period of return) is also required.
 Ice: estimation of downtime due to ice problems per season or per month. Ice problems means that the
ice layer is sufficiently thick to do not allow vessels to passage.
 Fog: estimation of downtime due to visibility problems per year. The definition of visibility problems is
when it is lower than 1,000 m (Thorensen, 2010).
The wind and waves are input parameters considered by the PIANC rules. Then, there are maximum values that
allow safe navigation. If some of these variables exceed the maximum, then the navigation will not be safe
anymore and the ship will not be authorised to enter to the channel.
3.2.3.5 Traffic conditions

The final authorisation depends on the traffic conditions within the wet infrastructure. When a ship asks to
navigate towards a certain terminal, its trajectory must be defined (including an estimation of its position
depending on time). The projected path depends on the maximum cruise speed of the vessel (depends on the
installed power and dead weight tonnage), possible restrictions to speed on the access channel and the depth.
The navigational aids system (VTS) shows the status of the current vessels using the access channel. A similar
projection of their paths can be estimated by the harbour master. If interactions are found (encounters and/or
overtaking), the harbour master should verify of the dimensions of the wet infrastructure (width) and vessels
dimension. If the interactions are possible, the ship will be allowed to sail. Otherwise, it will have to wait until
the traffic conditions are suitable. Then, the final authorisation for a ship to sail within the access channel
depends on the current status and the definition of a traffic controller.
3.2.4 Navigation through access channel
3.2.4.1 Access channel entering position

Once a ship receives the approval to navigate towards its assigned berth, it enters the access channel. If the
ship’s draught is close to the design draught, it will be forced to enter at the outer position of the channel and
navigate it complete. But if the ship’s draught is small, it will be possible for this ship to navigate via the fairway
(close to the channel) but without using it. Hence, the entrance point will depend on the ships draught and the
bathymetry characteristics outside the channel.
3.2.4.2 Ship’s maximum speed

Once the ship is sailing within the access channel, it will attempt to navigate the maximum possible speed. The
maximum speed depends on several parameters:
Ship characteristics
28
Channel depth
Channel restrictions (maximum allowed speed)
Another feature regarding the admiralty coefficient is that it depends on the total weight of a ship. Therefore, if
a ship is sailing empty, it will be able to sail faster than a ship that is fully loaded.
Table 3.2 presents some maximum speeds for different types of ships, which can be considered as reference
values. Nevertheless, when evaluating a real project, the characteristics of expected ships (including their speed
for different loads) should be defined.
Table 3.2. Maximum speed for several ships ((1) Lighteringen, 2009); (2) Lingwood, 2007)
Deadweight Maximum speed

Name Ship type
[t] [kn]
2
“Artic Voyager” LNG carrier 75,000 19.0
2
“Eylul K” Bulk carrier 20,000 14.0
1
“Happy river” Heavy lift carrier ship 15,634 16.0
2
“Industrial Diamond” General cargo ship 6,038 16.00
“Naftocement XI” Bulk carrier 12,500 14.5
1
“New Vanguard” Very large crude carrier 300,058 16.8
1
“P&O Nedlloyd Southampton” Container ship 83,826 24.5
1
“Peene ore” Very large ore carrier 322,398 14.7
1
“Sakti” General cargo ship 8,739 13.3
2
“YM Intelligent: CSBC” Container ship 18,158 20.2
The second criterion refers to the maximum speed considering the channel depth. The hydrodynamic resistance
to motion of a ship on shallow waters is governed by the Froude Depth number (PIANC, 1997). The calculation of
this dimensionless number is presented in equation 3.2.
V
Fnh  (Eq. 3.2)
g d
PIANC (1997) defines some maximum factors for this Froude number (0.6 for tankers, 0.7 for container ships). If
the velocity of the ship is traduced into a larger Froude number, the resistance to the ship’s motion reaches very
high values: all the extra power consumed by the ship begins to enlarge the energy contained in primary and
secondary waves (due to ship movement). In this sense, navigation with high speeds becomes extremely
inefficient.
As some reference values, if a channel has a nominal depth of 15 m, the maximum speed for tankers and
container ships will be 14.2 kn and 16.5 kn, respectively. If the depth of the same channel increases to 20 m, the
maximum velocities also increases (16.3 kn for tankers; 19.1 kn for container ships).
The third criterion depends on maximum allowed speed on different sections of the channel. These restrictions
are related with the design of the channel, which are well covered by the CDR (PIANC, 1997).
A ship will navigate with the maximum available speed, which corresponds to the minimum of these three
restrictions. When the maximum speed is set, ships will move with a real speed that does not fluctuate very
significantly. Hence, a narrow uniform distribution can represent the sailing time (and the related speed) of a
given ship with acceptable accuracy (PIANC, 1997).
29
Although it could be expected that a ship would try to reach the berth as fast as it cans, there are other
parameters that might influence the real speed of the vessel. Among these possibilities it can be considered the
existence of a scheduled arrival time, or a reduction of the fuel consumption by reducing the speed.
3.2.4.3 Traffic rules

Like in a highway, ships must respect certain rules in order to provide a safe passage across the access channel.
In addition to the speed limitations (mentioned in previous section), there are other type of restrictions that
must be considered. These restrictions are related with the interaction between ships: distance, overtaking and
encounter.
Ships sailing in a convoy must respect a minimum distance between them. References indicate that the distance
between two ships sailing in the same direction is in the range 3 – 6 times the ship’s length (Xingyan, 2011; Van
der Meer, 2013). The distance must be maintained all along the access channel, including the inner channel. On
this section, ships sail with a slower speed (related to the minimum required for tugs to make fast), which is
typically about 4 kn. Then, for ships with a length of 300 m, the time between two consecutive ships is in the
range 7.5 – 15 min. This time is sufficient to make fast and begin to tug a vessel, taking it out of the turning circle
before the next ship will enter into it.
Figure 3.3 presents a scheme with the minimum distance between ships.
3 -6 LC 3 -6 LB
LC LB LA
Figure 3.3. Minimum distance between ships in a convoy

When a ship’s maximum speed is limited because of the installed power, subsequent ships will reduce their
distance and at some moment they will reach the slow vessel. Faster ships will try to overtake slower ships
(otherwise they will be delayed because of traffic reasons). Nevertheless, some conditions should be met in
order to allow an overtaking in the channel.
If the channel is one-way, the cross section does not allow more than one vessel in a single section of
the channel. Therefore, overtaking is not allowed. A one-way channel current direction depends on the
direction of ships that are currently using it. The change of direction can be determined in different
ways, for example when all ships sailing in one direction has left the channel, after a certain period of
time (like traffic lights) or when a ship in a queue has exceeded a maximum waiting time due to
congestion.
If the channel is two-way, the cross section allows two vessels in a single section of the channel. Hence,
overtaking is allowed. During the overtaking manoeuvre, typically the overtaken ship reduces its speed
in order to facilitate the overtaking action. To be able to overtake, it must be checked that no ships are
sailing in the opposite direction, at the same section and at the same time. If that is the case, the faster
vessel will have to reduce it speed until the cross section is free to allow overtaking.
It is important to emphasize that a certain channel may behave as a one-way for some ships, and as a
two-ways for other ships. If the interacting ships have a small beam, it is possible to allow two ships in
the same section without violating CDR rules (PIANC, 1997). If the combination of beams is such that
30
CDR rules are not respected, then overtaking is not permitted. For this type of channel, an allowance of
this type of operation is required. The operability of the channel must be evaluated by the harbour
master, depending on the channel’s dimensions and the vessels’ beams.
If overtaking is not possible, the faster ship will have to reduce its speed in order to maintain the minimum
distance with the previous ship. Another possibility is to wait at the anchorage until the position of the slower
ship is sufficient for the faster ship to sail with cruise speed without reducing the distance below the safety
criterion.
Figure 3.4 presents a scheme with different the overtaking manoeuvre. Figure 3.5 presents a scheme with the
classification of access channels.
VB>VA VA
Figure 3.4. Overtaking manoeuvre

Encountering occurs when two ships that are sailing in opposite directions navigate through the same section of
the access channel. Rules to allow encountering are similar to those related with overtaking: for one-way
channel encountering is not allowed; for two-way channel encountering is allowed. Depending on the channel’s
width and the beams of interacting vessels, a channel may be classified as a one or two-way channel.
Figure 3.5. Scheme with classification of access channels: a) One-way access channel; b) Two-way access
channel; c) One or two-way access channel
Figure 3.6 presents a scheme with the encountering manoeuvre.
VC
VA
Figure 3.6. Encountering manoeuvre
3.2.4.4 Speed reduction

When a ship is approaching the entrance of the port, it will have to reduce its speed. The entrance of the port
corresponds to the opening between breakwaters. The speed reduction may be required due to:
31
 The maximum allowed speed in the protected area is lower than the maximum allowed speed in the
outer channel.
 The ship is approaching a turning circle and tug assistance is required.
Large vessels have a large stopping distance and usually they lack of control during that manoeuvre. In practice,
when tugboats are not available, in order to maintain sufficient rudder control, the vessel is forced to maintain a
minimum speed of 3 to 4 kn (relative to the water) (Ligteringen, 2009). So, for lower speeds (a final stop), the
assistance of tugboats is required.
Because the entrance speed is reduced, the ship will have to start reducing its speed in the final part of the outer
channel. The reduction starts from the cruise speed that the vessel can maintain in the channel, and typically
finalizes with the entrance speed. Both speeds were described previously.
The deceleration rate of a certain vessel depends on several factors (IMO, 2002):
 The resistance of the hull is proportional to the square of the ship speed.
 The astern thrust is constant throughout the stopping manoeuvre and equal to the aster thrust
generated by the propeller when the ship eventually stops dead in the water.
 The propeller is reverse as rapidly as possible after the astern order is given.
The speed reduction to the entrance speed is totally executed on the outer access channel. Hence, it will be
covered in detail by the simulation model.
3.2.5 Navigation through inner basins

Once the ship has stopped at the turning circle, it must move to its assigned berth. The movement through inner
basins is done with the assistance of tugboats. Considering this, the speed of a tugged vessel will depend on
several factors:
 Type of tugboats (installed power, type of helix, etc.)

 Number of active tugboats
 Weight of the ship
Typically, the speed of a tugboat can be expressed as a percentage of its maximum speed (without load), which
depends on the bow thrust and the type of helix (Puertos del Estado, 2000). Figure 3.7 presents a graph for
several various helixes.
The maximum speed for a tugboat depends on its characteristics. Typical values for port tugboats are in the
range 5 to 13 kn (Puertos del Estado, 2000).
The required time for a vessel to navigate from the turning circle to its terminal of destination depends on its
speed and the distance. While the distance is a deterministic value, which depends on the port’s layout, the
speed can be considered a stochastic process with an average speed. Nevertheless, the movement of vessels
through inner basins are outside of the defined boundaries. Hence, the simulation model will only consider the
total time for this process without a detailed modelling. The total time will be obtained from the vessel speed
and the distance.
When the vessel reaches its assigned berth, it needs to be moored to it. The required time to execute this task
depends on two factors:
Displaced volume
Berthing conditions (sheltered or exposed area, easy or difficult berthing).
32
Figure 3.7. Bow thrust as a function of tugboat velocity (Puertos del Estado, 2000)
Figure 3.8 presents a graph with the relationship between the berthing speed, the displaced volume and the
berthing conditions.
The mooring process is not part of the processes included within the access channel. Therefore, the required
time to execute this task will be considered according to a probabilistic distribution. Typical average values for
the mooring process are between 15 – 30 minutes, and it depends on the size of the vessel, the configuration of
the quay (wall or piers) and the properties of the fenders.
Figure 3.8. Relationship between berthing speed, displaced volume and berthing conditions (Quist, 2012)
3.2.6 (Un)loading
The loading and unloading of cargo are the main purpose of a ship that is visiting a port. The required service
time depends on several characteristics:
Cargo type (container, liquid bulk, dry bulk, general cargo, etc.)
33
Nominal and maximum rate (type of cranes and cargo, number of gangs, etc.)
Loading and/or unloading
Total cargo (tonnage, TEUs)
Some typical service rates are highlighted (Ligteringen, 2009):
Container terminals: peak 40 – 50 moves per hour; average 20 – 30 moves per hour.
General cargo: conventional 8.5 – 12.5 t/hr; timber and timer products 12.5 – 25 t/hr; steel products 20
– 40 t/hr; containerised cargo 30 – 55 t/hr.
Liquid bulk: 10% per hour of deadweight tonnage.
Dry cargo: loading 2,000 – 20,000 t/hr (linear and radial loaders); unloading depends on equipment
(grabs, pneumatic systems, vertical conveyors, bucket elevators, slurry systems, self-discharging
vessels), but range is wide (200 – 2,500 t/hr).
The service time can be modelled with a distribution function, which depends on the average productivity. For a
container terminal is possible to use a third degree k-Erlang; for other terminals a second degree k-Erlang is
more suitable.
Like the navigation of vessels within the inner basins, the service processes are outside of the boundaries of the
model. Hence, a correct estimation of the total time is required by the model. The estimation will be obtained
with the described probability functions.
3.2.7 Waiting at berth

Once the ship has finished its cargo activities, it will be ready to navigate towards the open sea. Nevertheless, it
will have to wait for an approval to leave the port (similar situation as the waiting at the anchorage). Actually,
the authorisations are practically the same (port status, sailing conditions, weather conditions and traffic
conditions). The only difference is that a ship which is waiting to navigate to the open sea does not depend on
the utilisation of quay by other ships (free quay length).
3.2.8 Leaving the port

When a ship is navigating towards the open sea, the navigation through the wet infrastructure will follow the
same rules and restrictions that apply for a ship entering the port (ship maximum speed and traffic rules).
Nevertheless, when the ship will be approaching to its exit off the channel, there are no requirements of
decelerating.
Like the entrance into the access channel, the exit off it depends on the ship draught and the bathymetry
outside the channel. If the water depth outside the channel is enough to allow a ship with a certain draught, it
does not need to continue sailing within the channel.
Once the ship has exited the channel, it is considered that it has finished all processes related with the port.
3.3 Model’s description
3.3.1 Assumptions
The following assumptions are considered for the simulation model:
The ships movement is modelled in a one dimension scheme (position along x axis versus time).
34
The position of a ship is defined as a single point, which is considered at the centre of the ship
(longitudinal direction).
A ship entering the channel at the outer entrance will already sail with its maximum velocity,
independently if it is entering directly or if it has already waited at the anchorage area.
The deceleration of a vessel is influenced by the friction of the vessel and the water. When the velocity
of the vessel increases, the friction becomes larger and the deceleration rate will also increase.
Nevertheless, for simplicity reasons, the simulation model assumes that the deceleration rate is
constant between two given speeds. This assumption underestimates the deceleration rate for high
speeds and overestimates it for low speeds.
During stage 2 (speed reduction), the deceleration rate is obtained from the IMO relationship.
During stage 3 (final stop), the deceleration rate is obtained from the stopping distance, which is
assumed to be one ship’s length.
Ships entering a port will pass through two stages of deceleration. It is assumed that ships sailing
towards the sea will pass through two stages of acceleration. These acceleration rate will be the same
than the deceleration rate (for ships moving towards the port), but with opposite direction.
The final speed corresponds to the velocity of a vessel being assisted by tugs. It is assumed that this
speed will be 1.5 knots.
The channel modelling will be considered as a straight channel.
The traffic rules for vessels that will be modelled are: type of channel operation (one, two or mixed
operation), safety distance between ships in a convoy, maximum speed on outer and inner channel,
possibility of reducing vessel speed and single / multiple entrances option.
Each ship will enter into a port with a pilot. There will be no limitation on the number of pilots available.
Each ship (independently on its size) will enter into the port with tug assistance. Furthermore, there will
be unlimited number of tugs.
The delay cause for a ship will be assumed to be caused by a single source. When two or more causes of
delay will be active simultaneously, the delay source will be defined according to a ranking of delays
(first port / channel unavailability; secondly berth unavailability; thirdly traffic conditions; and fourth
the weather conditions).
In case of encountering or overtaking, the speed of the involved vessels is not modified.
The longitudinal movement of the ship is not affect by longitudinal currents nor longitudinal wind.
3.3.2 Exclusions
The following items are excluded for the simulation model:
Movement of the ships entering, anchoring and leaving the anchorage area.
Movement of the ships through inner basins and other nautical units located beyond the first turning
circle.
Position of berthing of a ship in its terminal of destination.
Status of cranes, storage yards, stocking piles, etc.
3.3.3 Model boundaries

The simulation model imitates the movement of the ships that are sailing through an access channel. Therefore,
the boundaries are defined by the boundaries of the access channel. Hence, the boundaries are:
Outer entrance of the access channel.
Centre of the first turning circle, at the entrance of the port.
35
Within these boundaries, different sections of the channel are identified:

Outer channel
Inner channel
Turning circle
3.3.4 Ship’s movement

3.3.4.1 Explicit scheme
Within the model boundaries, the software simulates the movement of the ships based on its velocity with an
explicit scheme. Hence, the position of a ship depends on its previous position, velocity and the defined time
step. Equation 3.3 presents the basic scheme to estimate the next ship position.
xi 1  xi  Vi  t (Eq. 3.3)
3.3.4.2 Stages of a ship using an access channel

Depending on the location of a single ship, it will be allowed to sail with its maximum velocity or it will be forced
to decrease its speed. Speed reductions are related with these processes:
Maximum velocity to allow tugs to make fast (entrance to the port)
Final stop (arrival to turning circle)
Sequentially, a ship that is entering a port will pass through different stages:
1. Sailing at maximum speed (outer channel)
2. Speed reduction to enter the port (outer channel)
3. Sailing at reduced speed (inner channel)
4. Final stop (inner channel and turning circle)
Figure 3.9 presents a scheme with the variation of a vessel speed, based on its position.
Figure 3.9. Speed profile scheme of a vessel using an access channel
3.3.4.3 Kinematic equations

Independently on the stage, the vessel’s motion can be well described with the kinematic equations (equations
3.4 and 3.5).
a t2
xt   x0  V 0  t  (Eq. 3.4)
2
36
V t   V 0  a  t (Eq. 3.5)

These equations describe the continuous motion of a vessel for any moment. Nevertheless, the simulation
model is an explicit scheme. In order to calculate the position of a ship during the next time step, it is necessary
to know the original position and velocity of the ship. Hence, is necessary to modify the previous equations to
obtain an explicit relationship between velocity and position, which is dependent on time. Equation 3.6 presents
this relationship.
V xt   V 02  2  ax0  xt  (Eq. 3.6)
It is important to mention that equation 1.4 is valid for stages 2 and 4 (deceleration of the ship). For stages 1 and
3 there is no acceleration, therefore the velocity of the ship can be considered as constant.
The reduction and final stop of a ship is typically defined in terms of the ship’s length. Taking the kinematic
equations, it is possible to define the acceleration rate in terms of the initial and final speed, and the ship’s
length. Equation 3.7 presents this relationship.
V t f  V 0 V 0  V t f 2 V 0  (Eq. 3.7)

a  
L f
If a ship is reducing its speed to enter into a port, the factor f is obtained with the IMO formula (see chapter 3). If
a ship is decreasing its speed to a final stop, the factor f is equal to 1.
3.3.4.4 Variations of the ship’s motion

Previous relations give a theorical approach for the velocity of a ship based on its position. Nevertheless, the
ships will attempt to reach the maximum speed possible (considering criteria of installed power, channel depth
and channel restrictions), but the real speed can vary in a narrow uniform band (PIANC 1997).
To represent this variability in the model, a random number has been included into the average speed definition
of a ship. Variation can be up to 10% of the average velocity.
To evaluate the effect of the variation of the ship’s motion, a simple case is presented in Figure 3.10. It presents
the path of three different ships, starting with the same position and time, sailing with a theoretical speed of 10
knots, a variability of 20% of that speed and a total distance of 3 kilometres. The selected time step is 1 minute.
In this simple case, the largest distance between ships reach values of 300 m after 10 minutes of sailing. This
example shows how a small variability of the average speed can create deviations in the path of a vessel that are
comparable to the length of a ship. Because of this effect, the model will define the position of all active ships
for each time step: this represents an increment in the calculation time but it can also improve the accuracy of
traffic decisions (which depend on the number, position and destination of current sailing ships).
37
Figure 3.10. Effect of variations of the ship’s speed
3.4 Model’s equations
3.4.1 Arrival to port

It usually follows a NED distribution, and this function is presented in equations 3.8 and 3.9.
f t     exp xt  if t  0 (Eq. 3.8)
f t   0 if t  0 (Eq. 3.9)
Sometimes, the inter-arrival time follows a k-Erlang distribution. The definition of a k-Erlang distribution is
presented in equation 3.10.
f t  
k  xk t k 1 exp k  x  t  if x  0 (Eq. 3.10)
k  1!
The coefficient k corresponds to the degree of the k-Erlang distribution. In all of these equations, t is considered
as the stochastic variable.
3.4.2 Daylight duration

A set of equations that returns the hours of day length in terms of latitude and the date is presented by Forsythe
et al (1995).
 
P  sin 1 0.39795  cos 0.2163108  2  tan 10.96713896  tan0.0080  J  186  (Eq. 3.11)
  0.2667     L   
 sin 180   sin 180  sinP  
 
D  24     cos 1     
24  (Eq. 3.12)
    L   
 cos    cos P  
  180  
38
3.4.3 Maximum speed of a vessel

The maximum speed of a vessel is well described with the admiralty coefficient, presented by Schneekluth and
Bertram (1998). Equation 3.13 presents the calculation formula for this coefficient.
2
 3V 3
Pb  (Eq. 3.13)
C
The admiralty constant C depends on the type of ship. Table 3.3 presents a summary with different admiralty
constants.
Table 3.3. Admiralty constant (Schneekluth and Bertram, 1998)
Type of ship Constant C

General cargo ships 400 – 600
Bulker and tankers 600 – 750
Reefer 550 – 700
Feedership 350 – 500
Warship 150
In case the speed is not available, this formula allows the estimation of the maximum speed of a ship, based on
some of its characteristics (dimensions, total weight and installed power).
3.4.4 Ship stopping length

IMO gives a simplified formula for ships stopping along a straight line. This formula returns the stopping distance
(in ships length), based on the mass of the ship, a resistance coefficient, the type of engine, the initial speed and
the travelled distance before achieving astern thrust.
S s  As  ln1  Bs   Cs (Eq. 3.14)

Tables 3.4 to 3.6 present the definition of coefficients A s, Bs and Cs.
Table 3.4. Typical values of coefficient As (IMO, 2002)
Ship type Coefficient As
Cargo ship 5–8
Passenger / car ferry 8–9
Gas carrier 10 – 11
Products tanker 12 – 13
Very large crude carrier 14 – 16
Table 3.5. Typical values of coefficient Bs (IMO, 2002)
Type of engine Percentage power astern Coefficient Bs

Diesel 85% 0.6 – 1.0
Steam turbine 40% 1.0 – 1.5
39
Table 3.6. Typical values of coefficient Cs (IMO, 2002)
Ship length Time to achieve astern thrust Ship speed

Coefficient Cs
[m] [s] [kn]
100 60 15 2.3
200 60 15 1.1
300 60 15 0.8
3.5 Conclusions
Within the system physical boundaries (outer edge of the access channel and centre of the turning circle) there
are several processes related to a vessel sailing through the access channel, either with direction towards the
berth or the open sea. The processes related are the sailing with cruise speed through the outer channel, the
first speed reduction to reduce speed to enter into the port (through the breakwaters opening), the sailing with
the entrance speed and tug making fast, and the final stop at the turning circle.
There are several interactions between ships that are using the access channel (encounter, overtaking and
convoy’s movement). Each interaction depends on the current traffic rules (one, two-way channel or mixed
operation, safety distance between ships), which are particular for each port.
The authorisation for a vessel to enter into the access channel (from the outer edge of the channel or the
turning circle protected by the breakwaters) depends on several conditions. First, the access channel must be
opened for navigation. Secondly, a minimum free quay length on the terminal of destination is required (only for
vessels navigating to the port). Third, the traffic conditions must allow the safe movement of the vessel,
according to the current traffic rules and the characteristics of the nautical infrastructure. Finally, the weather
conditions (wind, waves, ice or fog) must be suitable for a ship to navigate safely.
Other processes related to the typical cycle of a ship (waiting at the anchorage, navigation through inner basins,
(un)loading), will be considered into the modelled but only as simplified functions. The simplification is made
because these processes are outside of the defined boundaries, and are no directly related with the processes
occurring within the access channel. Nevertheless, these processes cannot be discarded because the access
channel operation is for vessels sailing to and from the port. Then, for estimating the departing time of a vessel
it is necessary to have an estimation of the duration of the different processes since its arrival.
40
4 BASIC SIMULATION MODEL

According to the proposed methodology, the implementation of the simulation model is divided in three stages.
The first stage corresponds to the definition of a basic simulation model. The next stages are the incorporation
of optimization measures (modification of the traffic rules and modifications of the nautical infrastructure) to
increase the total number of ships that can use the channel; and the analysis of results, based on the variation of
several parameters.
This chapter presents the definition of the basic simulation model. It includes the definition of the model’s
architecture (stages, modules, main functions) and a description of the logic structure. Additionally, some checks
of the model performance are presented, as well as the testing (verification) of its results with other sources of
information (queuing theory and other studies).
4.1 Model’s features
4.1.1 Generalities
4.1.1.1 Programming language
The simulation model is programmed with Matlab®. The post – processing calculations can be made with Excel®.
The software Matlab® was selected to create the simulation model based on a trade – off analysis. Between its
benefits are present the possibility to develop calculations for large matrixes, the creation and application of
new functions, sufficiently good tools to create graphs. Furthermore, the use of Matlab® is massive; hence, the
possibilities for a new user to implement an improvement to the model are simplified with the use of this
software. Finally, Matlab® incorporates commands to import and export data to and from Excel®, which is
indeed a massive software to analyse information contained on large matrixes (output files).
4.1.1.2 Modelling time and time step

The model allows the simulation up to one year, which has to be expressed in minutes (525,600 minutes). The
simulation time is set by the user.
The time step can be defined by the user. It can be a positive integer number, from 1 to 5 minutes. The smaller
the time step, the higher the accuracy of the results (but also the calculation time increases).
4.1.1.3 Inter arrival and service time

The model can generate ships for different fleets with specific probabilistic functions. According to the
definitions presented on the verbal model, the typical distributions are defined with a negative distribution
function (NED) but it is also possible to define a k-Erlang function with k integer and positive.
According to the verbal model section, the service time for different terminals can be modelled with k-Erlang
functions, with k integer and positive.
4.1.1.4 Terminals
The maximum number of terminals that can be modelled is 10 (number set by the user). Still, if it is necessary, it
is possible to modify the code to incorporate extra terminals.
41
4.1.1.5 Output
The software returns a summary of the waiting time for each ship, indicating the cause of delay. The record of
waiting time is available for both ships waiting to enter or leave a port.
A second output is a record of the number of encounters obtained within the access channel.
The last output is a record of the number of ships waiting at the anchorage site during different moments of the
simulation.
4.1.2 Model’s capacities

The basic simulation model can represent a port operation with the following characteristics:
One-way or two-way access channel, with uniform width along its length.
Tidal and current window.
Daylight and 24 hours operation.
Single entrance to the access channel (outer edge).
Probabilistic generation of port downtime.
Probabilistic generation of weather conditions:
o Fog
o Ice
o Wind
o Wave
Other characteristics that will optimize the performance of the access channel (such as incorporation of passing
points or multiple entrances) are part of the extended simulation model (see chapter 5).
4.2 Model’s architecture

In order to simulate the movement of different ships along the access channel, several steps are considered by
the simulation model. The model’s architecture is based on the execution of four different stages:
1. Input stage
2. Data generation stage (ships arrival time and weather conditions during the simulation time)
3. Fast time run stage
4. Output stage
Each stage is composed by different modules and functions, which are described in the next sections. Figure 4.1
presents a general scheme of the model’s architecture and its most important components.
42
Set-up stage
General Layout Priority Vessel
(user definition)
Route Tidal / current Traffic rules
Data generation Wave Fog Ships

generator generator generator
(model definition)
Wind Ice Port downtime

generator generator generator
Model running Pilot call

Arrival Port call
(fast-time simulation status) Traffic call
Berth call
Wait at Navigate to
anchorage Queue in call berth
Anchorage Service
manager
Pilot call
Port call Wait at berth
Queue manager Traffic call
Queue out call
Ship manager
Leave Navigate to sea
Nautical manager
Output stage Encountering

Ships summary
summary
Anchorage
summary
Figure 4.1. Model’s architecture scheme

In simple words, the simulation model reproduces the different processes of a ship (arrival, waiting at
anchorage, navigation to its berth, service, waiting at berth, navigation to the sea and leaving), which are
represented with grey boxes. These processes are a sequence, and the moving to the next stage is commanded
by different ‘calls’ or authorisations, which are represented by red boxes.
During the input stage, all relevant parameters that describe the conditions of a specific port must be introduced
by the user. The input modules are represented by green boxes.
During the generation stage, all the relevant parameters that influence the operation of the access channel
during the simulation time are automatically calculated. The ‘generation’ modules are represented by purple
boxes.
The status of the model during each time step is described by the ‘manager’ modules, which are represented by
orange boxes.
The output stage is compound by three output matrixes: ships summary, encountering summary and anchorage
summary, and are represented by light blue boxes.
43
4.2.1 Input stage

The input stage is the incorporation into the model of several parameters, which are the base of the simulation
process. During the data generation and the model running stages, the input data are used by different manager
modules, calls and auxiliary functions. The input parameters are divided in seven different modules:
1. General input
2. Layout input
3. Priority input
4. Route input
5. Tidal / currents input
6. Traffic rules input
7. Vessel input
While the general input corresponds to the definition of all general characteristics of the port (including the
definition of functions of probabilities used later during the data generation stage), the rest of the modules are
related with the definition of specific (fixed) characteristics of each port. Then, these modules are not an input
for the data generation stage but are used during the model running stage.
4.2.1.1 General input

The general input module contains information about weather conditions (wind, waves, fog, ice), tidal and
current conditions, the generation of ships and other sources of port downtime. This information is later used by
the data generation stage, which generates the condition of the mentioned parameters during the entire
simulation time.
The general input module is where several general parameters are defined.
Number of terminals
Fleet characteristics (per terminal)
o Yearly calls
o K-Erlang factor (0 or 1 if it is described by a negative distribution).
Simulation characteristics
o Simulation start time [min]
o Simulation final time [min]
o Time step [min]
General characteristics
o Latitude (positive for the North Hemisphere, negative for the South Hemisphere) (relevant for
ports with daylight operation).
o Tidal window (0 if no, 1 if yes).
o Port operation (1 if 24 hours operation, 2 if daylight operation).
Other sources of downtime of the port
o Downtime probability [%] (probability of occurrence of a port downtime in one year).
o Downtime duration [day] (most probable duration of a port downtime).
Weather characteristics
o Ice probability [%] (probability of occurrence of ice layer in one year).
o Ice duration [hour] (most probable duration of an ice layer).
o Fog probability [%] (probability of occurrence of fog event in one year).
o Fog duration [hour] (most probable duration of a fog event).
44
o Wave probability (matrix with statistic information of the wave field).

 First row: probability of exceedance [%].
 Second row: significant wave height [m].
o Wind probability (matrix with statistic information of wind field, only for wind in perpendicular
direction with respect to the access channel).
 First row: probability of exceedance [%].
 Second row: wind speed [m/s].
Channel general characteristics (PIANC rules)
o Vessel speed (1 for fast (velocity larger than 12 knots), 2 for intermediate (velocity in the range
8 to 12 knots), and 3 for slow (velocity in the range 5 to 8 knots)).
o Navigational aids (1 for excellent with shore traffic control, 2 for good, 3 for moderate with
infrequent poor visibility, and 4 for moderate with frequent poor visibility).
o Bottom surface (1 for smooth and soft, 2 for smooth or sloping and hard, and 3 for rough and
hard).
o Basic manoeuvrability (1 for good, 2 for moderate, and 3 for poor).
o Traffic density (1 for light, 2 for moderate, and 3 for heavy).
o Bank clearance (1 for sloping channel edges and shoals, 2 for steep and hard embankments
and structures).
The channel general characteristics define the minimum width of a channel required by a ship, with a one or
two-way operation.
4.2.1.2 Layout input

The layout input module incorporates several parameters that describe the general layout of the access channel
and the metres of quay length available for each terminal.
Dimensions of the access channel
o Length of the outer channel section [m].
o Width of the outer channel section [m].
o Depth of the outer channel section [m].
o Length of the inner channel section [m].
o Width of the inner channel section [m].
o Depth of the inner channel section [m].
o Diameter of the turning circle [m].
4.2.1.3 Priority input

The priority input module incorporates those terminals that will have a larger priority. It also defines if the
priority rules will be activated or not in the simulation model. Typically, container vessels will have a high
priority. Other ports with tidal window can have priority of ships of large size.
Priority rules (0 means that the rules are off: a FIFO scheme is used; 1 means that the priority rules are
on: terminals are classified with high and normal priority. The priority definition is relative: ships with
priority 1 have higher priority than ships with priority 0.
Priority terminals: vector with definition of terminals that will have high priority.
4.2.1.4 Route input

The route input module incorporates the distance between the first turning circle and each terminal.
45
Route i [m] (distance by inner wet infrastructure to the terminal i), i from 1 to the number of terminals.
Necessary for calculation of the sailing time through the inner basins.
4.2.1.5 Tidal / current input

The tidal and current input module incorporates the tidal components that describe the tidal motion of the sea
and the currents behaviour at the port location.
Tidal amplitude [m] (vector with the definition of amplitude for each tidal component).
Tidal period [hr] (vector with the definition of period for each tidal component).
Tidal phase [rad] (vector with the definition of the phase angle for each tidal component).
Mean sea level [m] (with respect to the CD).
Current maximum speed [m/s] (vector with the definition of the maximum current speed for each
current component).
Current period [hr] (vector with the definition of the period for each current component).
Current phase [rad] (vector with the definition of the phase angle for each current component).
4.2.1.6 Traffic rules input

The traffic rules input incorporates the active rules that will govern the authorisations for ships to enter and use
the access channel.
Type of channel (1 means two-way channel; 2 means one-way channel).
Safety distance between ships in a convoy (times ship’s length).
Characteristics speeds
o Maximum speed in the channel [kn]
o Entrance speed [kn]
o Ship assisted by tug’s speed [kn]
4.2.1.7 Vessel input

The vessel input module incorporates a description with the most important characteristics of the different
vessels that will visit a port (dimensions, speed, hazard), as well as the type of vessels that will use the different
terminals.
Vessel’s characteristic matrix: each file represents a different type of vessel)
o First row: dead weight tonnage [kton].
o Length [m].
o Beam [m].
o Draught [m].
o Maximum vessel speed [kn].
Deadweight definition vectors i,j: each vector represents a different terminal, compound by several
fleets, each one characterised by a specific type of vessel (‘i' for terminal, ‘j’ for fleet).
Length definition vectors i,j.
Beam definition vectors i,j.
Draught definition vectors i,j.
Type of operation definition vectors i,j. It does not depend on the type of vessel, but it depends on the
cargo transhipment definition (1 means loading operation, 2 means un-loading operation and 3 means
container operation (loading and unloading operation). If no further information is available, it is
considered that the containers operation is divided by 50% of loading and 50% of un-loading.
Maximum speed definition vectors i,j.
46
Cargo hazard definition vectors (input parameter for PIANC rules). It does not depend on the type of
vessel, but it depends on the cargo (1 means low hazard, 2 means medium hazard, and 3 means high
hazard).
4.2.2 Generation stage

The generation stage is the calculation of all the variables that vary during the entire simulation time, based on
probabilistic functions (which were previously defined during the input stage). The typical parameters are the
weather conditions, but it also includes the generation of ships and the operability of the port (presence of a
port downtime). All of these parameters may affect some of the authorisations to ships, which are calculated
during the following stage (model running stage).
1. Ships generator
2. Fog generator
3. Ice generator
4. Wind generator
5. Waves generator
6. Port downtime generator
4.2.2.1 Ships generation

The ships generation depends on the input definition made for the different fleets and the total simulation time
(general input module). Each fleet is characterised by a number of yearly calls, a distribution function definition
and a terminal of destination. The vessels’ characteristics of each ship are already defined on the vessel input
module (input stage).
The generation process depends on the distribution function. For a NED distribution, a sequence is defined by
Groenveld (2001):
i) Generate a random number R (Matlab® function).
ii) Obtain a respective value for the inter-arrival time x, according to equation 4.1.
x   ln1  R 
1
(Eq. 4.1)

iii) Repeat process for next ship, until the arrival time of last ship exceeds the total simulation time.
Similarly, for a k-Erlang distribution, a sequence is defined by Groenveld (2001):
i) Generate k random numbers Ri (Matlab® function).
1 k 
x ln  Ri  (Eq. 4.2)
k    i 1 
iii) Repeat process for next ship, until the arrival time of last ship exceeds the total simulation time.
Because the arrival time is described by these functions, no boundaries are considered to prevent very short and
very long inter-arrival times. Furthermore, this method does not guarantee that the yearly calls for a certain ship
will be exactly the theoretical: the number of generated ships can be different, but the average value for several
simulations is similar to the theoretical value.
47
Both sequences are suitable for defininig the arrival time of a ship that depends on the arrival time of the
previous one. Because there is no information for the ships arrival before the initial simulation time, the arrival
time for the first ship of each fleet is calculated with an uniform distribution, independently on the distribution
function chosen for the rest of the ships. This allows the possibility that the first ship of each fleet can arrive just
after the beginning of the simulation with the same probability of arriving after the theoretical inter – arrival
time.
The sequence is:
i) Generate a random number R (Matlab® function).
R
x (Eq. 4.3)

The ships generation module creates a matrix that compreses the arrival information for all terminals and fleets.
The matrix structure is presented in Table 4.1
Table 4.1. Matrix structure for ships generation module
Row Item Unit

1 Arrival time [min]
2 Terminal of destination [-]
3 Ship type [-]
4.2.2.2 Fog generation

The fog generation module refers to the generation of fog events that impede the navigation because of the lack
of visibility. This module depends on the input definition made on the general input module. The fog generation
is characterised by a yearly probability of occurrence of a fog event and its most probable duration.
The time between events is assumed to follow an uniform distribution. Hence, the sequence of calculation of fog
events is:
i) Obtain the characteristic values T (yearly probability of occurrence) and D (most probable duration of a
fog event).
ii) Generate two random numbers R1 and R2 (Matlab® function).
iii) Obtain a respective value for the inter-arrival time x, according to equation 4.4.
R1
x (Eq. 4.4)
T
i) Obtain the duration of the event F, according to equation 4.5.
F  D  0.5  R2  (Eq. 4.5)

ii) Repeat the process for the next event, until the time of occurrence exceeds the total simulation time.
The fog generation module creates a vector that indicates, for different times of the simulation, if a fog event is
active or not. The vector structure is presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Vector structure for fog generation module
Row Item Unit

1 Fog status (1 for present; 0 for not present) [-]
48
4.2.2.3 Ice generation

The ice generation module refers to the generation of ice events that impede the navigation because of the
presence of an ice layer. This module depends on the input definition made on the general input module. The ice
generation is characterised by a yearly probability of occurrence of an ice event and its most probable duration.
The scheme of calculation for ice events is similar to the presented for fog events.
The ice generation module creates a vector that indicates, for different times of the simulation, if an ice layer is
present or not. The vector structure is presented in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3. Vector structure for ice generation module
Row Item Unit

1 Ice status (1 for present; 0 for not present) [-]
4.2.2.4 Wind generation

The wind generation module refers to the generation of wind conditions during the entire simulation time. This
module depends on the input definition made on the general input module. The wind generation is
characterised by a set of wind velocities against a related probability of exceeding that value.
It is assumed that the wind conditions are uniform during a period of time equal to 8 hours. Because the PIANC
criteria is refered to cross wind, only statistic of perpendicular wind with respect to the access channel is
considered.
The sequence of calculation of wind conditions is:
i) Generate a random numbers R (Matlab® function).
ii) Check segment (probability of exceedance contained on the input table) for which the number R is
contained by the assigned probabilities of exceedances.
iii) Obtain value for wind magnitude, related to the segment found in the previous step.
iv) Assign wind magnitude for the current period of time.
v) Repeat processes until the time exceeds the total simulation time.
The wind generation module creates a vector that indicates the wind conditions for different times of the
simulation and constant intervals of 8 hours. The vector structure is presented in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4. Vector structure for wind generation module
Row Item Unit

1 Wind speed (cross direction) [m/s]
4.2.2.5 Waves generation

The waves generation module refers to the generation of waves conditions during the entire simulation time.
This module depends on the input definition made on the general input module. The waves generation is
characterised by a statistic of the significant wave height and a related probability of exceedance.
It is assumed that the wind conditions are uniform during a period of time equal to 8 hours.
The sequence of calculation of the waves condition is similar to the presented for wind conditions.
The waves generation module creates a vector that indicates the waves conditions for different times of the
simulation and constant intervals of 8 hours. The vector structure is presented in Table 4.5.
49
Table 4.5. Vector structure for waves generation module
Row Item Unit

1 Significant wave height [m]
4.2.2.6 Port downtime generation

The port downtime generation module refers to the occurrence of an event that will force a closure of the port
during its duration. This module depends on the input definition made on the general input module. The port
downtime generation is characterised by a yearly probability of occurrence of an event and its most probable
duration.
The scheme of calculation for port donwtime events is similar to the presented for fog and ice events.
The port downtime generation module creates a vector that indicates, for different times of the simulation, if
the port is open or not. The vector structure is presented in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6. Vector structure for port downtime generation module
Row Item Unit

1 Port status (1 for opened; 0 for closed) [-]
4.2.3 Model running stage

The model running stage is the simulation of the arrival, navigation through the access channel and service for
the generated ships, under the generated conditions and with the input data entered by the user. The model
running stage is compound by different type of modules: main run module, manager modules, ‘calls’ functions
and auxiliary functions.
4.2.3.1 Main run module

The main run module is the core of the simulation module. It incorporates the input and generated data
(previous stages) in order to give a dynamic environment (weather, tidal / currents, etc. are dynamic
parameters) for the arriving ships. It simulates the processes of the ships, introducing modifications to the
‘manager’ modules, asking for clearances via the ‘call’ functions and summarizing all relevant information via the
output modules.
The main run module does execute the model simulation automatically. At the beginning of the simulation, it
runs all the modules of data generation considering the input data existing on the input modules.
Once the data is generated, the simulation itself starts. A more detailed description of the general structure of
the simulation, the manager modules, the call functions and a list of auxiliary functions is presented below.
4.2.3.2 Manager modules

The manager modules are matrixes that contain relevant information of the dynamic status of different
components of the simulation model, and are modified by different functions while the main run module is
active (passive components). The components are the active ships, the utilisation of the berths, the access
channel, the anchorage area, and the queue in and out lists.
1. Ships manager
2. Berth manager
3. Nautical manager
4. Queue manager
50
Ships manager
The ships manager module is a matrix that incorporates all relevant information regarding the active ships. Table
4.7 presents a summary of the information contained in this module.
Table 4.7. Matrix structure for ships manager module
Row Item Unit

1 Ship’s ID [-]
4 Vessel type [-]
Ships status (0 in queue in; 1 sailing towards berth; 2 (un)loading;
5 [-]
3 in queue out; 4 sailing towards sea; 5 leave port)
6 Maximum ship velocity [m/min]
7 Ship position [m]
8 Navigation to berth start time [min]
9 Navigation to berth end time [min]
10 Time to berth (sailing + mooring time) [min]
11 (Un)loading service time [min]
12 Finish of service time [min]
13 Time to turning circle [min]
14 Arrival to turning circle [min]
15 Navigation to sea start time [min]
16 Navigation to sea end time [min]
2
17 Ship deceleration rate [m/s ]
Berth manager
The berth manager module is a matrix that incorporates all relevant information regarding the utilisation of quay
for the different terminals. Table 4.8 presents a summary of the information contained in this module.
Table 4.8. Matrix structure for berth manager module
Row Item Unit

1 Terminal [-]
2 Quay total length [m]
3 Quay utilised length [m]
Nautical manager
The nautical manager module is a matrix that incorporates the currents ships that are using different sections of
the access channel. The nautical manager information is used to determine the encounters between different
ships and export that information to the encountering summary output matrix. Table 4.9 presents a summary of
the information contained in this module.
Table 4.9. Matrix structure for nautical manager module
Row Item Unit

1 Section (0 outer channel; 1 inner channel; 2 turning circle) [-]
2 Initial section position [m]
3 Final section position [m]
4 Section width [m]
5 Current number of active ships [-]
51
Queue manager
The queue manager module is a matrix that incorporates the ships that are present at the queue lists (in and
out). Table 4.10 presents a summary of the information contained in this module.
Table 4.10. Matrix structure for queue manager module
Row Item Unit

1 Queue in list (high priority ships) [-]
2 Queue in list (normal priority ships) [-]
3 Queue out list (high priority ships) [-]
4 Queue out list (normal priority ships) [-]
4.2.3.3 Call functions

The call functions are functions that return decisions about the movement of ships through the access channel,
based on the current status of the port (utilisation of the access channel, berth, port status and weather
conditions). There are two types of call functions: queue call functions (in and out); and clearance functions
(port, berth, traffic and pilot).
Queue in and out call
These functions check the current status of the queue lists (in and out), and return the ID of the ship that fulfils a
single request. The parameters that are necessary to call a queue in or out function are two: the queue manager
module and the rank of the called ship.
For example, if a queue out call function is asked to return the ship with ranking three, it will return the ID of the
third ship that is waiting at the berth.
The ranking of ships present in a queue list is made considering the priorities (high and normal). When the
ranking is made, those ships with a high priority are considered before those that have a normal priority.
Clearance functions
These functions return a positive or negative answer to a clearance to enter the access channel. The answer may
be 0 (if it is negative) or 1 (if it is positive). The parameters that are necessary to call for a clearance functions
depends on the function itself.
Port call
The necessary parameters are three: the ship’s ID, the time [min] and the ships manager module.
Berth call
The necessary parameters are three: the berth manager module, the ship’s ID and the ships manager module.
Traffic call
The necessary parameters are three: the ship’s ID, the ships manager module and the traffic rules input module.
Pilot call
The necessary parameters are three: the ship’s ID, the ships manager module and the time [min].
4.2.3.4 Auxiliary functions

The auxiliary functions are necessary to reduce the extension of the programming code, as well as its correct
functioning is easy to be checked. Typically, these functions return the value of a certain parameter (for example
52
the length of a ship or a modification of the ships manager module). Appendix A presents a summary of the
auxiliary functions, the necessary input parameters and the type of result.
4.2.4 Output stage

The last stage is the preparation of different summary matrixes, which contains the results of the simulation and
allows the assessment of the access channel. These modules are necessary because the information (extracted
from the manager modules) is dynamic. Additionally, after a ship leaves the port, its characteristics are deleted
from the ships manager module. The output matrixes are three:
1. Ships summary
2. Encountering summary
3. Anchorage summary
4.2.4.1 Ships summary

The ships summary matrix contains a register with the delay and service time for all simulated ships. The matrix
structure is presented in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11. Matrix structure for ships summary
Row Item Unit

1 Ship’s ID [-]
4 Vessel type [-]
5 Waiting in time, port cause [min]
6 Waiting in time, berth cause [min]
7 Waiting in time, traffic cause [min]
8 Waiting in time, pilot cause [min]
9 Total waiting in time [min]
10 Service time [min]
11 Waiting out time, port cause [min]
12 Waiting out time, traffic cause [min]
13 Waiting out time, pilot cause [min]
14 Total waiting out time [min]
15 Leaving time [min]
4.2.4.2 Encountering summary

The encountering summary matrix contains a register of the number of encounters (projection of the moment
when two ships are on the same location at the same time) within the access channel during the simulation. The
matrix structure is presented in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12. Matrix structure for encountering summary
Row Item Unit
1 Position of the section start [m]
2 Position of the section end [m]
3 Number of encounters [-]
4.2.4.3 Anchorage summary

The anchorage summary matrix contains a register of the number of ships using the anchorage area during the
simulation. The matrix structure is presented in Table 4.13.
53
Table 4.13. Matrix structure for anchorage summary
Row Item Unit

1 Time [min]
2 Number of ships [-]
4.3 Algorithms
In this section, the algorithms of the most important modules of the simulation model code are presented:
1. Main run module
2. Queue in / out call
3. Port call
4. Berth call
5. Traffic call
6. Pilot call
4.3.1 Main run module

The algorithm of the main run module is presented below. The algorithm is a time – step approach. The
selection of this approach obeys to the need to identify, for each time step, the position of all active ships. This
information is relevant when the traffic conditions for a certain moment are estimated: the decision of
authorising a ship to enter into the channel depends on the status of utilisation of the access channel (dynamic
behaviour). Figure 4.2 presents a scheme with the algorithm of the main run module.
Obta i n summary Yes End of Obtai n simulation

ma tri xes s i mulation? ti me
No
Crea te s hip i n ships Queue in No Ta ke fist ship in queue
s ummary empty? i n l ist
Yes
Incorporate s hip i n
Port ca l l ?
No
queue manager
Yes
Cha nge s hip s tatus to Incorporate s hip i n
Berth ca ll?
No
'queue out' s hi ps manager
Yes Yes Yes

Shi p finish Shi p
Tra ffi c call?
No
s ervi ce? No a rri vi ng?
No Yes
Obta i n new ship Check s hips geneation
Pi l ot call?
No Wri te delay i n s hip
pos ition l i st s ummary
No Yes
Queue out Yes La s t s hip i n Shi p changes s tatus Wri te utilisation in
empty? queue in? to 's a iling to port' a nchorage s ummary
No
Ta ke fist ship in queue
outlist
Port ca l l ?
No
Yes
Tra ffi c call?
No
Yes
Pi l ot call?
Go to next ti me s tep
s ummary
Yes
Shi p changes s tatus La s t s hip i n Dea ctivation of s hips
to 's a iling to s ea' queue out? No 'l eaving port'
Figure 4.2. Algorithm of the main run module
54
4.3.2 Queue in / out call

The queue in / out call returns the ID of a ship next in queues in and out, based on priority definition and a FIFO
scheme. Figure 4.3 presents a scheme with the algorithm of the queue in / out call functions.
Obtai n ra nk of asked Count number of

s hi p s hi ps in queue i n/out
Ans wer = 0 (no s hip)

Yes Ra nk higher
tha n count?
No
Return ship's ID (high Obtai n list of high
pri ori ty) pri ori ty ships
No
Ra nk higher Count hi gh priority
tha n count? s hi ps
Obtai n list of normal Count normal priority Return ship's ID (high

pri ori ty ships s hi ps pri ori ty)
Figure 4.3. Algorithm of queue in / out call functions
4.3.3 Port call

Figure 4.4 presents a scheme with the algorithm of the port call function.
Loa d i nput and Da yl ight No

generated data opera tion?
Yes
Obta i n simulation
ti me
Ans wer negative

Yes Is i t night?
No
Get ti dal elevation

Yes Ti dal
wi ndow?
No
Get s hip's draught
No Suffi cient Yes

depth?
Yes Port
opeating?
No
Ans wer positive
Figure 4.4. Algorithm of port call function
4.3.4 Berth call

Figure 4.5 presents a scheme with the algorithm of the berth call function.
55
Obta i n current
Obtai n ship length
a va ilable quay l ength
Ans wer negative

No Suffi cient Yes Ans wer positive
quay l ength?
Figure 4.5. Algorithm of berth call function
4.3.5 Traffic call

Figure 4.6 presents a scheme with the algorithm of the traffic call function.
Defi ne a number of Obtai n ships sailing

Obtai n i nput data
time s teps (10) towa rds the port
Project position of Get s hip direction and Obtai n ships sailing

s hi ps pos ition towa rds the sea
Defi ne ships to be Defi ne ships to Defi ne ships sailing in

overtaked encounter convoy
Obtai n distance with No Overtakings

s hi ps in convoy >0?
Yes
Ans wer negative
No Di s tance Cha nnel 1- Yes Ans wer negative
s a fe? wa y?
Yes Yes No
Cha nnel 1- Yes Encounters Obta i n distance with
wa y? >0? overta ked s hip
No No
Encounters > No Ans wer positive
Di s tance No
Yes 1? Yes s a fe?
Figure 4.6. Algorithm of traffic call function
4.3.6 Pilot call

Figure 4.7 presents a scheme with the logic structure of the pilot call function.
Obtai n i nput a nd Get s hip Get cha nnel

generated data cha ra cteristics di mensions
Obtai n minimum Obtai n current

wi dht (PIANC rul es) wea ther conditions
Ans wer negative

Yes Bea m >
ma xi mum?
No
Yes Fog a ctive?
No
Yes Ice a ctive?
No Ans wer negative
Figure 4.7. Algorithm of pilot call function
56
4.4 Model checks

In order to check the performance of the simulation model, several checks have been defined. First, a checking
of the arrival and service time with different distributions is done; secondly, the movement of ships under
different conditions is evaluated (both processes are the most important aspects related to the operation in an
access channel). Finally, an estimation of the maximum time step with a tolerable accuracy is provided.
4.4.1 Inter arrival and service time checking

4.4.1.1 Inter arrival time
The most common inter arrival distribution function is a NED. The objective of this section is to check the correct
programming of this distribution function. A scenario with an expected number of ships per year equal to 1,000
is evaluated.
The characteristics results of the simulation model are presented in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14. Inter arrival results of generation of 1,000 ships per year with NED distribution
Inter arrival time Value Unit

Minimum 3 [min]
Maximum 3,986 [min]
Average 500 [min]
Standard deviation 501 [min]
Expected average 526 [min]
Figure 4.8 presents a histogram with the inter arrival results and its comparison with the theoretical NED
function.
Figure 4.8. Histogram of inter arrival results of 1,000 ships per year with NED distribution
2
The correlation coefficient R between the simulated and theoretical results is equal to 0.997. Hence, the
modelling of the inter arrival time is correct.
57
4.4.1.2 Service time

The service time distributions are typically k-Erlang functions of second and third degree. Therefore, a checking
of both distributions is realized. The objective of this sections is to check the correct programming of this type of
functions. The checking is made for an expected number of 1,000 ships per year, with an expected service time
of 1,500 min.
The characteristic results of the simulation model are presented in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15. Service time of 1,000 ships per year with k-Erlang functions of second and third degree
Second degree k-Erlang function Third degree k-Erlang function
Inter arrival time Value Unit Inter arrival time Value Unit
Minimum 33 [min] Minimum 59 [min]
Maximum 9,002 [min] Maximum 5,755 [min]
Average 1,487 [min] Average 1,527 [min]
Standard deviation 1,098 [min] Standard deviation 903 [min]
Expected average 1,500 [min] Expected average 1,500 [min]
Figure 4.9 presents a histogram with the service time results and its comparison with the k-Erlang functions.
Figure 4.9. Histogram of service time results of 1,000 ships per year with k-Erlang distributions
2
The correlation coefficients R between the simulated and theoretical results for a second and a third degree k-
Erlang distribution are equal to 0.966 and 0.951, respectively. Therefore, the modelling of the service time with
both k-Erlang functions is correct.
4.4.2 Movement of ships checking

In order to check the performance of the model with different ships moving (and interacting), several scenarios
have been defined, based on a brain storm analysis of possible scenarios of the channel’s operation:
1. One ship sailing towards the port (slowing down processes)
2. One ship sailing towards the sea (speeding up processes)
3. Two ships in a two-way channel
4. Two ships in a one-way channel
58
5. Four ships in a convoy (one-way channel)

6. Four ships in a convoy, one slow (one-way channel)
7. Four ships in a convoy, one slow (two-way channel)
The scenario input data are:
Outer channel length = 12,500 m
Inner channel length = 2,000 m
Turning circle diameter = 500 m
Maximum speed = 12 kn
Entrance speed = 4 kn
Tug assisted speed = 2 kn
Ship length = 100 m
The time step selected is 1 min.
4.4.2.1 One ship sailing towards the port

A simple scenario of one ship sailing towards the port is essential to check if the first part of the ship’s
movement is correctly being modelled by the software. Figure 4.10 shows the position and speed of the vessel.
Figure 4.10. Single ship sailing towards berth, a) position, b) speed

The ships motion passes through all stages of the movement. During a first stage, it moves with a varying speed
close to the maximum speed (first stage). When it is reaching the end of the outer access channel (distance 12
kilometre), it begins to slow down (second stage) until it moves with a varying speed close to 4 knots. It
maintains this speed across the inner channel (third stage) until it enters into the turning circle, where it
proceeds to its final stop (fourth stage).
Because of the small length of the ship, the fourth stage (final stop) can be fully developed in the turning circle. If
a larger ship is stopping, it will need a larger distance, hence, the final stop will start at the inner channel.
4.4.2.2 One ship sailing towards the sea

Another simple scenario of one ship sailing towards the sea is important to check if the second part of the ship’s
movement is correctly being modelled by the software. Figure 4.11 shows the position and speed of the vessel.
59
Figure
4.11. Single ship sailing towards sea, a) position, b) speed
The ships motion of a ship sailing towards the sea is similar to the motion of a ship entering a port, but in
opposite direction. The ship passes through acceleration stages (first acceleration to achieve the entering speed,
second acceleration to reach the maximum speed at the access channel). Because of this, the required time to
sail the entire access channel is almost the same for both situations.
4.4.2.3 Two ships sailing in a two-way channel

In a two-way channel, the encounter between two ships is permitted. If the simulation model is set with two
ships (one at the outer entrance of the channel, one at the turning circle) with opposite directions, the traffic call
must give a positive authorisation and both ships must encounter somewhere in the middle of the channel.
Figure 4.12 presents the trajectory of both ships.
Figure 4.12. Two ship with opposite directions in a two-way channel

Because of the slower speed at the inner channel and the related speed reductions, the encounter point for two
ships that start to sail at the same moment and with the same characteristics is not in the middle part of the
channel. The encountering spot is closer to the port entrance.
4.4.2.4 Two ships sailing in a one-way channel

In a one-way channel, the encounter between two ships is not permitted. If the simulation model is set with two
ships (one at the outer entrance of the channel, one at the turning circle) with opposite directions and the same
priority, the traffic call must give a negative authorisation and both ships cannot encounter in the channel.
60
Instead of it, after one ship has finished its path, the second will be allowed to start sailing. Figure 4.13 presents
the trajectory of both ships.
Figure 4.13. Two ship with opposite directions in a one-way channel

In this case, the ship B has to wait for about 50 minutes, until the ship A has left the access channel. In real life,
the ship B would have to wait at the anchorage area, increasing its delay because of traffic conditions.
4.4.2.5 Four ships in a convoy (one-way channel)

Because of safety reasons, in an access channel two ships sailing in the same direction must have a minimum
distance between them. The simulation model setting of this distance is five times the ship’s length. In order to
check the behaviour of this rule, a convoy with four ships sailing towards the port with the same maximum
speed is modelled. The characteristics of each ship are presented in Table 4.16.
Table 4.16. Ships characteristics, convoy of four ships sailing towards port, one-way channel
Arrival time Length Maximum speed

Ship
[min] [m] [kn]
A 0 250 12
B 10 280 12
C 20 100 12
D 30 250 12
Figure 4.14 presents the path of each ship for this scenario.
According to the graph, ships B and D are forced to wait at the anchorage site in order to maintain the minimum
distance with the previous ship. Specifically in the case of ship B, its length (280 m) requires a safe distance of
1,400 m with respect to ship A. At the outer channel the distance is larger (about 4,800 m), but because of the
speed reduction of ship A during stages 2, 3 and 4 (around time 50 min), the distance between both ships
reduces to a value of around 1,400 m. If the ship B does not wait at the anchorage, the distance with respect to
ship A will become too short around time 50 min.
61
Figure 4.14. Four ships in a convoy (one-way channel)
4.4.2.6 Four ships in a convoy, one slow (one-way channel)

A similar scenario as the previous one is checked. In this case, one of the ships is slower than the rest of the
convoy (8 kn against 12 kn). The criteria of five times the ship’s length between ships is still active. The rest
characteristics of the ships are the same than Table 4.16. Figure 4.15 presents the path of each ship.
Figure 4.15. Four ships in a convoy, one slow (one-way channel)

According to this graph, the ship B generates a delay on ships C and D. Both ships are forced to wait about 10
minutes before obtaining authorisation to enter into the channel. The distance between ship C and B is shorter
than between C and D, because the length of C is only 100 m: the safety distance is only 500 min for both ships.
A different rule of operation is the speed reduction of a fast ship when a previous ship is slower. This type of
operation is covered on the extended simulation model (next chapter).
4.4.2.7 Four ships in a convoy, one slow (two-way channel)

The last that is checked is similar to the previous but the access channel now is two-way type. The criteria of five
times the ship’s length between ships is still active. However, because this is a two-way channel, overtaking is
allowed and naturally the distance between ships during this manoeuvre reaches 0. In these cases, the minimum
distance has to be respected when the first ship has reached the turning circle.
The rest characteristics of the ships are the same than Table 4.16. Figure 4.16 presents the path of each ship.
62
Figure 4.16. Four ships in a convoy, one slow (two-way channel)

According to this graph, the ship C can overtake ship B because the minimum distance between both at the end
is larger than the safety distance. Nevertheless, although the ship D can overtake ship B, it is not permitted to do
it because the distance between them when D reaches the turning circle will be too short. Because of it, the ship
D is forced to wait for more than 20 minutes, in order to give time to ship B to arrive to the port.
4.4.3 Maximum time step

The final checs of the simulation model is the definition of a maximum time step. This definition is focused in
reducing the calculation time, which can easily reach more than one hour. Additionally, time related processes
(like the inter – arrival time or the service time) must be rounded to the closest time step, reducing the accuracy
of the simulation.
If the time step increases, the number of cycles of the model reduces and the required calculated time is
smaller. Nevertheless, the accuracy of the estimation of the ship’s position reduces and it may lead to significant
errors in the estimation of the total cycle of a ship.
To check the effect of a modification of the time step, a scenario with a short access channel (outer channel
length of 3 kilometres, inner channel length of 1.5 kilometres, turning circle of 500 m) is selected. In it, the path
ship of 250 m of length and a velocity of 12 knots is obtained for different time step. Each calculation is
compared with the theoretical path of the ship, in order to estimate the error of the estimation. The selected
time steps are 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 minutes.
Figure 4.17 presents the projected path of vessels for different time steps.
According to this graph, for time steps from 1 to 4 minutes the deviation from the theoretical value is 1 minute,
while for a time step of 5 minutes the deviation is 5 minutes. This is a specific case, and it is possible to see that
the deviations from the theoretical speed occurs when the ships varies its speed, not on the sections where it
sails with constant speed.
This case represents a critical case with respect to the estimation of the position for the time step of 5 minutes:
the overestimation of the position with this time step is close to the maximum possible because the combination
of the channel’s length and the cruise speed force the modelled vessel to sail with cruise speed from a location
close to the starting point of reducing speed: the cruise speed is maintained during an entire time step, deviating
about 700 m from its theoretical path. Nevertheless, if the calculated position of the vessel would be at more
distance from the beginning of the speed reduction, the error on estimating the position would be smaller.
63
Figure 4.17. Vessel’s path with different time steps

On this case, the time step of 5 minutes generates an error in the final arrival time of 5 minutes, which is about a
20%. Nevertheless, if the channel is longer (or if the vessel speed is smaller), the total sailing time increases: if
the absolute difference maintains maximum (about 5 minutes), the error on the time estimation becomes
smaller (12% for an outer channel of 10 kilometres, 8% for an outer channel of 15 kilometres).
In conclusion, the longer the channel, the higher the time step that can be used. For a channel longer than 10
kilometres, a 5 minutes time step can be used; for a shorter channel, a time step of 3 minutes is better
(maximum error in time estimation lower than 10%).
4.5 Model testing

The results of the model should ideally be validated by comparing its results with information from a real port.
However, there are no available data of this type; hence, validation cannot be realized. Instead of it, a testing of
the model can be executed in order to determine if the results are similar to other sources of information, which
are not from real life data but are generally accepted.
For this specific situation, the model is compared with the average normalized waiting time of the queuing
theory and the results of a MSc thesis (Van der Meer, 2013), which developed a master plan for the Port of
Beira, Mozambique. Results were obtained with Harboursim software.
4.5.1 Testing with queuing theory

A simple scenario can be solved by the use of queuing theory (Groenveld, 2001). Although the testing is
developed for a characteristic related to the berth availability, not on traffic conditions, it is important to verify
the results of delay due to berth availability: a correct estimation of the delay due to different sources (including
congestion) requires that the delay due to other sources follow the typically accepted values.
The scenario can be set in the simulation model, and its characteristics are summarized in Table 4.17.
The total length of the access channel is short, and its type is a two-way channel. With this, the possibilities of
obtaining congestion can be neglected; hence the delay will be caused only because of non-availability of berths.
64
Table 4.17. Characteristics of the scenario solved via queuing theory
Characteristic Value Unit

Number of terminals 1 [-]
Number of berths 1–2 [-]
Ship length 300 [m]
Quay length 350 – 700 [m]
Average service time 1,500 [min]
nd
Service time distribution function 2 degree k-Erlang [-]
35 – 315 (1 berth)
Yearly calls [ships/year]
70 – 631 (2 berths)
Inter arrival distribution function NED [-]
Outer channel length 1,000 [m]
Inner channel length 1,000 [m]
Turning circle diameter 500 [m]
Channel type Two – way [-]
The simulation procedure is considering a time step of 4 minutes, a total simulation time of 1 year and ten
simulation runs. The results are obtained for two conditions (one and two berths), and are presented in Tables
4.18 and 4.19.
Table 4.18. Characteristics of the scenario solved via queuing theory, one terminal (M/E2/1)
Theoretical Obtained
Theoretical Yearly Average inter
normalized normalized Accuracy
utilisation calls arrival time
waiting time waiting time
[-] [-] [ships/yr] [min] [-] [-]
0.1 0.08 35 15,017 0.07 0.04
0.2 0.19 70 7,509 0.16 0.09
0.3 0.32 105 5,006 0.34 0.09
0.4 0.50 140 3,754 0.61 0.38
0.5 0.75 175 3,003 0.70 0.25
0.6 1.13 210 2,503 1.12 0.27
0.7 1.75 245 2,145 1.77 0.63
0.8 3.00 280 1,877 3.01 1.74
0.9 6.75 315 1,669 5.55 1.73
Table 4.19. Characteristics of the scenario solved via queuing theory, two terminals (M/E2/2)
Theoretical Obtained
Theoretical Yearly Average inter
normalized normalized Accuracy
utilisation calls arrival time
waiting time waiting time
[-] [-] [ships/yr] [min] [-] [-]
0.1 0.01 70 7,509 0.01 0.01
0.2 0.03 140 3,754 0.03 0.02
0.3 0.08 210 2,503 0.07 0.02
0.4 0.15 280 1,877 0.17 0.05
0.5 0.26 350 1,502 0.19 0.04
0.6 0.43 420 1,251 0.52 0.15
0.7 0.73 491 1,070 0.76 0.17
0.8 1.34 561 937 1.19 0.28
0.9 3.14 631 833 3.16 1.05
65
Figure 4.18 presents the comparison between the theoretical and the obtained results, including the upper and
lower boundaries (accuracy of the results).
Figure 4.18. Comparison between theoretical and model’s results: a) 1 berth, b) 2 berths
2
The correlation coefficient R between the theoretical and model’s results for 1 and 2 berths are 0.990 and
0.996, respectively. Hence, the performance of the simulation model is correct.
4.5.2 Testing with developed master plan (Port of Beira)

The second stage of testing corresponds to the comparison of the results obtained by Van der Meer (2009) of
the development of the master plan of the Port of Beira, Mozambique. The main characteristics of that port are
presented below:
Number of terminals: 5
o Container terminal
o General cargo terminal
o Coal Vale terminal
o Coal Rio Tinto terminal
o Fuel terminal
Daylight and 24 hours sailing
Tidal window
One – way access channel
Access channel total length: 19 nmi
Inner channel length: 1500 m (own assumption)
Diameter turning circle: 500 m (own assumption)
Channel width: 160 m
Channel depth: 8 m
Tide amplitude: 3 m
Mean sea level elevation: +3.6 m
Navigation time from channel to quay
o 30 min (towards fuel, general cargo, coal Rio Tinto and container terminals)
o 10 min (towards sea)
o 10 min (de)berthing
o 85 min (towards Vale terminal (way and back))
66
The fleet characteristics for each terminal are presented in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20. Fleet characteristics of Port of Beira
Inter arrival
Berth Dead weight Ship’s
Yearly calls distribution
Fleet Terminal length tonnage length
[ships/yr] function
[m] [ton – TEUs] [m]
[-]
Container Container 261 NED 646 350 TEUs 154
General cargo General cargo 387 NED 321 + 336 2,500 113
Coal Vale 1 Coal Vale 4 x 21 k – Erlang (10) 230 27,000 194
Coal Vale 2 Coal Vale 3 x 21 K – Erlang (10) 230 27,000 194
Coal Rio Tinto Coal Tio Tinto 53 k – Erlang (10) 230 30,000 185
Fuel Fuel 90 NED 215 10,000 130
The service times for the different ships are presented in Table 4.21.
Table 4.21. Fleet service times of Port of Beira
Average service time

Fleet Distribution function
[min]
Container 579 k – Erlang (5)
General cargo 724 k – Erlang (5)
Coal Vale 1 800 k – Erlang (10)
Coal Vale 2 800 k – Erlang (10)
Coal Rio Tinto 1,133 k – Erlang (10)
Fuel 680 k – Erlang (5)
A complete description of the port and its related master plan can be found in the text prepared by Van der
Meer (2009).
A comparison between the results obtained by Van der Meer (2009) and the simulation model is presented in
Figure 4.19.
Figure 4.19. Comparison of results between Van der Meer (2009) and the simulation model: a) daylight
navigation, b) 24 hours navigation
2
The correlation coefficient R for a daylight and 24 hours navigation are 0.457 and 0.593, respectively. These
coefficients are low because the results of two terminals are different (general cargo and Rio Tinto coal
67
terminals), obtaining a difference of the waiting time higher than 5 hours (for daylight navigation) and 4 hours
(for 24 hours navigation). Nevertheless, for the rest of the terminals (3 terminals for daylight operation; 4
terminals for 24 operation) the time difference is lower than 1 hour.
Independently on the previous results, it seems that the port considered to test the results of the new
simulation model can be a complicated example. The motivation to use the Port of Beira results obeys to the
intention to compare results with a real (and analysed) problem, as well as to take one of the latest documented
uses of Harboursim. Additionally, almost all the characteristics of the Beira port modelling with Harboursim can
be reproduced with the proposed simulation model (excepting the navigation from the access channel to an
offshore terminal, which was modelled as a navigation through inner basin with a speed and distance that gives
a sailing time similar to the cycle defined in Harboursim). However, the utility of using this case is questionable,
based on the complexity of Beira and the obtained results. Hence, for a future development stage of this model,
it is highly recommended to simulate more (and simpler) situations, in order to obtain a better testing /
validation of the model.
4.6 Conclusions
The modelling of a port via the proposed simulation model has four stages (input stage, data generation stage,
model running stage and output stage). While for the input stage, the set up of the model is required by the
user, the rest of the stages are automatically executed by the simulation model.
The output of the model contains detailed information of the delay of the modelled ships, the utilisation of the
anchorage area and a summary with the encounters within different sections of the access channel. Particularly,
the information of the delay of the ships is relevant. The delay (for arriving and departing ships) is classified
according to the cause of the delay (port, berth, traffic or weather conditions). This type of output represents an
improvement in the type of results available for similar simulation models, which typically only present the delay
as a single value. The available information allows to:
Identify the main reason(s) behind a large delay, allowing a designer or port operator to execute proper
measures according to the cause of the delay. For example, if the main reason of the delay is due to
congestion, a traffic rule modification or an enlargement of the access channel could be the best
options. But, if the main reason is due to berth unavailability, an improvement of the service rate
(update and/or increase of the number of cranes, enlargement of the quay length, etc.) could be the
best choices.
To construct histograms of the delay (total and classified). A further quantification of the benefit of
reducing the delay of the ships requires knowing how many vessels have a large delay and how many
do not have it. The estimation of the benefit of reducing the waiting time is complicated and exclusive
for each port; hence, the more information about delay, the better the accuracy of the benefit will be
obtained.
The simulation model check has probed that the simulated behaviour of the ships follows the expected
behaviour, based on the traffic rules modelled and the characteristics of the access channel. Nevertheless, an
important stage on the development of a simulation model is not present in this research, which is the validation
(and possible calibration) of the model with real data. Then, an improvement opportunity is the validation of the
simulation model, including a possible stage of calibration of some of its parameters (ships reducing speed
behaviour, mooring and sailing though inner basins times, etc.) with the feedback obtained from the validation
itself.
68
5 EXTENDED SIMULATION MODEL

The next stage in the development of the simulation model is the inclusion of features that will extend the
model’s capabilities. These features are focused into incorporating typical measures that can increase the total
number of ships using an access channel.
According to the information analysed during the literature review stage, the measures can be classified into
two types: modification of traffic rules; and enlargement of the nautical infrastructure. Then, these measures
will be incorporated as new functionalities of the simulation model, and are presented in this chapter.
This chapter is divided by the following sections: verbal description of the new functionalities, modifications to
the programming code and verification of the simulation model’s operation.
5.1 Description of the new functionalities
5.1.1 Modification of the traffic rules

The modification of the traffic rules are proposed in order to increase the capacity of the channel without
modifying the current dimensions of the channel (width, anchorage, etc.). According to a brainstorm analysis,
the most practical possibilities to increase the capacity of the access channel are:
Allow ‘mixed’ operability of the access channel: a one-way channel will operate when the ships with
largest beams will be using it: if there are two ships with small beams, the channel can operate like a
two-way channel.
One – way channel operation
Two – way channel operation
Figure 5.1. Scheme of ‘mixed’ operability of an access channel

Allow multiple entrance points: ships with small draughts may enter the channel in a middle point
instead of being forced to sailing across the entire channel. To move from the outer entrance to the
middle entrance, these ships may use the fairway, eliminating encounters and thus reducing
congestion. The position of an intermediate entrance depends on the bathymetry and the ship’s
draught. For the simulation model, it will be assumed that a ship entering through an intermediate
entrance will sail to it from a position close to the outer entrance, following a path parallel to the access
channel, independently of the possibility that some ships may arrive to a different location of the access
channel. Additionally, the authorisation to sail towards an intermediate entrance will be defined based
on the defined allowances (port, berth, traffic and weather).
69
Outer Intermediate
entrance entrance
Water surface
Bottom outside of the channel Bottom of the channel
Figure 5.2. Scheme of multiple entrance points to an access channel

Speed reduction: in cases that a ship is preceded by a slower ship, then the new ship can reduce its
speed and navigate immediately through the channel. The speed reduction will permit that the new
ship will not catch up the first ship, maintaining the minimum safe distance between both vessels.
Figure 5.3. Scheme of speed reduction: a) without speed reduction; b) with speed reduction
It is important to notice that the first measure is suitable for fleets with a widely varied beam between the
different vessels. If the vessels’ beams are uniform (or close to it), then the possibilities of a one-way channel to
act as a two-way channel are small, hence, this measure could be not very effective in reducing the waiting time.
In other words, the effectiveness of this measure depends on the fleet composition.
Similarly, the second measure is suitable for fleets that have a widely varied draughts, combined with a
bathymetry that allows the navigation outside of the channel in a safe way. But, if the vessels’ draughts are
uniform or similar to the maximum, then the entrance position will probably be single, then, this measure will
have no effect on reducing the waiting time.
Finally, the speed reduction measure may help to reduce the waiting time of ships at the anchorage site.
Nevertheless, the navigation of a ship with a lower speed means that it will be delayed in comparison with the
same ship sailing at its maximum speed. Hence, the effective reduction of the waiting time can occur but only for
very specific situations (like a convoy slow – fast – slow vessel, see Figure 5.3).
5.1.2 Enlargement of the nautical infrastructure

The enlargement of the nautical infrastructure refers to an increment of the dimensions of the access channel
and its related elements, in order to increase the channel capacity by allowing encounters that previously were
not admitted (in combination with a mixed operability of the access channel). According to a brainstorm
analysis, the most practical possibilities to enlarge the nautical infrastructure are:
70
Inclusion of an intermediate passing section (or ‘buffer’ anchorage). With this measure, an extra
dredging is required but only in a certain section of the channel. The width will be such as a two-way
channel for all vessels, while the rest of the channel is maintained as a one-way channel (or with mixed
operation). Hence, more encounters will be permitted on the passing section.
Passing section
Figure 5.4. Scheme of a passing section in an access channel

Inclusion of an intermediate anchorage site. With this measure, ships that are waiting for a berth
clearance can sail to a location closer to the port. When they will be allowed to sail, the distance will be
shorter and in case of a one-way channel, the congestion that these ships may create will be smaller.
Figure 5.5. Scheme of an intermediate anchorage area
5.2 Modifications of the programming code

In order to program the proposed measures, several modifications of the original programming code are
needed.
5.2.1 Allowance of ‘mixed’ channel’s operability

The allowance of a ‘mixed’ operation of an access channel requires the following modifications of the
programming code:
5.2.1.1 Input data modules

Traffic rules input module: variable ‘type_channel’ equals 3 (‘mixed’ operation channel).

Traffic call function: incorporation of the verification of the encountering and overtaking allowance for
a channel that admits a mixed operation. The verification is made in terms of the PIANC rules (channel
characteristics and weather conditions (wind and wave)). Hence, the traffic call function additionally
depends on time (the weather is a dynamic).
71
Figure 5.6 presents a scheme of the logical structure modification of the traffic call function. The
modifications are highlighted as coloured blocks, while the original algorithm is maintained with white
blocks.

Obta i n i nput data
time s teps (10) towa rds the port
Project position of Get s hip direction and Obtai n ships sailing

s hi ps pos ition towa rds the sea
Defi ne ships to be Defi ne ships to Defi ne ships sailing in Obtai n ships

overtaked encounter convoy di mensions
Obtai n distance with No Overta kings

s hi ps in convoy >0?
Yes
Ans wer negative
s a fe? wa y?
Yes Yes No
Cha nnel 1- Yes Encounters Cha nnel 2-
wa y? >0? wa y?
No No Yes
Cha nnel 2-
Ans wer positive
Obta i n distance with No
wa y? overta ked s hip
Yes
Encounters > Di s tance Obta i n PIANC widths
Yes 1? No Yes s a fe? coefficients
Obta i n PIANC widths Wi dth > Obta i n minimum

coefficients Yes requi red? cha nnel wi dth
Yes No
Obtai n minimum Wi dth > No
cha nnel wi dth requi red?
Figure 5.6. Modifications to the traffic call function – ‘mixed’ operation
5.2.2 Allowance of multiple entrance points

The allowance of multiple entrance points to an access channel requires the following modifications of the
programming code:

Traffic rules input module
1. Incorporation of variable ‘mult_entr’ (value 0 indicates single entrance located at the outer
edge of the channel; 1 indicates that multiple entrance are allowed into the channel).
2. Definition of matrix ‘entr_mat’. First row indicates position of the entrance, second row
indicates the maximum vessel’s draught related with that entrance.

Ships manager module: inclusion of a new parameter.
Table 5.1. Modification of matrix structure for ships manager module
Row Item Unit

18 Ship entrance position [m]

Traffic call function: the definition of an encounter of an overtaking includes a verification of its
occurrence in terms of the projected position of the interaction and the entrance points for both ships.
72
If at least one of the ships is found to be sailing in a position located at more distance than its entrance
point, the interaction does not exists.
blocks.

Obtai n i nput data
ti me s teps (10) towa rds the port
Defi ne ships to be Project position of Get s hip direction and Obta i n ships sailing
overtaked s hi ps pos ition towa rds the sea
Obtai n overtaking Defi ne ships to Defi ne ships sailing in Obtai n ships

pos ition encounter convoy di mensions
Obta i n encounter Obta i n distance with No Overtakings

pos ition s hi ps in convoy >0?
Yes
Ans wer negative
s a fe? wa y?
Yes Yes No
wa y? >0? wa y?
No No Yes
Cha nnel 2-
Ans wer positive
Yes
Encounters > Di s tance Obtai n PIANC widths

Yes No
Obtai n minimum Wi dth > No
Overtaking > Encounter >

Overta king Encounter
entr? No entr? No
Yes Yes
No overtaking No encounter
Figure 5.7. Modifications to the traffic call function – multiple entrances to the access channel
5.2.3 Speed reduction

The allowance of speed reduction requires the following modifications of the programming code:

Traffic rules input module: incorporation of variable ‘speed_red’ (value 0 indicates that speed reduction
is not allowed; 1 indicates speed reduction is allowed).
1. Incorporation of variable ‘speed_red’ (value 0 indicates that speed reduction is not allowed; 1
indicates speed reduction is allowed).
5.2.3.2 Main run module

If the traffic call function indicates that a reduction of the speed is needed and a ship is obtaining
authorisation to enter into the channel, then the speed of the asking ship in the ships manager module
is modified.
73
Because of the reduction of the speed, a delay indicator (traffic reasons) is included in the ships
summary matrix. This delay has the same category than the delay related to ships waiting at the
anchorage because of congestion reasons.
Figure 5.8 presents a scheme of the modification to the logical structure of the main run module. The
blocks.
Obta i n i nput Crea ti on of manager

Da ta generation
i nformation modules
Obta i n summary Yes End of Obta i n simulation

ma tri xes s i mulation? time
No
Yes
Port ca l l ?
No
queue manager
Yes
Berth ca ll?
No
Yes Yes Yes

Shi p finish Shi p
Tra ffi c call?
No
No Yes
Pi l ot call?
No Yes
Queue out Yes La s t s hip i n Speed Yes Wri te utilisation in
empty? queue in? reducti on? a nchorage s ummary
No No
Ta ke fist ship in queue Shi p changes s tatus
outlist to 's a iling to port'
Port ca l l ?
No
Yes Wri te delay i n s hip Shi p changes s tatus to

No s ummary 's a iling to port'
Tra ffi c call?
Yes Modi fy s hip's speed

Pi l ot call?
s ummary
Yes
Speed La s t s hip i n
Go to next s tep
reducti on? queue out? No
No
Shi p changes s tatus Dea ctivation of s hips
to 's a iling to s ea' 'l eaving port'
Shi p changes s tatus to Wri te delay i n s hip

's a iling to port' s ummary
Modi fy s hip's speed
Figure 5.8. Modifications to the main run module – speed reduction

Traffic call function: in cases that the channel is one-way type, speed reductions are permitted, and the
projected path of a new ship is found to have a distance below the minimum safe, then the new ship
will reduce its speed in order to not catching up the first ship.
74
blocks.

Obtai n i nput data
Defi ne ships to be Project position of Get s hip direction and Obta i n ships sailing
overtaked s hi ps pos ition towa rds the sea
Project position of Yes Speed red Yes Cha nnel 1-

s hi ps with new speed a l lowed? wa y?
No No
Obtai n encounter Obtai n distance with No Overta kings

Yes
Ans wer negative
s a fe? wa y?
Yes Yes No
wa y? >0? wa y?
No No Yes
Cha nnel 2-
Ans wer positive
Obtai n distance with No
Yes
Encounters > Di s tance Obtai n PIANC widths

Yes No
Obta i n minimum Wi dth > No
Overta king > Encounter >

Overtaking Encounter
entr? No entr? No
Yes Yes
No overta king No encounter
Figure 5.9. Modifications to the traffic call function – speed reduction
5.2.4 Inclusion of passing section

Basically, the passing section corresponds to a section of the access channel with a width that is sufficient to
allow encounters between two design vessels. Nevertheless, overtaking is not permitted for these vessels
because the required distance to perform this action is high, especially when the speeds of both vessels are
similar. Encounters are allowed to occur on any location of the passing section. Then, the following
modifications are necessary to implement this measure.

Layout input module
1. Incorporation of variable ‘passing_sec’ (value 0 indicates that the passing section is not active;
1 indicates that the passing section is active).
2. Incorporation of variable ‘Lpp’ (value indicates the length of the passing section, in metres).
3. Incorporation of variable ‘xpp’ (value indicates the position of the outer edge of the passing
section, in metres). The position of the inner edge of the passing section can be easily
calculated considering variables Lpp and xpp.
75
4. Incorporation of variable ‘Wpp’ (value indicates the width of the passing section, in metres).

Traffic call function: in cases where the channel has a passing section, a modification to the traffic call
function is considered. Basically, when an overtaking or encounter is projected, the location and width
of the interaction is defined. If the PIANC rules are satisfied, then the ship is allowed to enter into the
channel. On the contrary, if the width is not sufficient, then the answer will be negative.
Modifications to the ‘Traffic call’ function
blocks.

Defi ne ships to be Project position of Get s hip direction and Obtai n ships sailing
overta ked s hi ps pos ition towa rds the sea

No No

Yes
Ans wer negative
s a fe? wa y?
Yes Yes No
wa y? >0? wa y?
No No Yes
Cha nnel 2-
Ans wer positive
wa y? overtaked s hip
Yes
Encounters > Di s tance Obta i n PIANC widths

Yes No
Obta i n minimum Wi dth > No Obta i n width at
cha nnel wi dth requi red? overta king location
Obta i n width at Encounter >

Encounter
encounter l ocation entr? No
Yes
Overta king >
Overta king No encounter
entr? No
Yes
No overta king
Figure 5.10. Modifications to the traffic call function – passing section
5.2.5 Inclusion of intermediate anchorage

The incorporation of an intermediate anchorage area allows those ships that do not have a berth available, they
can approach to a position closer to the port if the rest of the conditions are suitable for it. The modifications of
the programming code are presented below.
76
5.2.5.1 Assumptions
The assumptions considered to model an intermediate anchorage area are:
Because of simplicity reasons on programming the code, a ship entering the intermediate anchorage
area will enter to it with its maximum speed.
The movement of the ship in the anchorage area is not modelled. Instead of it, the required time of a
vessel to move within the anchorage and do the manoeuvres to anchor and leave is 15 min.
All the delays related to a vessel which is using the intermediate anchorage exist because of the berth
unavailability. Therefore, these delays are classified as ‘berth causes’.
Because of the position of the intermediate anchorage (close to the port entrance), those ships that
leave the intermediate anchorage and sail to the port will have no sufficient length to overtake other
ships.
A simplification similar to the outer anchorage is considered: a ship leaving the intermediate anchorage
will enter the channel with its maximum speed.
The intermediate anchorage capacity is assumed to be unlimited.

Ships manager module: modification of parameter.
Table 5.2. Modification of matrix structure for ships manager module
Row Item Unit

Ships status (0 in queue in; 1 sailing towards berth; 2 (un)loading;
5 3 in queue out; 4 sailing towards sea; 5 leave port; 6: sailing towards [-]
intermediate anchorage; 7: in queue in intermediate anchorage)
Queue manager module: incorporation of queue in at intermediate anchorage lists (modification of

original matrix structure).
Table 5.3. Matrix structure for queue manager
Row Item Unit

5 Queue in (int. anchorage) list (high priority ships) [-]
6 Queue in (int. anchorage) list (normal priority ships) [-]

Figure 5.11 presents a scheme of the modification to the logical structure of the main run module. The
blocks.
77
Obta i n i nput Crea ti on of manager

Da ta generation
i nformation modules
Obta i n summary Yes End of Obtai n simulation

ma tri xes s i mulation? ti me
No
Yes
Port ca l l ?
No
queue manager
Yes
Berth ca ll?
No
Yes Yes Yes

Shi p finish Shi p
Tra ffi c call?
No
No Yes
Pi l ot call?
No Yes
Queue out Yes Queue in 2 Yes La s t s hip i n Speed Yes Wri te utilisation in
empty? empty? No queue in? reducti on? a nchorage s ummary
No No
Ta ke fist ship in queue Shi p changes s tatus
outl ist to 's a iling to port'
Port ca l l ?
No
Yes Wri te delay i n s hip Shi p changes s tatus to

No s ummary 's a iling to port'
Tra ffi c call?
Yes Modi fy s hip's speed

Pi l ot call?
s ummary
Yes
Speed La s t s hip i n
Go to next s tep Tra ffi c call?
reducti on? queue out? No No
No Yes
Shi p changes s tatus Dea ctivation of s hips
Pi l ot call?
to 's a iling to s ea' 'l eaving port' No
Yes
Shi p changes s tatus to Wri te delay i n s hip Speed Yes
's a iling to port' s ummary reduction?
No
No Port ca l l ?
Wri te delay i n s hip Shi p changes s tatus
s ummary to 's a iling to i nt a nch'
No Yes
Tra ffi c call 2?
Yes Berth ca ll?
Shi p changes s tatus
to 's a iling to i nt a nch'
Yes No
Pi l ot call?
Yes Speed No Shi p changes s tatus Wri te delay i n s hip
reducti on? to 's a iling to port' s ummary
No Yes
La s t s hip i n Shi p changes s tatus
Yes queue? No to 's a iling to port'
Wri te delay i n s hip Wri te utilisation in

s ummary a nchorage s ummary
Figure 5.11. Modifications to the main run module – intermediate anchorage
5.2.5.4 Output files

Anchorage summary
1. Modification of parameter (outer anchorage definition)
2. Incorporation of parameter (number of ships at intermediate anchorage)
78
Table 5.4. Matrix structure for anchorage summary
Row Item Unit

1 Time [min]
2 Number of ships at outer anchorage [-]
3 Number of ships at intermediate anchorage

Traffic call 2 function: similar structure as traffic call function, but with some differences:
1. Due to the short distance between the intermediate anchorage and the entrance of the port,
overtakings are not allowed.
2. The minimum safe distance of ships in a convoy is checked for ships located front and back of
the asking ship.
Figure 5.12 presents a scheme of the logical structure of the traffic call 2 function.

Defi ne ships to be Project position of Get s hip direction and Obtai n ships sailing
overta ked s hi ps pos ition towa rds the sea

No No

Yes
Ans wer negative
No Di s tance
Ans wer negative
s a fe?
Yes Yes
Cha nnel 1- Yes Encounters Encounter >
Encounter
wa y? >0? entr? No
No No Yes
Cha nnel 2-
Ans wer positive No encounter
wa y?
Yes
Encounters >
Yes 1? No
Obta i n PIANC widths

coefficients
Yes
Obta i n minimum Wi dth > No
Obta i n width at
encounter l ocation
Overta king >

Overta king
entr? No
Yes
No overta king
Figure 5.12. Traffic call 2 function

Queue in 2 function: similar structure than queue in function, but with some differences:
1. Queue in 2 refers to those ships located at the intermediate anchorage site, waiting to
navigate towards a free berth.
79
The ‘queue in 2’ function has the same structure than the ‘queue in’ and ‘queue out’ functions, which
were presented previously.
5.3 Verification of the new functionalities

In order to verify the correct functioning of the simulation model under this new operation, a testing scenario is
considered. The characteristics of the testing scenario are:
Channel’s characteristics
o Outer channel length = 10,000 m
o Inner channel length = 1,500 m
o Diameter of the turning circle = 500 m
o Outer channel width = 170 m
o Outer channel depth = 21.3 m
o Channel type: mixed operation
Ships characteristics
o Ship A: departing from port in time 1 min; ship’s beam = 27 m.
o Ship B: arriving to outer channel in time 5 min; ship’s beam = 18.2 m.
o Ship C: arriving to outer channel in time 10 min; ship’s beam = 40 m.
o Ship D: arriving to outer channel in time 15 min; ship’s beam = 12.3 m.
Within these conditions, the ship A could encounter ship B, C and D. According to the PIANC’s rules and the
available width of the channel, ship A can encounter with ships B and D (two-way channel operation).
Nevertheless, because of the large beam of ship C, the encounter is not permitted for these two ships (one-way
channel operation).
Figure 5.13 presents the simulated path of each ship within the testing scenario.
Figure 5.13. Simulated path of ships within testing scenario of a ‘mixed’ operation of a channel, a) with ‘mixed’
operation; b) one-way operation
According to this graph, ship A encounters with ship B (position 7,200 m approximately) and ship D (position
5,300 approximately). Nevertheless, the encounter with ship C is not allowed, hence, ship C is forced to wait at
the anchorage site during more than 30 minutes before obtaining authorisation to navigate towards the berth. If
the channel was operated as a one-way channel, ships B and D should wait at the anchorage area, increasing the
average waiting time.
80
5.3.2 Allowance of multiple entrances points

o Channel type: 1 way
Entrances definition
o Position 0 m, ships with draught between 12 and 18 m
o Position 5,000 m, ships with draught between 8 and 12 m
o Position 8,000 m, ships with draught smaller than 8 m
o Ship A: departing from port in time 1 min; ship’s draught = 10 m.
o Ship B: departing from port in time 5 min; ship’s draught = 4.2 m.
o Ship C: arriving to outer channel in time 10 min; ship’s draught = 4.2 m.
o Ship D: arriving to outer channel in time 15 min; ship’s draught = 14 m.
Within these conditions, ship A can encounter with ships C and D if the encounter occurs in a position outer than
8,000 and 5,000 m, respectively. Similarly, the ship B can encounter with ships C and D if the encounter occurs in
a position outer than 8,000 m.
Figure 5.14 presents the simulated path of each ship within the testing scenario, considering a situation with the
use of multiple entrances and another with a scenario of a one-way channel with a single entrance (outer edge
of the channel).
Figure 5.14. Simulated path of ships within testing scenario: a) multiple entrances; b) single entrance
According to these graphs, the following commentaries are extracted:
For a situation where a multiple entrance scheme is accepted, some ships are using the channel only
partially (ships A, B and C). For these ships, no encounters are found: when the ships are in the same
position and at the same time, one or both ships are outside of the channel. This allows an earlier
81
authorisation to sail towards the port for ships C and D. The delay of ship D is because of the criteria of
minimum safe distance in a convoy.
In case that the channel is one way with a single entrance (outer edge of the channel), no encounters
can occur. Because all the ships will be forced to sail through the entire channel, the absence of
encounters can be obtained only if the ships that are using the channel are sailing in the same direction
(no encounters or overtaking). Only when the ships A and B have left the channel the conditions
become suitable for ships C and D to obtain a sequential authorisation.

o Channel type: 1 way
o Ship A: arriving to outer channel in time 1 min; ship’s speed = 7 kn
o Ship B: arriving to outer channel in time 10 min; ship’s speed = 12 kn
o Ship C: arriving to outer channel in time 20 min; ship’s speed = 7 kn
o Ship D: arriving to outer channel in time 30 min; ship’s speed = 12 kn
Within these conditions, the ships B and D will easily catch up ships A and C, respectively. Because the channel is
one-way type, the minimum distance should be respected and, in case of no speed reduction, these vessels
should wait at the anchorage site. Nevertheless, because the ships can slow down its velocity, the minimum safe
distance can be maintained and the four ships will be able to sail in a convoy.
Figure 5.15 presents the simulated path of each ship within the testing scenario, considering a situation with the
possibility of slowing down of ships, and another situation where that option is not available.
Figure 5.15. Simulated path of ships within testing scenario: a) speed reduction available; b) speed reduction non
available
82
According to these graphs, the following commentaries are extracted:

In the situation where the speed reduction is available, the ships can start sailing immediately after
their arrival to the outer channel, without needing to use the anchorage site. Nevertheless, for those
ships that are forced to sail with a reduced speed, there is a delay when the path is compared to an
ideal trajectory with the maximum speed. This delay can be classified as a delay due to traffic reasons.
In this specific case, the delay of ships B and C is close to 20 min for both ships; ships A and C does not
have any delay.
When the speed reduction is not available in a one – way channel, the faster ships (B and D) are forced
to wait at the anchorage. In the meanwhile, when a slow ship (C) arrives to the outer channel, it is
immediately allowed to sail because of its speed (it cannot catch up the ship A). Hence, the delay of
ships B and D increases because the minimum safe distance must be respected with respect to ship C.
The delays of ships B and D are bout 35 and 15 min, respectively.

o Outer channel’s regular width = 170 m
o Passing section’s width = 400 m
o Passing section’s location: between 4,000 and 7,000 m
o Ship A: arriving to outer channel in time 1 min; ship’s beam = 40 m.
o Ship B: departing from port in time 20 min; ship’s beam = 40 m.
o Ship C: departing from port in time 55 min; ship’s beam = 40 m.
o Ship D: departing from port in time 70 min; ship’s beam = 40 m.
For these ships, the regular width of the channel does not allow an operation of two – way channel.
Nevertheless, within the passing section the width is sufficient to allow encounter between two ships.
Figure 5.16 presents the simulated path of each ship within the testing scenario.
Several commentaries are obtained from this figure:
When ship B is ready to leave the port, it is not allowed to enter the access channel because the
encounter with ship A will be out of the passing section (position 10,000 m approximately). Hence, it is
forced to wait at the berth until the ship A has left the channel.
When the ship C arrives to the outer edge of the channel, it is immediately allowed to enter into the
channel because the encounter with ship B occurs within the passing section (position 6,000 m
approximately).
When the ship D arrives to the outer edge of the channel, it is not allowed to enter the access channel
because the encounter with ship B will be outside of the passing section (position 2,000 m
approximately). Hence, it is forced to wait at the anchorage site until the ship B has left the channel.
83
Figure 5.16. Simulated path of ships – channel with a passing section
5.3.5 Inclusion of intermediate anchorage site

o Intermediate anchorage position = 8,000 m
Terminal characteristics
o Quay length = 350 m
o Number of berths = 1
o Service time = 10 min
o Service time distribution: deterministic
o Ship A: arriving to outer channel in time 1 min; ship’s length = 300 m.
o Ship B: arriving to outer channel in time 30 min; ship’s length = 300 m.
o Ship C: arriving to outer channel in time 75 min; ship’s length = 300 m.
o Ship D: arriving to outer channel in time 90 min; ship’s length = 300 m.
Because of the terminal characteristics, only one ship is allowed to enter the port. When a ship arrives to the
outer edge of the channel and the berth is occupied or assigned, it will have two options: wait at the outer
anchorage or navigate (if the conditions are suitable) to the intermediate anchorage.
Figure 5.17 presents the simulated path of the ships for two situations: one with the presence of an
intermediate anchorage and a second without it.
84
Figure 5.17. Simulated path of ships – intermediate anchorage: a) with intermediate anchorage; b) without
intermediate anchorage
Several commentaries are obtained from these figures:
For the situation with an intermediate anchorage:
o Ships B, C and D arrive to the outer channel when the berth is being occupied. When the traffic
conditions are suitable, those ships sail towards the intermediate anchorage.
o When these ships arrive to the intermediate anchorage, they maintain its position at that
location until the berth is free. That waiting time is because of berth reasons.
o The ship B stays at the berth more time than the service time, because when it finish its service
time, there are two ships (C and D) sailing towards the intermediate anchorage and the
encounters are not allowed for these beams. It can start to sail to the sea only when the traffic
conditions are suitable for it.
For the situation without an intermediate anchorage
o Ships B, C and D arrive to the outer channel when the berth is being occupied. Because of the
inexistence of an intermediate anchorage site, these ships are forced to wait at the outer
anchorage.
o Additionally, when the berth is freed, a vessel waiting at the anchorage cannot sail
immediately because of traffic reasons: it is authorised to sail only when the channel is empty,
which occurs only when the vessel that was using the berth leaves the access channel.
The entire scheme of waiting at the anchorage site generates a larger delay of the ships, because they
are allowed to enter into the channel after a complete cycle of sailing – service – sailing has been
finished. On the other hand, when an intermediate anchorage is available, ships can get closer to the
port when they are waiting for a berth. With this infrastructure, it may be allowed to sail when the
leaving ship have passed in front of the intermediate anchorage site: the final authorisation depends on
the traffic, weather and port conditions.
In this testing case, the difference in time for the last ship (D) to leave the port is more than 100 min.
5.4 Conclusions
The traffic rules measures of extension (mixed operability of the channel, multiple entrances and speed
reduction) are typical rules that can be applied by different port authorities. Hence, its implementation makes
the simulation model a more realistic tool, when it is compared to the basic model. For example, the idea of
85
forcing a river vessel or barge to sail across the entire access channel when it can enter directly into the port is
simply not realistic.
The enlargement of the nautical infrastructure is an improvement of the simulation tool, which allows a designer
to check the effect of different options of a conceptual design. The selected alternatives (width enlargement,
passing section and intermediate anchorage) are the most typical options of reducing the delay of ships using a
port. The implementation of these measures enlarges the capabilities of the simulation model, allowing the
assessment of extra configurations of the channel (not just a single width related to a one or two-way channel).
During the checking stage of this chapter, it was possible to observe that all proposed measures improve the
traffic conditions of the vessel by a reduction of the related delay. In many situations, ships that were not
allowed to sail under a typical configuration of one-way channel are now allowed, without the need of
implementing a two-way channel (the most expensive option because of the large amount of capital and
maintenance dredging works).
86
6 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The final stage in the development of the simulation model is the analysis of its results, which depend on
different parameters that are characteristics for each port and need to be set up. Hence, several simulations of
some fictitious ports were developed in order to estimate the real influence of these parameters in the delay on
an access channel due to traffic conditions.
Additionally, another topic that is important to analyse is the quantification of the real effect of the proposed
measures of optimisation. Hence, comparisons with and without the utilisation of the different available
measures are presented below.
This chapter is divided in the following sections: definition of the degree of dependence of the traffic delay on
some input parameters and quantification of the real effect of the available measures on reducing the traffic
delay.
6.1 Dependence of the delay on input parameters
6.1.1 Definition of parameters

In order to define the degree of dependence of the traffic delay on the input parameters, first it is necessary to
define which the most important parameters that may enlarge congestion are. According to the literature
review and the testing stage of the simulation model, these parameters are:
1. Type of channel
2. Expected number of ships
3. Length of the channel
4. Capacity of the channel
5. Availability of the channel
Type of channel: PIANC (1997) makes reference to two different types of channels: one or two-way channel. The
congestion on each one occurs because of different processes, and the delay obtained because of traffic
conditions reaches different values for the number of ships. Hence, a distinction between these two types of
channels needs to be made.
Expected number of ships: if the number of yearly ships increases, the congestion also increases. In this
situation, when a ship arrives to a port the probabilities that the channel is being utilised by one or several ships
are higher than the case were a low number of ships is expected. If the channel is being utilised, then it is
possible that the characteristics of it (dimensions) and the traffic rules (minimum safe distance, encounter
and/or overtaking allowed) can lead to a denial of the permission to sail until the conditions are suitable.
Length of the channel: when the channel’s length increases, the ships will have a larger cycle of sailing to and
from the port. When the cycle is longer, two processes can lead to congestion. First, if the channel is longer and
there is a slow ship, it will cause a delay on faster ship that are behind it: if the channel is longer, the delay
becomes higher. Secondly, if no encounters are allowed (one – way channel), a ship will have to wait for ships on
the opposite direction to leave the channel before entering to it: the longer the channel, the higher the time
ships will have to wait.
87
Capacity of the channel: if the capacity of a channel (defined as the maximum number of ships that sail on the
channel during a small period of time) decreases, then the required time to ‘evacuate’ a certain queue (arriving
or departing lists) will be higher, this will finally lead to a higher delay of the ships on the queues.
Availability of the channel: if the channel is not operating during a certain period of time, all ships that will arrive
to some of its edges will have to wait until the channel will be re-opened. Hence, the higher the channel will be
not operating, the higher the delay that will be obtained.
6.1.2 Methodology of analysis

The analysis will be based on the results obtained for different conditions, which are simulated with the
developed simulation model. Because the parameters that affect congestion are several, a reference scenario is
defined. Then, the analysis of the influence of the different parameters is made by the variation of one
parameter each time (maintaining the rest as the reference scenario) and the observation of the delay due to
traffic conditions.
The reference scenario characteristics are the following:
Outer channel length: 10 km
Outer channel width: 150 m (one – way) or 250 m (two – way)
Outer channel depth: 21.3 m
Inner channel length: 1,5 km
Inner channel width: 250 m
Turning circle diameter: 500 m
Vessel characteristics
o Length: 280 m
o Beam: 45 m
o Draught: 17.5 m
Channel’s maximum speed: 12 kn (outer channel) or 4 kn (inner channel)
Minimum distance between vessels: 5 times ship’s length
It is important to emphasize that all the simulations are made for both types of channel (one and two – way
channel). Because of the different traffic rules related to each one, the congestion is generated in different ways
for each one. Hence, it is necessary to obtain separate results for each type of channel.
The results are expressed in terms of the average and maximum waiting time. Both indicators are important
when a master plan is being under development. While the average waiting time will be important to estimate
the total cost due to delay for a certain fleet or terminal, the maximum waiting time can give an idea about the
possibility of ships of cancelling their call and moving into a different port.
Since the results are evaluated in terms of the delay due to traffic conditions, an unlimited quay length and mild
weather conditions has been assumed.
6.1.3 One – way channel

6.1.3.1 Maximum number of ships
Considering the reference scenario, several simulations are made considering a varying number of ships, which is
in the range between 500 and 7,000 ships/year. The results are presented in terms of the average and maximum
waiting time for two queues: arriving ships (outer edge of the channel) and departing ships (ships leaving their
88
berths within the port). Figures 6.1 and 6.2 present the results of the average and maximum waiting time,
respectively.
Figure 6.1. Average traffic delay for a varying number of ships per year, one – way channel
Figure 6.2. Maximum traffic delay for a varying number of ships per year, one – way channel
The proposed fitting curves are power type.
2
The coefficients R for each adjustment are the following: 0.998 and 0.982 (average waiting time, arriving and
departing queues); and 0.959 and 0.892 (maximum waiting time, arriving and departing queues). These
coefficients are high, especially those related with the average waiting time, hence the proposed relationships
are valid within the tested range (500 to 7,000 ships per year).
The observation of these figures returns a notorious difference on the waiting time (average and maximum)
between the arriving and the departing ships. The difference can be explained by the probabilistic distribution of
each process. While the arriving ships follow a NED distribution, the departing ships follow a different
distribution, which is obtained from the sum of a NED distribution (arriving), two uniform distributions (sailing to
and from the port) and a k-Erlang distribution (service at the port). Especially when the k-Erlang function is
89
considered, it will tend to reduce the number of ships with a short inter-arrival time: this reduce congestion and
diminishes the waiting time.
6.1.3.2 Different lengths of the channel

Considering the reference scenario, several simulations are made considering a varying length of the outer
channel, which is in the range between 5 and 20 km. The results are presented in terms of the average and
maximum waiting time. Figures 6.3 and 6.4 present the results of the average and maximum waiting time,
respectively.
Figure 6.3. Average traffic delay for a varying length of the outer channel, one – way channel
Figure 6.4. Maximum traffic delay for a varying length of the outer channel, one – way channel
The proposed fitting curves are power type. Relations for the average and maximum waiting time of the arriving
ships are presented for three different numbers of ships (1,000, 3,000 and 5,000 ships/year). Some remarks can
be obtained from it:
For the average waiting time, the three fitting curves are power type with coefficients in the range 0.92
to 1.22. Then, the coefficients are similar and a unique coefficient is proposed, which is considered as
90
the average of the three values, being equal to 1.04. Hence, when the extent of the channel increases,
the average waiting time increases almost proportionally.
For the maximum waiting time, the three fitting curves are power type with coefficients in the range
0.63 to 1.06. The coefficients have a larger dispersion than in the case of the average waiting time,
probably because of the nature of the maximum waiting time. Nevertheless, a similar adjustment is
proposed, obtaining a unique coefficient which is the average of the coefficients of each curve, being
equal to 0.84.
6.1.3.3 Different capacities of the channel

Considering the reference scenario, several simulations are made considering different capacities of the access
channel. The capacity of the access channel is defined by the maximum number of ships that can use it during a
certain period of time. By taking into account the criteria of minimum safe distance between ships all across the
channel, the maximum number of ship can be determined by considering the section with the smallest speed
and the ship’s length, which is the inner channel.
On the reference scenario, the maximum speed on the inner channel is 4 kn and a safety distance of 5 times the
ship’s length. The related capacity of a one – way channel is 5 ships/hour.
In order to increase the channel’s capacity, the possibilities to increase the speed on the inner channel are
limited because of the difficulties that tugs will have to make fast. Hence, in order to increase the channel’s
capacity, the safety distance is reduced to 3 times the ship’s length. The related capacity increases to 8
ships/hour. Figures 6.5 and 6.6 present the results of the average and maximum waiting time, respectively.
Figure 6.5. Average traffic delay for a varying capacity of the access channel, one – way channel
ships are presented for three different numbers of ships (1,000, 3,000 and 5,000 ships/year). Some remarks can
be obtained from it:
For the average waiting time, the three fitting curves are power type with coefficients that decreases
when the number of ships increases (from -0.34 to -1.55). Then, the representative coefficient for
estimating the traffic delay with a varying capacity depends on the number of ships. A power
adjustment is proposed and presented in equation 1.7.
91
0.14 to 0.31. The coefficients have a larger dispersion than in the case of the average waiting time,
equal to 0.25.
Figure 6.6. Maximum traffic delay for a varying capacity of the access channel, one – way channel
The proposed adjustment coefficients for estimating the effect of changes on the channel’s capacity were
estimated on a short number of simulations. Hence, it is recommended to execute further research in order to
define if the proposed relationship can be confirmed or modified.
6.1.3.4 Different availabilities of the channel

Considering the reference scenario, several simulations are made considering a varying availability of the
channel, which can occur because of several reasons: port in operation, storm conditions, etc. The availabilities
considered are in the range from 0.8 to 1. The results are presented in terms of the average and maximum
waiting time. Figures 6.7 and 6.8 present the results of the average and maximum waiting time, respectively.
Figure 6.7. Average traffic delay for a varying availability of the access channel, one – way channel
92
Figure 6.8. Maximum traffic delay for a varying availability of the access channel, one – way channel
ships are presented for two different numbers of ships (1,000 and 3,000 ships/year). Some remarks can be
obtained from it:
For the average waiting time, the two fitting curves are power type with coefficients in the range -0.89
to -1.01. Then, the coefficients are similar and a unique coefficient is proposed, which is considered as
the average of the two values, being equal to -0.95.
For the maximum waiting time, the two fitting curves are power type with coefficients in the range 0.42
the average of the two values, being equal to 0.59.
The proposed adjustment coefficients for estimating the effect of changes on the channel’s availability were
estimated on a small number of simulations. Hence, it is recommended to execute further research in order to
Considering all the fitting curves for the different parameters defined previously, two relationships (average and
maximum waiting time) are obtained for a one – way channel.
1.04 4.8104 N 0.95

4 L C 
d1in  5.09 10 N 1.24
     n 0.95 (Eq. 6.1)
 10  5
0.84 0.25
1 0.68  L  C
in  6.81  10  N
d1MAX      n 0.59 (Eq. 6.2)
 10  5
6.1.4 Two – way channel

6.1.4.1 Maximum number of ships
Considering the reference scenario, several simulations are made considering a varying number of ships, which is
in the range between 4,000 and 22,000 ships/year. The results are presented in terms of the average and
maximum waiting time for two queues: arriving ships (outer edge of the channel) and departing ships (ships
93
leaving their berths within the port). Figures 6.9 and 6.10 present the results of the average and maximum
waiting time, respectively.
Figure 6.9. Average traffic delay for a varying number of ships per year, two – way channel
Figure 6.10. Maximum traffic delay for a varying number of ships per year, two – way channel
The proposed fitting curves are potential.
2
The coefficients R for each adjustment are the following: 0.977 and 0.970 (average waiting time, arriving and
departing queues); and 0.914 and 0.918 (maximum waiting time, arriving and departing queues). These
coefficients are high, especially those related with the average waiting time, hence the proposed relationships
are valid within the tested range (4,000 to 22,000 ships per year).
Similarly to the situation of a one – way channel, it is possible to observe that there is a difference between the
waiting time for arriving and departing ships. The reasons of this difference are the same than the case of a one
– way channel (differences on the distribution function for each process).
94
6.1.4.2 Different length of the channel

Considering the reference scenario, several simulations are made considering a varying length of the outer
channel, which is in the range between 5 and 20 km. The results are presented in terms of the average and
maximum waiting time for two queues: arriving ships (outer edge of the channel) and departing ships (ships
leaving their berths within the port). Figures 6.11 and 6.12 present the results of the average and maximum
Figure 6.11. Average traffic delay for a varying length of the outer channel, two – way channel
Figure 6.12. Maximum traffic delay for a varying length of the outer channel, one – way channel
ships are presented for three different numbers of ships (6,000, 12,000 and 18,000 ships/year). Some remarks
can be obtained from it:
For the average waiting time, the three fitting curves are power type with coefficients in the range 0.45
the average of the three values, being equal to 0.49. Hence, when the extent of the channel increases,
the average waiting time increases with a power law close to ½.
95
0.85 to 0.86. The coefficients are almost equal; hence, a unique coefficient of 0.85 is selected.
For the set of data of 18,000 ships/year, the maximum delay related to a channel extension of 5 km is not
considered for estimating the fitting curve.
6.1.4.3 Different capacities of the channel

Similarly to the case of a one – way channel, the effect of a modification on the channel’s capacity is evaluated in
terms of simulations executed for a new capacity of 8 ships/hour. The rest of the parameters are maintained
according to the reference scenario. Figures 6.13 and 6.14 present the results of the average and maximum
Figure 6.13. Average traffic delay for a varying capacity of the access channel, two – way channel
Figure 6.14. Maximum traffic delay for a varying capacity of the access channel, two – way channel
ships are presented for three different numbers of ships (6,000, 12,000 and 18,000 ships/year). Some remarks
can be obtained from it:
96
For the average waiting time, the three fitting curves are power type with coefficients that decreases
when the number of ships increases (from -0.71 to -2). Then, the representative coefficient for
estimating the traffic delay with a varying capacity depends on the number of ships. A power
adjustment is proposed and presented in equation 6.17.
For the maximum waiting time, the three fitting curves are power type with coefficients in the range -
0.87 to -2.09. The coefficients have a larger dispersion than in the case of the average waiting time,
equal to -1.37.
Similarly to the case of a one – way channel, the proposed adjustment coefficients for estimating the effect of
changes on the channel’s capacity were estimated on a short number of simulations. Hence, it is recommended
to execute further research in order to define if the proposed relationship can be confirmed or modified.
6.1.4.4 Different availabilities of the channel

Considering the reference scenario, several simulations are made considering a varying availability of the
channel, which can occur because of several reasons: port in operation, storm conditions, daylight operation,
etc. The availabilities considered are in the range from 0.8 to 1. The results are presented in terms of the
average and maximum waiting time. Figures 6.15 and 6.16 present the results of the average and maximum
Figure 6.15. Average traffic delay for a varying availability of the access channel, one – way channel
ships are presented for two different numbers of ships (6,000 and 12,000 ships/year). Some remarks can be
obtained from it:
For the average waiting time, the two fitting curves are power type with coefficients contained in the
range -6 to -6.2. Then, the coefficients are similar and a unique coefficient is proposed, which is
considered as the average of the two values, being equal to -6.15.
For the maximum waiting time, the two fitting curves are power type with both coefficients equal to -
4.3.
97
Figure 6.16. Maximum traffic delay for a varying availability of the access channel, one – way channel
The proposed adjustment coefficients for estimating the effect of changes on the channel’s availability were
estimated on a short number of simulations. Hence, it is recommended to execute further research in order to
Considering all the fitting curves for the different parameters defined previously, two relationships (average and
maximum waiting time) are obtained for a one – way channel.
0.49 1.4104 N 0.99

6 L C 
d 2in  7.09 10 N 1.44
     n 6.15 (Eq. 6.3)
 10  5
0.85 1.38
3 1.05  L  C 
in  5.30  10  N
d 2MAX      n 4.3 (Eq. 6.4)
 10  5
6.1.5 Relationship’s verification

Four relationships are proposed, which consider the effect of different parameter on the determination of the
traffic delay. The relationships are presented in equations 6.1 to 6.4. These relationships were built based on the
simulation model, varying different parameters (ships number, channel’s length, capacity and availability).
In order to verify the behaviour of these relationships on determining the traffic delay rapidly, three testing
simulations for each type of channel were executed, with parameters within the range defined for determining
each relationship. Table 6.1 presents the characteristics of each testing simulation.
Table 6.1. Testing simulation characteristics
Type of Ships number Channel’s length Channel’s capacity Channel’s availability
channel [ships/year] [km] [ships/hr] [-]
4,500 18 5.5 0.95
One – way 2,200 6 6 0.85
1,300 11 6.5 0.92
15,000 13 7.5 0.81
Two – way 10,500 9 6.5 0.85
7,300 14 5.5 0.97
98
In order to verify the results obtained by the proposed relationships, a comparison between the delay (average
and maximum) obtained by the simulator and the formulas is done. The comparison is presented in Figure 6.17.
Figure 6.17. Comparison between delay time obtained by simulation model and relationships
In these figures, a dashed line is incorporated: it represents a perfect fitting of the delay obtained with the
proposed relationships. The better the relationship, the closer the points has to be in relation with the dashed
line. For the average delay, it is possible to see that all the points are close to the line, with a maximum
difference (vertical distance) lower than 5 min. For the maximum delay, it is possible to see a larger dispersion of
the data. The maximum difference (vertical distance) is lower than 50 min.
2
The coefficients R for the sets of data related with the average and maximum delay are 0.986 and 0.905,
respectively. These numbers (especially the coefficient for the average delay) are high; hence, the proposed
relationships are valid. It must be emphasized that the testing of the formulas has been executed for a small
number of data and only within the range of the parameters for which the simulations were performed. Then,
further research is recommended in order to confirm the validity of these relations, and also to check if the
results can be extrapolated.
Independently on the good correlations obtained for both formulas, it is important to remark that due to the
methodology used to obtain the different results (only one simulation for each condition), the reliability of these
formulas can be defined as limited, then, and further research is strongly advised.
6.2 Effect of the available measures on reducing the delay

In order to estimate the effect of a certain measure on the traffic delay, several simulations were executed
under different scenarios. The optimisation measures considered are the same defined on Chapter 5:
Modification of the traffic rules
o Allowance of ‘mixed’ channel’s operability
o Allowance of multiple entrance points
o Speed reduction
Enlargement of the nautical infrastructure
o Increase of channel’s width
o Inclusion of passing section
o Inclusion of intermediate anchorage
99
All the verifications are made for an original one – way channel, because the scope of these measures is to
reduce the traffic delay without needing to expand the channel to a two – way channel.
It has to be emphasized that all of these verifications are made for some particular scenarios, which does not
cover all the possibilities. Hence, the results must be considered as quick and rough recommendations of which
measures are more suitable for a given scenario. Nevertheless, it is always advisable to execute simulations for a
particular case of study, in order to obtain more accurate results.

In order to define the effectiveness of this measure, three scenarios (each one with two different fleets) were
simulated with and without this measure. The characteristics of each scenario are presented in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2. Scenarios for testing allowance of ‘mixed’ channels capacity
Number of ships fleet A Number of ships fleet B

Scenario
[ships/yr] [ships/yr]
1 3,000 1,000
2 2,000 2,000
3 1,000 3,000
The characteristics of the vessels of both fleets are presented in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3. Vessels’ characteristics
Ship’s length Ship’s beam Ship’s draught Ship speed
Fleet
[m] [m] [m] [kn]
A 304 40 14.2 12
B 182 23 9.5 12
The channel’s characteristics are presented in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4. Channel’s characteristics
Parameter Value Unit

Outer channel’s length 10 km
Inner channel’s length 1.5 km
Channel’s width 170 m
Channel’s draught 21.3 m
The quay length for both vessels is considered unlimited, hence, there is no waiting time related to a berth
unavailability.
With a mixed operation the channel can operate as a one or two – way channel, depending on the vessels’
characteristics and the channel’s dimensions. Within this scenario, encounters may or may be not allowed for
different vessels. Table 6.5 presents a summary with the allowance of encountering for the different vessels.
Table 6.5. Summary of encountering for different vessels
Entering ship / departing ship Fleet A Fleet B
Fleet A No No
Fleet B No Yes
100
Figures 6.18 and 6.19 present the average waiting time due to traffic reasons for the different scenarios, with
and without the allowance for ‘mixed’ operability of the channel.
Figure 6.18. Average waiting time with and without ‘mixed’ operability of an access channel – Fleet A
Figure 6.19. Average waiting time with and without ‘mixed’ operability of an access channel – Fleet B
From the results presented in these figures, the following commentaries are extracted from:
The average waiting time for fleet A does not present a significant reduction of its value when the
measure is applied. Only for the third scenario (lowest number of ships on fleet A) there is a reduction
close to a 25% of the original waiting time, but for the other scenarios the results are maintained.
The average waiting time for fleet B presents important reductions of the waiting time, which are larger
depending on the number of ships present on fleet B. Scenario 1 (1,000 ships) presents a reduction of
about 10%, scenario 2 (2,000 ships) increases the reduction to 55% while scenario 3 (3,000 ships)
returns a reduction of the waiting time of 75%.
The differences on the observed waiting time for both fleets are explained in terms of the encounter allowance
(ships and channel characteristics) and what is the percentage of encounters that are allowed. For the vessels of
the fleet A, they cannot encounter neither with ships from fleet A or B. Hence, the presence of a ‘mixed’
101
operation of the channel has no effect on these ships, because the channel operates as a one – way channel for
all situations.
On the other hand, the ships of fleet B can encounter with other ships from fleet B. When the number of ships of
the fleet B increases, the number of allowed encounters also increases. For the scenario 1, it is estimated that
only an 8% of the encounters will be allowed; this number rises to a 33% for scenario 2 and a 69% for scenario 3.
Hence, if for a certain port a mixed operation will lead to a high number of allowed encounters, the reduction of
the average waiting time will be more significant, but only for those vessels that can interact with other vessels
as a two – way channel. Then, the effectiveness of this measure is better for smaller ships.
6.2.2 Allowance of multiple entrance points

simulated with and without this measure. The characteristics of each scenario are the same than the previous
section (Tables 6.2 to 6.4).
unavailability.
For this study case, it has been defined three different entrance points. The characteristics of each point are
summarized in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6. Entrance points characteristics
Position Maximum draught allowed
Entrance point
[km] [m]
1 0 18
2 5 12
3 8 8
Then, ships from fleet A will enter the channel through the entrance point 1 while ships from fleet B will enter
the channel through the entrance point 2. This means that ships from fleet A will have to sail the entire length of
the outer channel but ships from fleet B will only sail half of it.
Figures 6.20 and 6.21 presents the average waiting time due to traffic reasons for the different scenarios, with
and without the allowance multiple entrance points.
From the results presented in these figures, the following commentaries are extracted from:
When multiple entrance points are available, the average waiting time for fleet A present important
reductions of its value (31% to 61%, when the number of ships entering at a middle position is 25% to
75%, respectively). The reduction is higher when the number of ships that can enter through an
intermediate entrance points increases.
When the multiple entrance points are available, the average waiting time for fleet B present important
reductions of its value, which are around 80%. The observed reduction factors are similar for all the
scenarios; hence, it does not depend on the number of ships.
102
Figure 6.20. Average waiting time with / without multiple entrance points to an access channel – Fleet A
Figure 6.21. Average waiting time with / without multiple entrance points to an access channel – Fleet B
Both fleets present reductions of their average waiting time. Nevertheless, while the fleet A shows a progressive
reduction (dependent on the number of ships that can enter through an intermediate position of the channel);
the fleet B presents an almost constant (and higher) reduction.
The reason of the progressive increment on the reduction of the waiting time for fleet A is related with the
existence of ships sailing on the opposite direction and the possibility of occurrence of an encounter within the
access channel. If the number of ships entering to the channel on a middle position increases, the possibilities of
having encounter reduce and the ships from fleet A have less restrictions to sail. In simple words: the utilisation
of the channel is reduced and the delay decrease.
In the case of ships from fleet B the reduction of the waiting time is practically constant. All these ships sail
through the channel only on a part of it; hence, the possibilities of having encounters are limited. But, because
the channel is a one – way channel, the encounters are not allowed with ships from fleet A nor B. Because the
part of the channel that ships from fleet B uses is occupied by ships from both fleets, then independently on the
103
distribution of the total number of ships, encounters must be avoided. Then, for this fleet, the reduction of the
waiting time does not depend on the number of ships of this fleet.
The results present a reduction of the delay for both fleets (large and small vessels). For small vessels the
reduction is particularly large, while for large vessels it depends on the fleet composition. But the
implementation of this measure present reduction of the delay for all fleets, hence, it is highly recommended to
execute it when there are large differences between the largest and smallest ship of a fleet.

simulated with and without this measure. The characteristics of each scenario are the same than the previous
section (Tables 6.2 and 6.4).
The characteristics of the vessels of both fleets are presented in Table 6.7.
Ship’s length Ship’s beam Ship’s draught Ship speed

Fleet
[m] [m] [m] [kn]
A 304 40 14.2 12
B 182 23 9.5 6
unavailability.
Figures 6.22 and 6.23 present the average waiting time due to traffic reasons for the different scenarios, with
and without the speed reduction on the channel.
Figure 6.22. Average waiting time with and without speed reduction on the access channel – Fleet A
104
Figure 6.23. Average waiting time with and without speed reduction on the access channel – Fleet B
From the results presented in these figures, the following commentary is extracted from:
Both fleets present similar average waiting times for the different scenarios. Hence, no significant
reductions of the traffic delay are observed.
The most possible explanation for the absence of reduction of the waiting time on both fleets (fast and slow
ships) is related with the delay effect of a ship which is sailing with a slower speed than its maximum. When a
fast ship is being preceded by a slow ship, the speed reduction measure indicates that the fast ship will reduce
its speed in order to do not reduce the distance with the slow ship. But, the speed reduction is traduced into a
later arrival time to the assigned berth. That time is comparable to the time that the ship should wait at the
anchorage before receiving authorisation to sail with its normal speed.
One advantage of this measure is the lower utilisation of the anchorage site (for ships waiting due to traffic
conditions): a ship sailing with a slower speed will not enter the anchorage. Nevertheless, the lower utilisation of
the anchorage site refers only for ships waiting due to traffic conditions. In case that a berth is not available, or
there are storm conditions that block the access to the port, then the anchorage site will be used by those ships.
6.2.4 Increase of channel’s width

In order to define the effectiveness of this measure, five scenarios (each one with four different fleets) of varying
width of the access channel were simulated. It must be emphasized that this measure is useful only if a ‘mixed’
operability of the channel is allowed.
The characteristics of the vessels of each fleet are presented in Table 6.8.
Number of ships Ship’s length Ship’s beam Ship’s draught Ship dwt
Fleet
[ships/yr] [m] [m] [m] [kton]
A 1,000 280 45 17.5 161
B 1,000 230 36 12.7 77.4
C 1,000 170 27 10 30
D 1,000 91 12 4.1 2.2
105
The channel’s characteristics (excepting the width) are the same presented in Table 6.4.
Table 6.9 presents the width of the access channel for the different scenarios.
Table 6.9. Channel’s width for different scenarios
Channel width
Scenario
[m]
1 150
2 175
3 190
4 210
5 250
unavailability.
Tables 6.10 to 6.14 present the encounter allowance between ships of the different fleets, considering a varying
width of the channel.
Table 6.10. Summary of encountering allowance for different vessels – Scenario 1
Entering ship / departing ship Fleet A Fleet B Fleet C Fleet D

Fleet A No No No No
Fleet B No No No Yes
Fleet C No No Yes Yes
Fleet D No Yes Yes Yes

Fleet A No No No Yes
Fleet B No No Yes Yes
Fleet C No Yes Yes Yes
Fleet D Yes Yes Yes Yes

Fleet A No No No Yes
Fleet B No No Yes Yes
Fleet C No Yes Yes Yes

Fleet A No No Yes Yes
Fleet B No Yes Yes Yes
Fleet C Yes Yes Yes Yes
106

Fleet A Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fleet B Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fleet C Yes Yes Yes Yes
The scenario 5 corresponds to an operation with a two – way channel (all encounters are permitted).
Figure 6.24 presents the average waiting time due to traffic reasons for the different scenarios.
Figure 6.24. Average waiting time of different fleets under different scenarios
From the results presented in this figure, the following information is highlighted:
Fleet A: there is an important decrease of the waiting time, from 14.8 min (scenario 1) to 0.8 min
(scenario 5), totalizing a delay reduction of 91%. Local reductions are observed between scenarios 1 – 2,
3 – 4 and 4 – 5.
Fleet B: there is an important decrease of the waiting time, from 9.4 min (scenario 1) to 0.6 min
(scenario 5), totalizing a delay reduction of 94%. Local reductions are observed between all scenarios.
Fleet C: there is an important decrease of the waiting time, from 7.6 min (scenario 1) to 0.2 min
(scenario 5), totalizing a delay reduction of 97%. Local reductions are observed between scenarios 1 – 2
and 3 – 4.
Fleet D: there is an important decrease of the waiting time, from 2.9 min (scenario 1) to 0.4 min
(scenario 5), totalizing a delay reduction of 88%. The most important local reduction is observed
between scenarios 1 – 2.
When a comparison is made between the results (Figure 6.24) and the encounter allowance (Tables 6.10 to
6.14), it is possible to notice that each local reduction is obtained when the width of the channel is increased to
a value that allows a new encounter. If the new width is not sufficient (or if encounters are allowed with all the
fleets), then there is no effective reduction of the waiting time.
107
In conclusion, the implementation of an increase of the channel depends strongly on the fleet composition,
specifically on the vessel’s dimensions. Then, in order to generate a positive effect on a specific fleet (reduction
of the delay due to traffic conditions), one or various new encounters must be allowed.

In order to define the effectiveness of this measure, three scenarios (each one with four different fleets) of
varying length of a passing section were simulated. It must be emphasized that this measure is useful only if a
‘mixed’ operability of the channel is allowed. While the normal section of the channel has a ‘mixed’ operability,
the passing section has a width sufficiently large to operate as a two – way channel on it.
The characteristics of the vessels of each fleet are the same than those presented in Table 6.8.
The channel’s characteristics are the same presented in Table 6.4.
Table 6.15 presents the characteristics of the passing section for each scenario.
Table 6.15. Characteristics of the passing section for each scenario
Outer edge
Width Length
Scenario position
[m] [m]
[km]
1 250 - -
2 250 2,500 3.75
3 250 5,000 2.5
4 250 7,500 1.25
5 250 10,000 -
The first scenario corresponds to a channel with a uniform width of 150 m, with no passing section. The fifth
scenario corresponds to a channel with a uniform width of 250 m, which is equivalent to a two – way channel.
unavailability.
108
From the results presented in this figure, the following information is highlighted:
Fleet A: reductions of the waiting time due to a passing section are observed. The reductions are in the
range from 71% (2,500 m length) to 93% (7,500 m length).
Fleet B: reductions of the waiting time due to a passing section are observed. The reductions are in the
Fleet C: reductions of the waiting time due to a passing section are observed. The reductions are in the
Fleet D: reductions of the waiting time due to a passing section are observed. The reductions are in the
It is possible to observe that in general the delay reduction is large for all the fleets, even considering the
simulation of the smallest length of the passing section. Nevertheless, if the length of the passing section is
increased, the observed effect on the delay becomes smaller. Hence, it seems to be not very effective to enlarge
the passing section excessively, because the reduction of the delay becomes less and less significant.
Another feature that is observed is a slight difference on the delay reduction between fleets with larger and
smaller vessels. While the dimensions of the vessels decrease, the delay reduction also decreases. This effect is
related to the allowance of encounters for the smaller vessels with other ships, even on the normal section of
the channel. For these ships, the presence of a passing section has a smaller impact than on large ships, which
only can encounter with other ships on the passing section.
6.2.6 Inclusion of intermediate anchorage

In order to define the effectiveness of this measure, two scenarios (each one with four different fleets) with and
without the presence of an intermediate anchorage site.
The characteristics of the vessels of each fleet are presented in Table 6.16.
Number of ships Ship’s length Ship’s beam Ship’s draught Ship dwt
Fleet
[ships/yr] [m] [m] [m] [kton]
A 500 280 45 17.5 161
B 500 230 36 12.7 77.4
C 500 170 27 10 30
D 500 91 12 4.1 2.2
The service time characteristics for each fleet are presented in Table 6.17.
Table 6.17. Service time characteristics per fleet
Average service time

Fleet Service time distribution function
[min]
nd
A 3,158 k – Erlange 2 degree
nd
B 1,589 k – Erlange 2 degree
nd
C 618 k – Erlange 2 degree
nd
D 92 k – Erlange 2 degree
The channel’s characteristics are the same presented in Table 6.4.

The intermediate anchorage site is located on position 8,000 m (from the outer edge of the channel).
109
The quay length and number of berths for each fleet are presented in Table 6.18.
Table 6.18. Service time characteristics per fleet
Quay length Number of berths

Fleet
[m] [-]
A 1,785 6
B 995 4
C 385 2
D 226 2
Figure 6.27 presents the utilisation of both anchorage sites with and without the presence of an intermediate
anchorage site.
From the results presented in these figures, the following information is highlighted:
The delay reduction does not present a clear trend. For the largest ships (fleet A), an important increase
of the waiting time due to traffic conditions is observed, but for fleet C a reduction close of 50% of the
delay is observed.
The utilisation of the outer anchorage site is higher when there is no intermediate anchorage. But,
when the intermediate anchorage is available, almost a 100% of the time the outer anchorage site is
used.
110
Figure 6.27. Anchorage site utilisations for different scenarios

Because no trend is observed on the reduction of the delay, it is not possible to establish the real effect of an
intermediate anchorage site on the traffic delay. Hence, further research is recommended in order to determine
the real effect of this measure. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that there are two aspects that
influence the traffic delay with an intermediate anchorage site:
The utilisation of an intermediate anchorage site is done by ships which are waiting for a berth to be
freed. Then, the existence of a new queue (at the intermediate anchorage site) grows depending on the
number of berths, the service time and the inter-arrival time for ships.
When a berth is available, a ship can enter into the channel but only if the traffic conditions are suitable
for it. With difference than the case of the outer anchorage site (traffic conditions of encounters,
overtaking and convoy distance with respect to preceding ships must be attended), the entrance of a
ship from the intermediate anchorage site must check the conditions of ships sailing to the port from a
position beyond the anchorage site. An analogy can be made with a car wishing to enter into a certain
road: the driver must check traffic conditions of incoming cars before entering into that road.
Because a new traffic conditions is incorporated, it may generate an extra delay on the ships leaving the
intermediate anchorage site. Then, the effect on reducing delay of an intermediate anchorage can be
negative.
6.3 Conclusions
From this chapter, the following conclusions are obtained:
6.3.1 Dependence of the delay on input parameters

When observations of the waiting time for arriving and departing ships are made, differences on each result are
noted. The reasons for these differences are related with the distribution function for each process: the arriving
ships follow a NED distribution while the departing ships follow a different distribution, which is obtained from
the sum of a NED, two uniforms and a k-Erlang distribution. The second distribution have a smaller number of
ships with a short inter-arrival time, hence, the congestion is more likely to appear on arriving ships instead of
departing ships.
If the length of the outer channel increases, the waiting time due to traffic conditions of the arriving ships
growths too. Nevertheless, the increasing rate depends on the type of channel. If the channel is one – way, the
increase is almost proportional to the length increase, but if the channel is two – way, the increase rate is
111
proportional to the square root of the length increase. The difference on both coefficients is explained in terms
of the processes of obtaining delay for both channels:
For a one – way channel, the delay of ships (due to traffic conditions) can occur from two sources. First, the ships
that are waiting in a queue to enter the channel must wait until all ships sailing in the opposite direction have
left it (because encounters are not allowed on it). If the length of the channel increases, the waiting time at the
queue will increase too. Secondly, when a ship is sailing through the channel being preceded by a slower ship, it
will be forced to reduce its speed or wait at the queue until the conditions on the channel allows navigation
without reducing excessively the distance between the ships. Independently on which is the condition
(dependant on the traffic rules of the channel), the second ship will sail slowly, increasing the delay.
For a two – way channel, encounters are allowed and then there is no delay because the channel is being used
by ships sailing in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, when a slower ship is sailing in front of another one and
the speed difference is not significant, the possibilities of having an overtaking are reduced because of the
required distance to do it. Then, it is possible that the faster ship will have to reduce its speed, adding delay.
Because for a one – way channel the delay occur due to more sources, the dependence of the delay on the
channel’s length is more significant than in the case of a two – way channel.
The average waiting time depends on the capacity of the access channel, which is related to the minimum safety
distance between ships, the ships dimensions (length) and the speed through the inner channel. The proposed
adjustments show the inverse dependence of the traffic on the channel’s capacity: the higher the channel’s
capacity, the smaller the delay. Nevertheless, there is a dependence also on the number of ships sailing: when
the number is higher, the effect of the capacity becomes more important and vice versa.
This can be explained by the hypothesis that the capacity is a parameter related with the ‘ability’ of a channel to
‘evacuate’ queues: if capacity is higher, the queue will be emptied rapidly.
In order to confirm or discard this hypothesis, further research should be developed. This research should
consider a larger number of simulations and its comparison with real life data. Additionally, focus should be paid
to the behaviour of the queues within the simulation time.
6.3.2 Effect of available measures

The effectiveness of a ‘mixed’ operability of an access channel depends on the vessel characteristics and the
channel’s dimensions. The reduction of the average waiting time will be higher for those ships with smaller
dimensions. Furthermore, if for a specific fleet the number of allowed encounters is high, then the reduction of
the average time will be higher. Nonetheless, independently on the effective reduction of the average time, this
measure is recommended for all access channels because it does not represent and increment of the capital and
maintenance costs (the channel’s dimensions still the same) and the safety conditions are not diminished.
Attention must be paid to a proper control of the vessels, in order to avoid authorisations for two vessels with
dimensions that exceed the maximum allowed.
When a certain fleet is not uniform and there are important differences in the dimensions of the largest and
smallest vessels, it is highly recommended to implement multiple entrances points to the channel. By executing
this measure, it is possible to reduce the utilisation of the channel and avoid encounters, reducing the delay due
to traffic reasons. The implementation costs of this measure are almost negligible, and are referred only to
signals (buoys). But, the location of intermediate access points is defined by the bathymetry of the areas
surrounding the channel: if the original depth is low (meaning a larger dredging of the access channel), then the
112
intermediate entrance point for a specific draught is moved towards the outer edge of the channel. If that is the
case, the smaller vessels will have to sail through a larger distance, reducing the effectiveness of this measure.
The speed reduction measure results do not show a reduction of the average waiting time. The only advantage
of this measure is a lower utilisation of the anchorage site (because ships that have impediments due to traffic
conditions can enter into the channel with a slower speed). Nevertheless, the lower utilisation is only due to
traffic conditions: if there is berth unavailability or storm conditions, then the anchorage site will be used by
ships waiting for an authorisation. Hence, the real effect of reducing the anchorage utilisation may not be
significant.
The implementation of a passing section has a positive effect of reducing the delay due to traffic reasons on all
the fleets (slightly larger for fleets with larger vessels). According to the results, for an increasing length of the
passing section, the effect on the delay reduction becomes more inefficient. But, the definition of a passing
section as a two – way channel type means that it generates a benefit for all ships, independently on the fleet
composition. Then, for a uniform or quasi-uniform fleet, is more likely to implement a passing section instead of
an increase of the channel’s length. Like an increase of the channel’s width, the evaluation of this measure must
consider the effect on the cost reduction due to a lower waiting time versus the increase of the capital and
maintenance costs of dredging.
The implementation of an intermediate anchorage site does not seem to have a positive effect on reducing the
delay due to traffic conditions. Instead of it, the intermediate anchorage site implementation obeys to the
requirements of more complex ports (like Rotterdam), where a several areas of anchorage are available.
Another possibility of implementing an intermediate anchorage site is a restriction of the maximum surface of
the outer anchorage site: the presence of another site allows the distribution of ships between these areas,
reducing the occupation of the outer anchorage.
113
7 TAMAN SEAPORT CASE – ASSESSMENT OF THE DESIGN

As an application of the final version of the simulation model and the recommendations obtained from the
analysis of its results, an assessment of the future Port of Taman is performed in this chapter. Currently, the
master plan of this port has been designed by Witteveen + Bos (2012), and it includes several components
(breakwaters, navigation areas, quay walls, reclamation of terminal areas). The access channel has been
designed as a one – way type but there are doubts regarding its performance under the projected throughput of
the port. Then, the utilisation of the new simulation model is considered.
This chapter is divided by the following sections: description of the Taman Seaport components, set – up of the
simulation model, assessment of the access channel and recommendations in order to improve the performance
of the access channel.
7.1 Taman Seaport description

It must be emphasized that almost all the information presented in this section is obtained from the current
design of Witteveen + Bos (2012). In case that some information comes from another source, it is explicitly
indicated in the text.
7.1.1 General features

7.1.1.1 Location
The port will be located in the Black Sea (Russian territory), close to the city of Taman, Krasnodar territory,
Russia. The port and its related areas will be located along the eastern coast of Kerch Strait, allowing the
connection with the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Figure 7.1 presents a map with the projected location of the
Taman Seaport.
Kerch Strait
Taman Seaport
Black Sea
Figure 7.1. Projected location of the Taman Seaport (Google Earth)
7.1.1.2 Port requirements

The port will provide service to different type of cargo.
Containers (import / export)
114
Coal (export)
Grain (import / export)
Iron ore (export)
Sulphur (export)
Mineral fertilizer (import / export)
Steel products (export)
Table 7.1 presents a summary with the port requirements projected for the year 2025 (final throughput).
Table 7.1. Summary of port requirements (Witteveen + Bos, 2012)
Commodity Yearly transhipment (2025)

6
Container 1.5 x 10 TEUs
6
Coal 20 x 10 tons
6
Grain 7 x 10 tons
6
Iron ore 20 x 10 tons
6
Sulphur 5 x 10 tons
6
14 x 10 tons (export)
Mineral fertilizers 6
0.7 x 10 tons (import)
6
Steel products 6 x 10 tons
In order to handle the different cargo presented previously, several terminals are considered. Figure 7.2
presents a layout of the Taman Seaport, presenting the location of each terminal.
Container Container
terminal 2 terminal 1
Steel terminal
Grain terminal
Mineral fertilizer terminals 1 & 2
Iron terminal Sulphur terminal
Coal terminal 1 Coal terminal 2
Figure 7.2. Taman Seaport layout (Witteveen + Bos, 2012)

Details of the Taman Seaport layout and related dimensions are present in Appendix C.
The list with the terminals (including the related quay length) is presented in Table 7.2.
115
Table 7.2. Terminal’s list (Witteveen + Bos, 2012)
Quay length
Terminal
[m]
Container terminal 1 835
Container terminal 2 685
Steel terminal 885
Grain terminal 1,175
Coal terminal 1 570
Coal terminal 2 655
Iron ore terminal 835
Mineral fertilizer terminal 1 835
Mineral fertilizer terminal 2 590
Sulphur terminal 590
7.1.1.3 Vessel’s characteristics

The different terminals of the port will provide service to several fleets. Table 7.3 presents a summary with the
characteristics of the smallest and largest vessel per terminal. The complete list with the characteristics of all
fleets is presented in Appendix D.
Table 7.3. Summary of vessel’s characteristics (Witteveen + Bos, 2012)
DWT Length Beam Draught

Terminal Type 3
[ton x 10 ] [m] [m] [m]
Minimum 5.2 100.6 18.2 6.5
Container 1
Maximum 85.7 304.1 40 14
Minimum 30 – 40 225 32.2 12
Container 2
Maximum 85.7 304.1 40 14
Minimum 6.08 122.3 16.5 4.2
Coal 1
Maximum 161 280 45 17.5
Minimum 47.8 197.1 32.2 11.5
Coal 2
Maximum 161 280 45 17.5
Minimum 6.08 140 16.5 4.2
Steel
Maximum 100 235 43 15.3
Minimum 2.2 90.5 11.9 4.1
Grain
Maximum 77.5 230 36 12.7
Minimum 7.52 122.3 17.8 7
Mineral fertilizer 1
Maximum 77.5 230 36 12.7
Minimum 7.5 122.3 17.8 7
Mineral fertilizer 2
Maximum 82 250 32.2 14.5
Minimum 120 255 43 15.3
Iron
Maximum 200 290 48 18
Minimum 3 82 12.3 5.7
Sulphur
Maximum 77.5 230 36 12.7
Projections of the total number of vessels per year indicates that during the initial throughput (2017) the
expected number of yearly calls will be 2,689 ships/year, while for the final throughput (2025) the total yearly
calls will be 3,503 ships/year. The details of the expected number of ships per terminal and per fleet are
presented in Appendix D.
116
7.1.1.4 Service rates

Depending on the type of cargo (dry bulk, container, etc.) and the operation (import / export), each terminal will
have an effective service rate. Table 7.4 presents a summary with this information.
Table 7.4. Summary of service rates (Lighteringen, 2009)
Service rate
Terminal Type Operation
[t/hr] or [moves/hr]
Container 1 Container Import / export
720 moves/day/crane
Container 2 Container Import / export
Coal 1 Dry bulk Export
3,000 tons/hr
Coal 2 Dry bulk Export
960 tons/hr (import)
Steel General cargo Import / export
960 tons/hr (export)
1,500 tons/hr (import)
Grain Dry bulk Import / export
3,000 tons/hr (export)
Mineral fertilizer 1 Dry bulk Export 3,000 tons/hr (export)
Mineral fertilizer 2 Dry bulk Import / export
Iron Dry bulk Export 5,000 tons/hr
Sulphur Dry bulk Import / export
For the container terminals, the service rate is expressed in a number of moves (import or export) per hour per
crane working on a single ship. Hence, the number of cranes defines the final service rate of these terminals.
Depending on the ships’ capacity (expressed in TEUs), a different number of cranes will operate on it. It is
assumed that for a ship with capacity larger than 3,500 TEUs, 3 cranes will operate on it. If the capacity is
between 1,000 TEUs and 3,500 TEUs, 2 cranes will operate on it. Finally, if the ship is small (less than 1,000
TEUs,), only one crane will operate on it.
7.1.2 Climate conditions

7.1.2.1 General
According to Witteveen + Bos (2012), the climate of Taman is semi – arid (steppe) and mild due to the vicinity of
the sea basins. The annual amount of precipitation is small (399 mm/year on average). Summer temperatures
reach an average of 30°C, while winter temperatures fall to 5°C.
Average annual temperatures vary within a range of 10 – 14°C. Thin snow cover is associated with cold winds
from the east/nort-east direction during summer and winter.
7.1.2.2 Wind climate

The wind climate of the Taman area is presented in Figure 7.3.
7.1.2.3 Currents
Currents are generally small (less than 0.3 m/s near the project location).
117
Figure 7.3. Wind climate of Taman’s area (Witteveen + Bos, 2012)
7.1.2.4 Waves
Table 7.5 presents a histogram with the significant wave height against the mean wave direction for the area
surrounding the project location.
Table 7.5. Significant wave against wave direction (Witteveen + Bos, 2012)
Significant wave height Mean wave direction

[m] [°]
Lower Upper -22.5 22.5 67.5 112.5 157.5 202.5 247.5 292.5
bound bound 22.5 67.5 112.5 157.5 202.5 247.5 292.5 337.5
0 0.5 8.81% 6.54% 7.21% 8.41% 9.51% 7.12% 2.58% 4.17%
0.5 1 2.16% 3.65% 5.65% 4.15% 7.71% 4.15% 1.92% 2.20%
1 1.5 0.66% 0.30% 0.63% 0.73% 4.38% 2.01% 0.54% 0.75%
1.5 2 - - 0.12% 0.07% 1.52% 0.66% 0.07% -
2 2.5 - - - - 0.63% 0.26% - -
2.5 3 - - - - 0.26% 0.12% - -
3 3.5 - - - - 0.16% - - -
3.5 4 - - - - 0.09% - - -
4 4.5 - - - - 0.07% - - -
4.5 5 - - - - 0.05% - - -
7.1.2.5 Tides
Due to the location of the project (Black Sea), the tidal variations are very small and can be neglected.
7.1.3 Access channel’s characteristics

7.1.3.1 Channel’s dimensions
The channel’s dimensions are estimated on the basis of the PIANC publication. Table 7.6 presents a summary
with the design of the access channel.
118
Table 7.6. Summary of access channel dimensions (Witteveen + Bos, 2012)
Bottom width Dredged bottom level

Channel section
[m] [m]
Outer channel 170 -21.3
Inner channel 244 -21.1
Figures 7.4 and 7.5 present a plan view and three sections of the access channel.
Figure 7.4. Plan view of the Taman’s access channel (Witteveen + Bos, 2012)
Figure 7.5. Cross sections of the Taman’s access channel (Witteveen + Bos, 2012)
The estimation of the channel width for the different sections depends on the definition of several parameters
(PIANC’s rules).
Manoeuvrability: moderate (for bulk carriers sailing through the access channel).
Vessel speed: moderate (8 – 12 kn).
Prevailing cross wind: moderate (>15 – 33 kn, Beaufort 4 – 7).
Prevailing cross current: moderate (0.5 – 1.5 kn).
Prevailing longitudinal current: moderate (1.5 – 3 kn).
Significant wave height and length: between 1 to 3 m, and wave length similar to the length of the ship.
119
Aids to navigation: good (navigation marks which are well visible by naked eye or radar).
Bottom surface: depth smaller than 1.5 ship’s draught, smooth or sloping and hard.
Depth of the waterway: smaller than 1.25 the ship’s draught.
Cargo hazard level: low (dry bulk).
Additional width (bank clearances): sloping channel edges and shoals.
7.1.3.2 Stopping length

The vessels are assumed to be assisted by tugs when they enter the port. Two alternatives are possible: the tugs
make fast when the vessel is within the protection of the breakwaters; or the tugs make fast outside of the port
entrance (only when the significant wave height does not exceed 1.5 m). For the case of Taman, the waves
exceed the threshold value about 5% of the time.
The design of the Taman Seaport indicates that a 5% of the time is high, and then the stopping length should be
within the protection of the breakwaters. Because the speed of the vessels will be relatively low, a stopping
length of 4 times the length of the design vessel has been considered. Then, the stopping length is 1,216 m (from
the entrance to the turning circle).
More details of the layout of the access channel are presented in Appendix C.
7.1.3.3 Turning basin

According to the design basis, the turning basin diameter is two times the length of the largest vessel. Then, the
diameter of the turning circle is 610 m.
7.2 Modelling of the Taman’s case

The simulation model is executed for two different scenarios: initial and final throughput. The simulation time
for each run is approximately 20 minutes, but it depends on the port configuration and the computer’s capacity.
For each scenario, five simulation runs were considered.
7.2.1 Initial throughput (year 2017)

The average and maximum waiting time (during the initial throughput) for vessels entering into the Taman
Seaport is presented in Table 7.7.
Table 7.7. Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – initial throughput
Average waiting time Maximum waiting time

Terminal
[min] [min]
Container terminal 1 36.9 ± 24.7 1,720
Container terminal 2 42.2 ± 21.2 665
Steel terminal 17.7 ± 6.0 780
Grain terminal 11.7 ± 2.4 260
Coal terminal 1 37.9 ± 7.3 1,284
Iron terminal 31.1 ± 7.6 605
Coal terminal 2 28.1 ± 17.4 698
Mineral fertilizer terminal 1 16.6 ± 4.1 422
Sulphur terminal 13.9 ± 2.6 355
The average service time and the normalized average time for each terminal are presented in Table 7.8.
120
Table 7.8. Average service time and normalized average waiting time – initial throughput
Average service time Normalized average waiting time

Terminal
[min] [%]
Container terminal 1 1,499 2.5
Steel terminal 559 3.2
Grain terminal 205 5.7
Coal terminal 1 315 12.0
Iron terminal 1,421 2.2
Mineral fertilizer terminal 1 703 2.4
Sulphur terminal 231 6.0
Figure 7.6 presents the distribution of the average waiting time, which is classified depending on the reason of
the delay (port unavailability, berth unavailability, congestion or weather conditions).
Figure 7.6. Average waiting time classification per terminal – initial throughput (units in minutes)
In any of these figures is possible to see that the delay is because of port unavailability. The reason is that the
channel operates 24 hours, there is no tidal window, the currents are negligible and the probability of downtime
of the port due to other reasons is very small (0.01%).
In some of the terminals, the berth unavailability appears to be the major cause of the delay (container
terminals 1 and 2, coal terminals 1 and 2). On some other terminals, when the berth availability is high, the
congestion becomes the main cause of delay. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the values of congestion
are contained in the range 9 to 16 minutes (with average of 13 minutes), which suggests that the waiting time
due to congestion do no depend strongly on the berth availability or the characteristics of the vessels, but it
does on the total number of ships per year that are actually using the access channel.
121
The typical accepted values for the normalized average waiting time are between 5 – 10% (for container
terminals), and 15 – 20% (for dry bulk and general cargo terminals). The results for the initial throughput show
that all the terminals have an acceptable waiting time, then, no modifications for this scenario are required.
7.2.2 Final throughput (year 2025)

The average and maximum waiting time (during the final throughput) for vessels entering into the Taman
Seaport is presented in Table 7.9.
Table 7.9. Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – final throughput
Terminal
[min] [min]
Steel terminal 24.6 ± 5.8 1,013
Grain terminal 17.4 ± 2.0 408
Coal terminal 1 47.8 ± 12.1 1,524
Iron terminal 159.4 ± 76.1 2,694
Coal terminal 2 66.0 ± 27.3 1,749
Sulphur terminal 20.4 ± 4.1 510
Mineral fertilizer terminal 2 43.8 ± 18.4 1,519
The average service time and the normalized average time divided by the average service time for each terminal
are presented in Table 7.10.
Table 7.10. Average service time and normalized average waiting time – final throughput

Terminal
[min] [%]
122
Figure 7.7. Average waiting time classification per terminal – final throughput (units in minutes)
Similarly to the scenario with the initial throughput, in any of these figures is possible to see that the delay is
because of port unavailability.
The terminals where it is possible to observe that the main cause of delay is due to berth unavailability are the
container terminals, the coal terminals, the iron terminal and the mineral fertilizer 2 terminal. On the rest of the
terminals, the berth availability stills high; hence, the traffic is the major cause of delay.
The congestion values are higher than during the initial throughput. For this scenario, the values of congestion
are container in the range 15 to 33 minutes (with average of 20 minutes). The increase of congestion is
explained because of the larger number of ships using the access channel during one year.
The typical accepted values for the normalized average waiting time are between 5 – 10% (for container
terminals), and 15 – 20% (for dry bulk and general cargo terminals). From Table 7.13 it is possible to observe that
the container terminal 1 has a related waiting time which is close to the maximum accepted value. Furthermore,
the coal terminal 1 has a waiting time that is almost within the accepted range. In view of these results, a deeper
analysis of the causes of delay on these two terminals is required.
For the rest of the terminals the normalized average waiting time present acceptable values.
7.2.3 Sensitivity analysis with a higher service rate

Within the scenario of the final throughput (year 2025), some terminals present high delays because of berth
unavailability. The berth unavailability depends on the utilisation of these terminals and the quay length. Some
assumptions of the service rate (especially for the container terminals) have been considered, and it is necessary
to verify how the sensitivity of the results with different service rate is.
Although the service rate, quay length and berth utilisation are definitions of the master plan of the port, the
relevance of this analysis is to verify if the other delay causes (especially because of traffic reasons) remains
constant, independently on the berth utilisation.
123
The service rate for this scenario is a 50% higher than the original assumption for Taman (see Table 7.3).
Figure 7.8 presents a comparison for the scenario with normal and high service rate, presenting the average
delay obtained for the different terminals (for berth and traffic reasons). The weather delay is not presented
because it does not depend on the berth or congestion conditions.
Figure 7.8. Comparison of delays between scenarios with different service rate, a) berth delay; b) traffic delay
From Figure 7.8 it is possible to observe that with a high service rate, the berth delay has diminished for all
terminals (from the situation with the normal service rate). Nevertheless, the traffic delay remains
approximately constant, independently on the faster service time induced by a high service rate. Then, it is
possible to conclude that the traffic delay is not directly affected by the utilisation of the berth. Then, for the
next steps in the Taman Seaport assessment (incorporation of optimisation measures), only the original service
rate will be considered.
7.3 Evaluation of average waiting time
7.3.1 Container terminal 1

The container terminal 1 normalized average waiting times increased from 2.5% (initial throughput) to 9.5%
(final throughput). Figure 7.9 presents the comparison between both scenarios for the different causes of delay.
According to this figure, the following observations are obtained:
The increase of the waiting time during the final throughput is mostly related with the berth
unavailability. During the initial throughput, the berth delay reaches a value of 21 minutes, but during
the final throughput it rises up to a value of 117 minutes (increment of about 450%).
The traffic delay also increases during the final throughput stage, but in a smaller rate than the berth
delay. The initial delay due to traffic conditions is close to 13 minutes, and it rises up to 23 minutes
(increment of 77%).
No major differences are found for the weather delay. The influence of this delay on the total waiting
time is small.
The increase of delay due to the berth unavailability is explained because of the increment of the number of
ships during the initial and final throughput stages. On the initial stage (year 2017), the expected number of
ships related to the container terminal 1 is 248, while during the final stage (year 2025) the expected number is
124
410 (increment of 65%). For more details on the number and type of ships during both scenarios, see Appendix
D.
Figure 7.9. Comparison of causes of delay for initial and final throughput – Container Terminal 1
Finally, the design of the access channel can have an effect on the average waiting time due to congestion.
Hence, some measures can be applied in order to reduce it. Nevertheless, the reduction of the waiting time via
the optimisation of the access channel will have an effect only on the traffic delay, not on the berth availability.
Then, the possibilities of reducing the total waiting time (without modifying the quay length or the service rate)
are limited to a reduction of the traffic delay. Then, the maximum reduction of the waiting time is 23 minutes,
obtaining an ideal average waiting time of 119 minutes and a normalized average waiting time of 7.9%.
If the normalized waiting time is needed to be reduced to a value smaller than 5%, then a modification of the
master plan is required. Nevertheless, that modification is out of the scope of this research.
7.3.2 Coal terminal 1

The coal terminal 1 normalized average waiting times increased from 12.0% (initial throughput) to 14.4% (final
throughput). Figure 7.10 presents the comparison between both scenarios for the different causes of delay.
According to this figure, the following observations are obtained:
The increase of the waiting time during the final throughput is due to an increase of both berth and
traffic delay.
During the initial throughput, the berth delay has a value of 20 minutes, but during the final throughput
it rises up to a value of 24 minutes (increment of about 20%).
During the final throughput, the traffic delay has a value of 15 minutes, and it rises up to 21 minutes
during the final throughput (increment of 40%).
No major differences are found for the pilot delay. The influence of this delay on the total waiting time
is small.
When comparing the number of ships during the initial and final throughput stages, it is possible to observe that
the number of ships remains constant (542 ships/year). Nevertheless, there is a difference between both
scenarios: during the initial stage the expected number of ships with 115 ktons of capacity is 14 ships/year.
Nevertheless, during the final stage this fleet is replaced by another, with an equal number of ships per year but
125
with a higher capacity (150 ktons). Then, the utilisation of the berth is higher, which is traduced into a higher
delay due to berth unavailability.
Figure 7.10. Comparison of causes of delay for initial and final throughput – Coal Terminal 1
The increase of the congestion is explained because of the larger number of ships per year that will use the
access channel. This number takes into account all fleets related with all the terminals of the port, not just the
coal terminal 1.
If a reduction of the waiting time via an optimisation of the access channel, the reduction will be effective on the
traffic delay. Then, for a total delay of 48 minutes, the maximum reduction of the waiting time is 27 minutes,
obtaining an ideal average waiting time of 27 minutes and a normalized average waiting time of 8.2%.
7.4 Conclusions
The available information of the Taman Seaport is sufficient to set up the simulation model and obtain results
regarding the waiting time and the performance of its access channel. Nevertheless, a better definition of the
service rate for the different terminals would be ideal. Independently on this, a change on the service rate will
modify the utilisation of the berths, having an effect on the waiting time but only due to berth reasons. Because
the scope of this work is to assess the access channel, a modification of these rates will not have a direct effect
on the congestion.
The results of the simulation for the Taman Seaport indicate that for the final stage of the port (year 2025), there
are two ports that have a waiting time close to the typically accepted values of delay: the container terminal 1
and the coal terminal 1. The reasons behind the observed delays and the opportunities to improve the
performance of these terminals are different:
For the container terminal 1, the large average waiting time (9.5% of the service time) is explained
because of the berth unavailability, which is an 83% of the total waiting time. The congestion
contributes to this delay, but only in a small part. Then, an optimisation of the access channel will have
a small effect on reducing this delay: a modification of the master plan (or an increment of the active
cranes per ship) will have a more significant result on reducing the delay.
For the coal terminal 1, the large average waiting time (14.4% of the service time) is explained because
of the sum of the berth unavailability and congestion on the access channel. Congestion reaches a value
126
of 43% of the total waiting time, then, an optimisation of the access channel will allow a significant
reduction of the waiting time for this terminal.
In order to improve the performance of the access channel of the Taman Seaport, two types of measures are
available (traffic measures and enlargement of the nautical infrastructure measures). Because of its reduced
capital and maintenance costs, the traffic measures are recommended in a first stage. If the effect of these
measures is not sufficient, the possibilities of enlarging the access channel (increase of its width or
implementation of a passing section) should be evaluated, in terms of the reduction of the delay and the related
costs.
127
8 TAMAN SEAPORT CASE – DESIGN OPTIMISATION

The assessment of the current design of the Taman Seaport indicated that there are two terminals (Container
Terminal 1 and Coal Terminal 1) which have relatively large normalized waiting times, during the final
throughput stage (year 2025). In order to improve the performance of the access channel and reduce the
waiting time due to congestion, various measures are applied to the current design.
In a first stage, the application of optimised traffic rules is implemented (allowance of ‘mixed’ operability of the
channel, allowance of multiple entrances to the channel). In a second stage, an evaluation of the effect of
enlarging the nautical infrastructure (width enlargement, implementation of passing section) is realized,
comparing the results with the capital and maintenance costs of the extra volume to be dredged.
For all scenarios, the effect of the application of these measures will be assessed in terms of the reduction of the
congestion of all terminals, especially for those that present a large delay (Container Terminal 1 and Coal
Terminal 1).
This chapter is divided in the following sections: application of the traffic rules measures and application of the
enlargement of the nautical infrastructure measures.
8.1 Traffic rules measures
8.1.1 Allowance of ‘mixed’ operability

The current design of the Taman’s access channel indicates that it operates as a one – way channel. According to
it, encounters within the channel are not allowed and congestion increases. If a ‘mixed’ operation of the channel
is allowed without modifying the nautical infrastructure, a number of encounters will be possible. An encounter
will be possible only if the dimensions (beams) of the encountering vessels are sufficiently small.
Table 8.1 presents a summary with the allowed and non-allowed encounters, depending on the vessel type.
Considering the dimensions of each type of vessels and the number of vessels per fleet per terminal (details in
Appendix D), with a ‘mixed’ operability of the access channel the percentage of allowed encounters is
approximately an 87%. This large percentage is explained because from the total ships expected in one year,
about a 40% of it corresponds to small vessels (beam smaller than 20 m), while the large carriers (beam larger
than 40 m) is only about a 10%.
With a ‘mixed’ operability, the percentage of allowed encounters for the Container Terminal 1 and the Coal
Termina1 are 88% and 90%, respectively. While for the Container Terminal the large vessels are only a 18% of
the total, for the Coal Terminal 1 the large carriers only a 6% of the total.
Considering this numbers, it seems to be an interesting opportunity the implementation of this rule.
The average and maximum waiting time (applying a ‘mixed’ operability of the access channel) for the vessels
entering into the Taman Seaport is presented in Table 8.2.
128
Table 8.1. Summary with allowed and non-allowed encounters for a mixed operation of the access channel
CH-80, 60, 52, 48;

CKH-5000, 2500
CKH-750, go500
CH-25, 23, 20
CH-5.4, 5, 4.5
CH-120, 100
CKH-6500
CH-200
CH-150
CH-8, 7
CH-3.5
CH-4.2
CH-70
CH-30
CH-12
CH-15
CH-3
CH-2
Vessel
CH-200 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
CH-150 N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y
CH-120, 100 N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CKH-6500 N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-70 N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-80, 60, 52, 48;
N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CKH-5000, 2500
CH-30 N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-12 N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-25, 23, 20 N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-15 N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CKH-750, go500 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-8, 7 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-5.4, 5, 4.5 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-3.5 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-4.2 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-3 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Table 8.2. Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – mixed operability of the
channel
Original waiting time

Terminal (no measures)
[min] [min]
[min]
Container terminal 1 141.9 ± 84.4 117.1 ± 44.1 5,221
Steel terminal 24.6 ± 5.8 14.0 ± 9.3 1,064
Grain terminal 17.4 ± 2.0 6.4 ± 0.9 365
Coal terminal 1 47.8 ± 12.1 28.6 ± 7.3 2,378
Iron terminal 159.4 ± 76.1 111.1 ± 36.3 3,484
Coal terminal 2 66.0 ± 27.3 51.9 ± 8.8 1,526
Mineral fertilizer terminal 1 23.1 ± 3.4 12.7 ± 9.6 754
Sulphur terminal 20.4 ± 4.1 9.3 ± 2.3 540
Mineral fertilizer terminal 2 43.8 ± 18.4 25.8 ± 7.8 1,186
For most of the terminals, a reduction of the traffic delay is observed, with average values smaller than 10
minutes. An exception of this is the Iron Terminal, which still has a traffic delay of about 22 minutes. This is
because of all its ships are large carriers, with beams larger than 40 m. Hence, for all of these ships the
encounter allowance with the rest of the ships is not allowed.
129
Table 8.3. Average service time and normalized average waiting time – mixed operability of the channel

Terminal
[min] [%]
Figure 8.1. Average waiting time classification per terminal – mixed operability of the channel (units in minutes)
When the results of the Container Terminal 1 are observed, it is possible to see that the traffic delay has reduced
from 23 to 5 minutes, while the berth and pilot delays remain practically constant (117 to 110 minutes for the
berth delay; 2 to 3 minutes for the pilot delay). Then, the application of this traffic measure returns a reduction
of the congestion close to an 80%.
When the results for the Coal Terminal 1 are observed, it is possible to see that the traffic delay has reduced
berth delay; constant value of 3 minutes for the pilot delay). Then, the application of this traffic measure returns
a reduction of the congestion close to an 85%.
The reductions of the average waiting time were from 9.5% to 7.1% (Container Terminal 1) and from 14.4% to
8.4% (Coal Terminal 1). Then, for the Coal Terminal 1 the application of this measure returns a reduction of this
indicator to a value that is below the typically accepted values. On the other hand, the reduced waiting time of
130
the Container Terminal 1 is still in the range where it could or could not be tolerated. Then, an assessment of the
operation with the application of the multiple entrances traffic rule is recommended.
8.1.2 Allowance of multiple entrances

The current design of the Taman’s access channel indicates that it has a single entrance, located at the outer
edge of it. If multiple entrances are permitted, smaller ships will not be forced to sail the entire channel. Instead
of it, these vessels will only navigate a small part of it, then, the projection of possible encounters (which are not
permitted for a one – way channel) is reduced and congestion can decrease.
To define the possible intermediate entrances for the access channel, it is necessary to verify the bathymetry of
the natural area surrounding the channel and compare it with the vessels’ characteristics. A new entrance must
be located in an area that the bathymetry outside of the channel will be deep enough to allow a safe ship’s
navigation.
Figure 8.2 presents a longitudinal section of the access channel, indicating the proposed entrance points.
Entrance 2
Entrance 3
Entrance 1
Figure 8.2. Longitudinal section of the access channel and proposed entrance points
The position of the multiple entrances and its maximum admitted draught are indicated in Table 8.4.
Table 8.4. Multiple entrances position and maximum admitted draught
Position Maximum admitted draught

Entrance
[km] [m]
1 0 18
2 9.5 12
3 11.5 8
Table 8.5 presents a summary with the entrance point for each vessel type, which depends on its draught.
Table 8.5. Entrance per vessel type
Vessel type Entrance Vessel type Entrance Vessel type Entrance

CH-200 1 CH-52 2 CH-7 3
CH-150 1 CH-48 2 CH-5.4 3
CH-120 1 CH-30 2 CH-5 3
CH-100 1 CH-25 2 CH-4.5 3
CH-80 1 CH-20 2 CH-4.2 3
CKH-6500 1 CH-15 2 CH-3.5 3
CKH-5000 1 CKH-750 3 CH-3 3
CH-70 1 CKH-go500 3 CH-2 3
CH-60 1 CH-12 3 - -
CKH-2500 2 CH-8 3 - -
131
According to the multiple entrance defined for each vessel type and the total number of it (details in Appendix
D), the projected utilisation of each entrance will be a 22% of the ships using the entrance 1; a 32% of the ships
using the entrance 2; and a 46% of the ships using the entrance 3. The large percentage of ships entering to the
port via the entrance 3 (closest to the port) is explained because of the large percentage of vessels with small
draughts that will enter into the Taman Seaport. Considering that there is an important part of the fleet that will
enter via the intermediate entrances, it seems to be an interesting opportunity to implement this rule.
The average and maximum waiting time (applying multiple entrances to the access channel) for the vessels
Table 8.6. Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – multiple entrances to the
channel

[min] [min]
[min]
Steel terminal 24.6 ± 5.8 21.5 ± 15.3 1,466
Grain terminal 17.4 ± 2.0 4.3 ± 1.0 308
Coal terminal 1 47.8 ± 12.1 33.6 ± 10.3 1,532
Iron terminal 159.4 ± 76.1 196.0 ± 112.2 2,821
Coal terminal 2 66.0 ± 27.3 39.5 ± 5.5 1,276
Table 8.7. Average service time and normalized average waiting time – multiple entrances to the channel

Terminal
[min] [%]
For most of the terminals, a reduction of the traffic delay is observed, with average values smaller than 8
minutes. An exception of this is the Iron Terminal, which still has a traffic delay of about 19 minutes. This is
132
because of all its ships are large carriers, with beams larger than 12 m. For all of these ships the entrance point
will be the outer edge of the access channel; hence, these vessels have to sail the entire channel.
Figure 8.3. Average waiting time classification per terminal – multiple entrances to the channel (units in minutes)
The reductions of the average waiting time were from 9.5% to 7.3% (Container Terminal 1) and from 14.4% to
10.4% (Coal Terminal 1). Then, the implementation of multiple entrance points to the access channel returns
reductions of the average delay that are similar to the obtained with the implementation of a mixed operability.
Container Terminal 1 stills with an average waiting time that is within the range where it could or could not be
tolerated. On the other hand, for the Coal Terminal 1, the reduction of the waiting time is sufficient to obtain an
accepted value.
Because both measures (mixed operability and multiple entrances) were implemented separately, an
assessment of the effect of implementing both measures simultaneously is developed.
8.1.3 Simultaneous allowance of ‘mixed’ operability and multiple

entrances
Tables 8.1, 8.4 and 8.5 present information about the allowed encounters with a mixed operability of the
channel, the position and maximum draught of each entrance, and the entrances per vessel type.
133
The average and maximum waiting time (applying a ‘mixed’ operability of the access channel) for the vessels
Table 8.8. Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – mixed operability and
multiple entrances to the access channel

[min] [min]
[min]
Container terminal 2 120.3 ± 75.1 34.6 ± 33.2 848
Steel terminal 24.6 ± 5.8 9.4 ± 4.2 978
Grain terminal 17.4 ± 2.0 5.3 ± 1.5 425
Coal terminal 1 47.8 ± 12.1 29.0 ± 9.9 1,754
Iron terminal 159.4 ± 76.1 82.4 ± 31.6 2,518
Coal terminal 2 66.0 ± 27.3 46.0 ± 10.7 1,777
Table 8.9. Average service time and normalized average waiting time – mixed operability and multiple entrances
to the channel

Terminal
[min] [%]
For all the terminals, the average traffic delay has been reduced to a value lower than 10 minutes. The Iron
Terminal (which had the largest traffic delay due to the large dimensions of its related carriers) has reduced its
traffic delay to 8 minutes. Then, the simultaneous application of a mixed operation of the access channel and a
multiple entrances allowance have a positive impact on reducing the congestion to average values lower than 10
minutes.
from 23 to 4 minutes, which is a similar value than those observed with the separate application of a mixed
operation and multiple entrances to the channel. Then, there are no extra differences with the utilisation of both
134
measures. Nevertheless, there are no negative effects (increase of congestion) and the application of these
measures has no costs.
a reduction of the congestion close to a 95%. Then, the application of both measures has a positive impact on
reducing the congestion of the Coal Terminal 1, to a value that indicates that congestion practically does not
exists for this terminal.
Figure 8.4. Average waiting time classification per terminal – mixed operability and multiple entrances to the
channel (units in minutes)
8.1.4 Reduction of congestion – implementation of traffic measures

The proposed modification to the traffic rules (mixed operation and multiple entrances) are attempted to have a
reduction of the congestion (traffic delay), not on reducing the delay due to other causes (berth and port
availability or weather conditions). Then, the comparison of the effects of the different measures with an
original situation (final throughput, one – way channel with single entrance) are presented only in terms of the
average and maximum traffic delay.
The average traffic delay considering all vessels for the different situations is presented in Table 8.10.
Table 8.10. Average traffic delay considering different traffic measures
Average traffic delay
Traffic measure
[min]
No traffic measure 18.4
Mixed operation 4.6
Multiple entrances 4.6
Mixed operation +
2.2
multiple entrances
135
The implementation each traffic measure separately returns a reduction of the average traffic delay of 75%. If
both measures are implemented simultaneously, the reduction of the average traffic delay grows up to 88%.
Figures 8.5 and 8.6 presents the average and maximum traffic delay for the different situations, respectively.
Figure 8.5. Comparison of average traffic delay for different traffic measures
Figure 8.6. Comparison of maximum traffic delay for different traffic measures
From these figures, it is possible to observe the following behaviour of the traffic delay:
The application of any traffic measure (mixed operation or multiple entrances) has a positive effect on
reducing the traffic delay (average and maximum) on all terminals. A (partial) exception is the Iron
Terminal, where a reduction of the congestion is observed but it is lower than for the rest of the
terminals. The good effect of both measures separately is explained because of the diversity of vessel
type for the different terminals (excepting the Iron Terminal): there are large differences on dimensions
from the large carriers to the small river – sea vessels. The mixed operation success depends on a large
number of vessels with small beams, while the multiple entrances success depends on a large number
of vessels with small draughts: both characteristics are found on the Taman’s projected fleet.
136
The simultaneous application of both traffic measures has a larger reduction of the congestion than the
application of each measure separately. Nevertheless, the effective reduction from a situation with any
of the traffic measures is small. This is because the congestion has been reduced to small values for
almost terminals (excepting the Iron Terminal): the available range of reducing the congestion becomes
very small.
The final values of average congestion are different for each terminal. Those terminals with a large
percentage of small vessels have a lower congestion than those terminals with a high percentage of
large vessels.
The same effect is observed for the values of maximum traffic delay (higher for fleets with large vessels,
smaller for fleets with small vessels). In general, the maximum waiting times are below three hours for
all terminals. For the dry bulk and general cargo, this situation might be not very complicated (because
of the higher allowance of waiting related to this type of cargo). Nevertheless, the Container Terminal 1
presents a maximum traffic delay of 140 minutes: a verification of the typically maximum waiting time
accepted by the Port Authority of Taman is recommended.
The application of extra measures (modification of the nautical infrastructure) appears to be difficult
because of the small values of traffic delay obtained with a mixed operation and multiple entrances.
Nevertheless, the effects of an increase of the width and an implementation of a passing section are
presented in the next section.
8.2 Nautical infrastructure enlargement
8.2.1 Width enlargement

The effect of a width enlargement is studied in this section. The original width of the outer channel is 170 m,
which allows an 87% of the possible encounters with a mixed operation. Table 8.11 presents the percentage of
allowed encounters for all terminals, the Container Terminal 1 and the Coal Terminal 1.
Table 8.11. Effect of width enlargement on encounter allowance
Total encounter Encounter allowance – Encounter allowance –

Bottom width
allowance Container Terminal 1 Coal Terminal 1
[m]
[%] [%] [%]
170 86.8 88.0 90.0
180 90.4 92.8 94.2
190 94.3 98.1 96.6
200 98.1 98.5 99.0
210 99.0 99.3 99.4
220 99.7 99.8 99.9
230 99.9 100.0 100.0
240 100.0 100.0 100.0
Because the terminal with a normalized waiting time closer to the typically accepted values is the Container
Terminal 1, the enlargement of the bottom width to a value of 190 m (increase of 20 m) increases the allowed
encounters up to 98%. For this modification, the mixed operation of the channel and the multiple entrances
measures are active. Table 8.12 presents a summary with the allowed and non-allowed encounters for the new
bottom width of the outer channel, which is dependent on the vessel type.
137
Table 8.12. Summary with allowed and non-allowed encounters for a mixed operation of the access channel
CH-80, 60, 52, 48;

CKH-5000, 2500
CKH-750, go500
CH-25, 23, 20
CH-5.4, 5, 4.5
CH-120, 100
CKH-6500
CH-200
CH-150
CH-8, 7
CH-3.5
CH-4.2
CH-70
CH-30
CH-12
CH-15
CH-3
CH-2
Vessel
CH-200 N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-150 N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-120, 100 N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CKH-6500 N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-70 N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-80, 60, 52, 48;
N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CKH-5000, 2500
CH-25, 23, 20 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-15 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CKH-750, go500 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-8, 7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-5.4, 5, 4.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-3.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CH-4.2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Table 8.13. Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – width of the outer channel
increased to 190 m

[min] [min]
[min]
Steel terminal 24.6 ± 5.8 9.3 ± 5.6 1,004
Grain terminal 17.4 ± 2.0 3.8 ± 1.2 524
Coal terminal 1 47.8 ± 12.1 29.0 ± 15.9 1,530
Iron terminal 159.4 ± 76.1 108.1 ± 56.6 2,668
Coal terminal 2 66.0 ± 27.3 44.7 ± 14.2 2,351
138
Table 8.14. Average service time and normalized average waiting time – width of the outer channel increased to
190 m

Terminal
[min] [%]
Figure 8.7. Average waiting time classification per terminal – width of the outer channel increased to 190 m
(units in minutes)
Clearly, for all terminals the berth delay has become the main cause of delay (with the exception of the Grain
Terminal and Sulphur Terminal: the first one does not present delay because of berth unavailability while the
second has a small average delay due to berth of 1.8 minutes).
The traffic delay is in the range 0 to 11 minutes. The highest congestion is observed for the Iron Terminal’s
vessels. The reason is that the bottom width enlargement to 190 m does not allow the interaction between all
the vessels of the Iron Terminal’s fleet, although many encounters with other smaller vessels from other
terminals are now permitted.
a 50% from the original bottom width (4 minutes to 2 minutes). The rest of the causes of delay (port, berth and
pilot) remain approximately constant.
139
When the results of the Coal Terminal 1 are observed, it is possible to see that the traffic delay remains constant,
with a value of 1 minute. The other causes of delay maintain approximately constant too.
The increase of the bottom width presents an improvement of the congestion conditions on the access channel.
Nevertheless, this progress is smaller than the observed for the implementation of the traffic measures.
Additionally, there are capital and maintenance costs related with the dredging of a larger access channel;
hence, a financial analysis is necessary in order to confirm or discard the effectiveness of this measure.
8.2.2 Implementation of passing section

If the bottom width of the access channel is maintained in 170 m, another measure is to implement a passing
section on the middle part of the access channel. Then, on this passing section, the access channel will have a
sufficient width to operate as a two – way channel for all vessels. Considering the vessel with the largest beam
on Taman’s fleet (48 m), the access channel at the passing section should have a bottom width of 240 m.
Table 8.15 presents a summary with the dimensions and location of the passing section.
Table 8.15. Taman’s passing section features
Feature Value Unit

Bottom width 240 m
Length 3,000 m
Beginning position 4.9 km
End position 7.9 km
Table 8.16. Average and maximum waiting time for incoming vessels per terminal – with passing section
[min] [min]
[min]
Steel terminal 24.6 ± 5.8 9.0 ± 5.6 711
Grain terminal 17.4 ± 2.0 4.5 ± 1.4 460
Coal terminal 1 47.8 ± 12.1 39.0 ± 22.5 1,837
Iron terminal 159.4 ± 76.1 636 ± 27.1 1,846
Coal terminal 2 66.0 ± 27.3 45.4 ± 17.8 1,679
140
Table 8.17. Average service time and normalized average waiting time – with passing section

Terminal
[min] [%]
Figure 8.8. Average waiting time classification per terminal – with passing section (units in minutes)
Like for the bottom width enlargement, the presence of a passing section generates that for most of the
terminals the berth delay is the main cause of delay, excepting the Grain, Mineral Fertilizer 1 and Sulphur
terminals.
The traffic delay is in the range 1 to 4 minutes. The highest congestion is observed for the Iron Terminal’s
vessels, but the average delay is closer to the delay observed on the rest of the terminals. The passing section
acts as a two – way channel on a limited part of the access channel, allowing the encounters of all vessels
(including large carriers that composite the fleet of the Iron Terminal).
a 75% from the original bottom width (4 minutes to 1 minutes). The rest of the causes of delay (port, berth and
pilot) remain approximately constant.
When the results of the Coal Terminal 1 are observed, it is possible to see that the traffic delay remains constant,
with a value of 1 minute. The other causes of delay maintain approximately constant too.
141
The implementation of a passing section presents an improvement of the congestion conditions on the access
channel. Nevertheless, this progress is smaller than the observed for the implementation of the traffic measures.
Additionally, there are capital and maintenance costs related with the dredging of a larger access channel;
hence, a financial analysis is necessary in order to confirm or discard the effectiveness of this measure.
8.2.3 Effect of enlargement of the access channel on reducing

congestion
The proposed modification of the dimensions of the access channel (enlargement of the bottom width of the
outer channel and implementation of a passing section) are attempted to have a reduction of the congestion
(traffic delay), not on reducing the delay due to other causes (berth and port availability or weather conditions).
Then, the comparison of the effects of the different measures with an original situation (final throughput, one –
way channel with single entrance) are presented only in terms of the average and maximum traffic delay.
The average traffic delay considering all vessels for the different situations is presented in Table 8.18.
Table 8.18. Average traffic delay considering different traffic measures
Average traffic delay

Channel modification
[min]
No channel modification 2.2
Bottom width enlargement
1.8
(190 m)
Implementation of passing section 1.1
The enlargement of the bottom width of the outer channel generates a reduction of the congestion of 19%. The
implementation of a passing section returns a reduction of the congestion of 50%.
Figures 8.9 and 8.10 presents the average and maximum traffic delay for the different situations, respectively.
Figure 8.9. Comparison of average traffic delay for different modifications of the access channel
142
Figure 8.10. Comparison of maximum traffic delay for different modifications of the access channel
From these figures, it is possible to observe the following behaviour of the traffic delay:
The modification of the access channel via an enlargement of the bottom width has a positive effect on
reducing the average traffic delay on almost all terminals, excepting the Iron Terminal. The same
behaviour is observed with the maximum traffic delay. For this terminal, the enlargement of the bottom
width has no effect on its related vessels, because the dimensions (beams) of it do not allow encounters
with the new configuration of the access channel.
The implementation of a passing section has a positive effect on reducing the average and maximum
traffic delay on all terminals. The positive effect on all terminals is explained because the passing
section allows encounters for all vessels, including the large carriers related to the Iron Terminal.
While the enlargement of the bottom width of the channel has a low reduction of the congestion (19%),
the passing section increases the reduction up to 50%. Nevertheless, the absolute values of reducing
the congestion are small (in the order of minutes). The highest observed reduction (passing section)
generates a reduction of the average traffic delay of only 1 minute.
Considering this, the modification of the access channel seems to have a small financial benefit because of the
reduction of the waiting time. Nevertheless, in order to confirm or discard the financial feasibility of any of these
measures, an estimation of the capital and maintenance costs is required. This analysis is provided in the next
section.
8.2.4 Financial analysis

8.2.4.1 Extra dredging volume
Each alternative has an extra volume that needs to be dredged. This implies an increase of the capital and
maintenance costs related to the access channel.
Width enlargement
The enlargement of the access channel (20 m) is projected to be executed all along the outer access channel.
Then, the extra volume to be dredged depends on the original depth of the sea and the projected depth of the
access channel. The original depth varies with distance: it starts from -21.1 m (outer edge of the channel) and
reduces down to -10 m (details in Appendix C).
143
The average depth to be dredged in the access channel is approximately 4.1 m. Then, the extra volume to be
3
dredged is approximately 1,050,000 m .
Passing section
The implementation of the passing section (bottom width enlargement to 240 m) is projected to be executed on
3 kilometres on a middle position of the outer channel. Similarly to the width enlargement, the extra volume to
be dredged depends on the original depth of the sea and the projected depth of the access channel. On the
passing section (kilometres 4.9 to 7.9), the original depth varies from -18.2 m to -15.7 m.
The average depth to be dredged in the access channel is approximately 4 m. Then, the extra volume related to
3
the passing section is 840,000 m . Nevertheless, the passing section is an increase of the bottom width: two
transitions are required to connect the original bottom width of the access channel. Puertos del Estado (2000)
recommends an horizontal slope of 1:20 for this type of transitions.
The total length of each transition is 700 metres (increases of 35 metres on each side of the channel with an
angle of 1:20). The average depth to be dredged on the outer and inner transitions is approximately 3.3 m and
3
5.8 m, respectively. The volumes of the outer and inner transitions are approximately 160,000 m and 280,000
3
m , respectively.
3
Then, the total volume related to a passing section is approximately 1,280,000 m .
8.2.4.2 Capital and maintenance costs

The capital costs are related to the initial dredging of the channel, from the natural bottom of the sea to the
projected depth of the access channel. On the other hand, the maintenance costs are related to the removal of
accreted material due to the modification of the sediment transport due to the modification of the bathymetry
conditions.
Van der Schriek (2012) indicates that the cost per cubic metre is approximately 4.5 € (considering the utilisation
of a hopper dredge). This cost does not consider the mobilisation and de-mobilisation costs related to a dredging
work. The capital costs of modifying the access channel are related to an extra volume to be dredged: a capital
dredging work will be executed independently from the application of these types of measures, and it will
absorb the mobilisation and de-mobilisation costs.
The maintenance works are assumed to be executed with a period of 5 years, removing a layer on the bottom of
the channel of 0.5 metre. Similarly to the capital costs, the mobilisation and de-mobilisation costs are not
considered.
Finally, for the financial analysis it is considered a discount rate of 10%, while the lifetime of the project is
assumed to be 20 years.
Table 8.19 presents the capital, maintenance and present costs for each alternative.
Table 8.19. Costs per alternative
Cost
Item [€]
Bottom width enlargement Passing section
Capital 4,725,000 5,760,000
Maintenance (5, 10 and 15 years) 576,000 693,000
Total present costs 5,442,613 6,623,379
144
8.2.4.3 Benefit
The financial benefit of implementing any of these measures is a reduction of the congestion (average waiting
time due to traffic conditions). Nevertheless, the conversion of this reduction of the average waiting time into a
financial benefit is always complicated and depends on parameters that are characteristics of each port.
Additionally, this type of information is typically confidential.
Because the specific information of the benefit due to reducing the waiting time is not available, an estimation
of the minimum benefit that should be obtained per ship per hour is defined.
The reduction of the average traffic delay for the width enlargement and the passing section are 0.4 and 1.1
minutes per ship, respectively. The expected number of ships per year varies from an initial throughput (year
2017; 2,689 ships/year) to a final throughput (year 2025; 3,503 ships/year). It is assumed that the variation is
linear, while after the year 2025 the number of ships will remain constant. This information leads to a definition
of a total number of waited hours per year due to congestion.
Finally, for the financial analysis it is considered a discount rate of 10%, while the lifetime of the project is
assumed to be 20 years.
Table 8.20 presents the estimation of the total number of waited hours due to congestion per year, per
alternative.
Table 8.20. Yearly gained congestion hours per alternative
Waited hours due to congestion

Year [hr]
Bottom width enlargement Passing section
2017 17.9 49.3
2018 18.6 51.2
2019 19.3 53.0
2020 20.0 54.9
2021 20.6 56.8
2022 21.3 58.6
2023 22.0 60.5
2024 22.7 62.4
2025 – 2037 23.4 64.2
Considering the total hours earned, the minimum benefit to achieve a financial feasibility for the bottom width
enlargement and the passing section alternatives are 30,112 €/hr and 13,325 €/hr, respectively.
8.3 Conclusions
The implementation of the two available traffic measures (mixed operation and multiple entrances to the
channel) has an important effect on reducing the congestion. The reduction of the congestion is about an 88%
(16.2 minutes) of the original delay due to traffic conditions, and it is explained because of the characteristics of
the Taman’s fleet. The large percentage of small vessels that can encounter within the current dimensions of the
access channel and can enter into it in a intermediate position is large.
Additionally, the implementation of these traffic measures has no impact on the finances of the Taman project.
The mixed operation requires a good system of traffic control (VTS), as well as good information on the
dimensions of the vessels entering and leaving the port. The multiple entrances require the implementation of
buoys to indicate the position of an intermediate entrance, and a proper definition of the bathymetry conditions
145
outside of the channel (survey). All of these actions have costs that are considerably small, and it can be included
on the final cost of the Taman project.
The modification of the access channel (width enlargement or implementation of a passing section) has a small
impact (0.4 to 1.1 minutes) on reducing the absolute waiting time due to traffic conditions. Then, the
implementation of any of these measures depends on the financial feasibility of it. For the width enlargement, it
is required a minimum benefit of about 30,000 €/hr while for the passing section the minimum benefit drops to
about 13,300 €/hr. Then, if the benefits on reducing the waiting times are beyond 13,300 €/hr, it is
recommended to implement a passing section.
As an opportunity to reduce the required benefit of reducing the congestion is to execute the dredging of the
passing section after the beginning of the port operation (for example, close to the year 2017). In this way, it
would be possible to delay the capital cost, and then reduce the present cost.
The benefit of reducing the waiting time is a complex problem. On this current approach, it has been considered
the effect of reducing the waiting time for all vessels. Nevertheless, during the final throughput stage it has been
detected that only some of the terminals have relatively large waiting times. Then, the absorption of the extra
costs due to an enlargement of the nautical infrastructure should be related only to these terminals (Container
Terminal 1 and Coal Terminal 1).
Additionally, when the delay due to berth unavailability is observed for different ships of a terminal (like the
Container Terminal 1), it is possible to observe that the largest ships has a larger delay due to berth compared
with smaller ships. Obviously, the required quay length is larger for the largest ships, but the algorithm of the
simulation model is currently not assigning a priority for larger vessels, hence, when a quay length is freed, if a
larger vessel does not fit on it, it will be assigned to a smaller ship.
The large waiting time for the Container Terminal is not because of congestion, but because of berth
unavailability. There are different measures that could be taken in order to reduce the delay due to berth
conditions (incorporate extra cranes to accelerate the service time, combine the operation of Container
Terminals 1 and 2, extend the quay length, etc.). Nevertheless, this problem is related to the design of the
master plan of Taman, but no with its access channel. Because this research is related with assessing the
operation of the access channel, this problem is out of the scope of study.
146
9 FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Research Objectives
The primary objective related to this research was the development of a simulation model that can serve as a
tool for the design and assessment of access channels. The assessment of this nautical infrastructure is realized
in terms of the average and maximum waiting times, and its comparison with typical tolerated values.
Several research questions were established, based on these objectives. The answer to each one is presented
below.
9.1.1 Main question

The main research question was “what are the features of a generic tool that allows the assessment of an access
channel’s width, and how it is application for the specific case of the Taman Seaport?”.
The generic tool that allows the assessment of an access channel’s width is a fast-time simulation model. It
includes all processes related to the movement of ships sailing through the access channel. The main processes
simulated are the ship’s arrival, entrance to the channel, navigation towards the port / sea and exit the channel.
Particularly, the authorisation to enter the channel given to a particular ship is relevant. It depends on several
conditions: the access channel has to be opened, there is sufficient quay length to accommodate the ship (only
for ships sailing towards the berth), the traffic conditions are suitable to allow safe navigation, and the weather
conditions allow the safe passage of the ship through the access channel.
The focus of the simulation model is to achieve a detailed modelling of the movement of the ships within the
access channel, and the authorisations related with the previous criteria (channel, berth, traffic, weather).
Several criteria (or traffic rules) must be considered to simulate the ships movement (like number of active lanes
or minimum safe distance between ships in a convoy). Several interactions of ships must be modelled:
encountering, overtaking and convoy sailing.
The generic simulation model has sufficient capabilities to model any specific port of small and intermediate
size. Then, several input parameters are considered for this model, and are classified into different categories:
general port characteristics (number of terminals, fleet composition, weather probabilistic parameters, etc.),
tidal and current characteristics, layout of the channel and inner basins, characteristics of the vessels using the
port, ships and/or terminals with priority, and the traffic rules for the access channel.
The output of this model gives information of the delay. Then, the simulated delay for a singular ship is classified
based on its cause. Four main sources of delay were identified: port / channel closed, berth unavailable,
congestion or storm conditions. The simulation model returns this information for all ships, arriving and
departing. The detail of information is higher than the currently available simulation models.
Finally, the simulation model allows the assessment of the design or operation of an access channel.
Nevertheless, if the assessment indicates that the operation is not correct, and congestion is creating excessive
delays to the ships, several functionalities are available on the simulation tool. These functions are classified as
traffic modifications (mixed operation of the channel, multiple entrances and speed reduction within the
channel) and design modifications (implementation of a passing section or incorporation of an intermediate
anchorage). The application of any of these functions can lead to a new assessment: the simulation model allows
evaluating the effect of applying that particular measure.
147
9.1.2 Additional questions

Several additional questions were formulated.
What are the input parameters that influence the waiting time for arriving vessels?
The delay of arriving ships depends on the port status, the berth availability, the congestion on the access
channel and the weather conditions.
Because an emphasis is paid to evaluating the performance of the access channel of a port, several parameters
have influence on the generation of congestion. The parameters are: the total number of ships and its
characteristics (dimensions and speed), the channel type (one, two or mixed operation), the channel length, the
channel’s capacity (number of ships per hour) and the channel’s availability.
What are the characteristics of a simulation model that will allow designers to assess and optimise the design of
an access channel?
The simulation model is a fast-time simulation tool, with possibilities to adapt it to different types of ports,
incorporating several characteristics like the fleet composition, differentiated service time for different type of
cargo, different layouts of the access channel, possibility to incorporate tidal / current windows or daylight
navigation, etc. The output of the simulation model must give detailed information on the average and
maximum waiting time, classifying the delay according to its source (port, berth, traffic, weather).
Under the current design conditions, how are the projected conditions of delay of the Taman’s access channel,
considering its initial and final throughput?
The output of the simulation model with the data of the Taman Seaport indicates that during the initial
throughput stage, all terminals have an acceptable waiting time and no modifications are required during this
stage. Nevertheless, for the final throughput stage (year 2025), some terminals (container terminal 1 and coal
terminal 1) present waiting times that are close to the maximum allowed values. For the container terminal 1
the main cause of the delay is due to berth unavailability, then, a modification or review of the master plan is
required (service rate or quay length); for the coal terminal 1 the causes of delay are berth unavailability and
congestion. A sensitivity analysis of the service rate indicates that the congestion is not directly influenced by the
berth unavailability.
Which are the best measures (considering both technical and financial aspects) that can be considered in order to
reduce the delay of ships using the access channel of the Taman Seaport?
The best measures to reduce the delay of ships using the access channel are the modifications of the current
traffic rules. The current design indicates a single entrance to the access channel and a one-way operation. If a
scheme with a mixed operation of the channel and multiple entrances is applied, the average congestion is
reduced from 18 minutes to 2 minutes. These measures practically have no capital or maintenance costs. If
additional reduction of the congestion are requested, the enlargement of the bottom width of the channel and
the implementation of a passing section have critical benefits of 30,000 €/hr and 13,300 €/hr, (per gained hour
without congestion) respectively. If the Taman’s benefit on reducing congestion is higher than these costs, then
these measures are recommended. Otherwise, these measures are financially unfeasible.
9.2 Improvements Opportunities of the Simulation Model

The simulation model was developed according to the established objectives, which are mainly the modelling of
the main processes of the ships using an access channel; and the acquisition of results with sufficient
information in order to identify where the bottle necks of a port are.
148
An important aspect in the development of any simulation model is its validation with real data. Unfortunately,
the validation of a model of these characteristics is difficult because the required information needed to perform
it is simply not available. During a future stage of research, the validation of the new simulation model is
recommended.
The assumptions and capabilities of the simulation model allow its application for many ports of small and
intermediate size. Nevertheless, during the testing and data analysis stages, some increasingly problems with
the number of ships were detected. Depending on the type of channel, the simulation model’s performance can
become very slow: limits of 6,000 ships/year (one-way channel) and 18,000 ships/year (two-way channel) are
recommended.
This practical limitation reduces the applicability of the simulation model to ports with smaller size. For example,
if the Port of Rotterdam is wanted to be simulated with this new model, in addition to the complexity of
modelling it (several anchorage areas, different inner access channels, and many vessels moving to and from the
Rhine River), the number of ships using this port is more than 30,000 ships/year. The expected behaviour of this
simulation model would be extremely slow, and its use is not recommended for it.
The low speed of the simulation model with a large number of ships can be explained because of the algorithm
used. During a future stage of research, it is recommended that the code of the model could be reviewed and
improved by a programming engineer. Hence, an optimised algorithm can be implemented, as well as evaluating
the incorporation of extra features to the model (such as the implementation of an easy set up screen for new
users or graphical animations of the simulated vessels).
Independently on the possible optimisation of the algorithm, some modifications to the verbal model can be
implemented as well. For example, the priority conditions of the ships are time independent: it does not matter
how much time a ship have been waiting at the anchorage site, its place in the queue in list depends on a FIFO
scheme and a priority rank. But, if a limit time is exceeded, then a solution could be the implementation of a
new priority rank, which could even apply a restriction for vessels entering the channel from the port until the
delayed ship has arrived to its terminal.
Another possibility is to extend the boundaries of the simulation model to incorporate the navigation of ships
through the different inner basins. Currently, this process is simplified by considering a tugged speed (variable)
and a distance from the turning circle to the terminal of destination (deterministic). But, if a similar approach to
the access channel is applied for the inner basins, a better insight of the traffic conditions on that part of the
nautical infrastructure can be obtained.
The features of the simulation model (written in a well-known software, definition of its algorithm, open source
code) allows for the implementation of these or other improvement possibilities.
9.3 Taman Seaport Recommendations

The results of the simulation model for the Taman Seaport indicated that, in general, most of the terminals have
a waiting time sufficiently small compared to the typically accepted values. Furthermore, because of its fleet
composition (large number of small vessels, small number of large carriers), the application of a mixed operation
of the channel and multiple entrances to it allows the reduction of congestion to a value that is practically zero.
The delay on terminals with high average waiting time is mostly related to berth unavailability. The solutions to
this are modifications of the master plan of Taman, and are not part of this study. Nevertheless, an important
aspect of the port operation is the service rate. Because of the absence of specific information, some
149
assumptions were considered (like a maximum of three cranes operating on a single ship). If these assumptions
are confirmed (or modified), more reliable results on the berth delay could be obtained.
The application of the traffic rule modification generates an average congestion of 2 minutes. This congestion is
very low, and it leads to two main recommendations. First, it does not seem very attractive the idea to enlarge
the access channel to reduce the congestion. Secondly, the access channel can allow the passage of a larger
number of ships than the projected for the year 2025 without incrementing excessively the delay due to
congestion.
The related minimum benefits of 30,000 € per reduced hour of congestion (width enlarged) or 13,300 € per
reduced hour of congestion (passing section) appears to be high. Additionally, the volumes to be dredged
(capital and maintenance) are large, while the absolute reduction of congestion is about 1 minute. Only if the
number of ships would increase over the maximum expected, a new evaluation of the congestion would be
required and, probably, the required minimum benefits could be reduced.
If the access channel can allow the passage for extra ships without incrementing the congestion excessively, it
could lead to an optimisation of it. The design of the access channel depends on a design vessel. The largest
vessel has a draught of 18 m, and are large bulk carriers related to the Iron Terminal. A possibility that can be
evaluated (using this simulation model) is to replace the largest vessels into intermediate vessels, with smaller
capacity. If the total turnover is maintained, then a larger number of intermediate vessels will be required. It will
increase congestion but the reduction of the dimensions of the largest ship can lead to an access channel with
smaller depth, which is finally traduced into a reduction of the capital and maintenance costs.
150
‘Development of a Simulation Model to Assess Approach Channels – The Taman Seaport Case’
10 REFERENCES
[1] AGERSCHOU, H., DAND, I., ERNST, T., GHOOS, H., JENSEN, O., KORSGAARD, J., LAND, J., MC KAY, T.,
OUMERACI, H., PETERSEN, J., RUNGE-SCHMIDT, L., SVENDSEN, H. (2004), “Planning and design of ports
and marine terminals”. Thomas Telford Limited.
[2] BOSBOOM, J., STIVE, J. (2013), “Coastal Dynamics I”. Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil
Engineering and Geosciences, Section of Hydraulic Engineering. Version 0.4. Published by VSSD.
[3] BUDIYONO “A computer simulation modelling study for port planning of main public terminal, port of
Palembag, South Sumatera, Indonesia”. International Institute for Hydraulic and Environmental
Engineering, Delft, the Netherlands.
[4] DEMIRCI, E. (2003), “Simulation modelling and analysis of a port investment”. Simulation, vol. 79, issue
2, February.
[5] DERMIBILEK, Z., SARGENT, F. (1999), “Deep-draft coastal navigation entrance channel practice”. US
Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Technical Note I-63, March.
[6] DEVILLE, S. (2011), “Port of Rotterdam anchorages study, an occupancy evaluation using simulation”.
Master of Science thesis report, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Geosciences, Ports and Waterways Chair. October.
[7] FORSYTHE, W., RYKIEL JR. E., STAHL, R., WU, H., SCHOOFIELD, R. (1995), “A model comparison for
daylength as a function of latitude and day of year”. Ecological Modelling 80, 87 – 95.
[8] GOOGLE EARTH, satellite images.
[9] GRAY, W., WATERS, J., BLUME, A., LANDSBURG, A. (2002), “Channel design and vessel manoeuvrability
– next steps”. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New York Metropolitan Section.
January.
[10] GROENVELD, R. (1983), “Harboursim, a generally applicable harbour simulation model”. Delft University
of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Hydraulic Engineering Group.
[11] GROENVELD, R. (2001), “Service systems in ports and inland waterways, lecture notes CT 4330/5306”.
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Section of Hydraulic
Engineering. Published by VSSD.
[12] HOFSETH, K., ROGERS, C., HEISEY, S., MALES, R. (2007), “Planning level simulation modelling of channels
improvements”. Presentation of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Institute for Water Resources
th
– IWR, 25 September.
[13] IMO (2002), “Explanatory notes to the standards for ship manoeuvrability”. MSC/Circ. 1053. 16
December.
[14] LIGTERINGEN, H. (2009), “Ports and terminals, lecture notes CTwa 4330-5306”. Delft University of
Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Section of Hydraulic Engineering. Published
by VSSD.
[15] LINGWOOD, J., MRINA (2007), “Significant ships of 2006”. Published by The Royal Institution of Naval
Architects.
[16] MALYSHEVA, N. (2012), ‘Transportation Ministry Presents Taman Port in Paris’. Information Agency RZD
th
Partner, 4 April, 2012. Available on link http://www.rzd-partner.com/press/2012 /04/04/375518.html
[17] MARIA, A. (1997), “Introduction to modelling and simulation”. Proceedings of the 1997 Winter
Simulation Conference,
[18] MAYER, R., WATERS, J., KRIEBEL, D. (1999), “Design & maintenance of deep-draft navigation channels,
an overview of current practice with an annotated bibliography”. Department of Naval Architecture,
Ocean and Maritime Engineering. Division of Engineering and Weapons. U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis.
151
[19] PIANC (1997), “Approach channels, a guide for design”. Final report of the joint Working Group PIANC
and IAPH, in cooperation with IMPA and IALA. Supplement to Bulletin no 95. Brussels.
[20] PHYSICALGEOGRAPHY.NET, “Earth – Sun relationships and isolation”. Available on link http://
www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6i.html
[21] PUERTOS DEL ESTADO (2000), “ROM 3.1 – 99, proyecto de la configuración marítima de los puertos;
canales de acceso y áreas de flotación”. Obras Marítimas Tecnología.
[22] QUIST, P. (2012), “Liquid bulk terminals”. Delft University of Technology, Department of Civil
th
Engineering. Lecture notes Ports and Waterways II. May 24 .
[23] SCHNEEKLUTH, H., BERTRAM, V. (1998), “Ship design for efficiency & economy”. Butterworth-
Heinemann.
[24] SIREGAR, P. (1995a), “A study on the conceptual design rules for approach channels”. Graduate thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Hydraulic Engineering Group. October.
[25] SIREGAR, P. (1995b), “Towards fast time simulation-based probabilistic design of channel width”.
Graduate thesis, Delft University of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Hydraulic Engineering
Group. December.
[26] SOLARI, S., MOÑINO, A., BAQUERIZO, A., LOSADA, M. (2010), “Simulation model for harbor verification
and management”. Coastal Engineering 2010.
[27] THORENSEN, C. (2010), “Port designer’s handbook, second edition”. Thomas Telford Limited.
th
[28] UK TRADE & INVESTMENT (2012), ‘Ports sector in Russia’. 24 April, 2012. Available on link
http://www.ukti.gov.uk/es_es/export/countries/europe/easterneurope/russia/sectorbriefing/294920.h
tml?null
[29] US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS (2006), “Hydraulic Design of Deep-Draft Navigation Projects”. Engineer
Manual, EM 1110-2-1613.
[30] VAN DER MEER, J. (2013), “Port master plan for the port of Beira, Mozambique”. Master of Science
thesis report, Delft University of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Chair of Ports and
Waterways. January.
[31] VAN DER SCHRIEK, G. (2012), “Dredging Technology, Guest lecture notes CIE5300 issue 2012”. GLM Van
der Schriek BV Dredging Education & Research.
[32] VAN DRIEL, J. (1993), “Simulation model for ports operations; application for Pontianak”. Master of
Science thesis report. Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Chair of Ports and
Waterways. September.
[33] WITTEVEEN+BOS (2012), ‘Creation of Taman Seaport Dry Cargo Area’. Engineering services for
RosTranModernizatsiya, February 2012.
[34] WORLDATLAS.COM, ‘Russia’. Available on link http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys
/asia/rularge.htm.
[35] XINGYAN, Y., HUA, J., WEI, L., HONG, L. (2011), “Study on the navigation capacity of the approach
channel of Tianjin Port”. Port Technology International.
152
A. AUXILIARY FUNCTIONS LIST

The auxiliary function list is presented in Table A.1.
Table A.1. Auxiliary functions list
Function Variables Result

a: Arrival time [min]
b: Ships manager module Modification of ships manager
activate_ship
c: Ships generation matrix module
d: Ship’s ID
a: Ship’s ID Number (0 normal priority; 1 high
assign_priority
b: Ships manager module priority)
a: Ship’s ID
Modification of berth manager
assign_ship_to_berth b: Ships manager module
module
c: Berth manager module
count_queue_in a: Queue manager module Number
count_queue_out a: Queue manager module Number
a: Layout input module
create_berth_manager Creation of berth manager module
b: General input module
a: Layout input module Creation of nautical manager
create_nautical_manager
b: Space step [m] module
a: Time [min]
daylight duration Number
b: Latitude [°] (+ for NH; - for SH)
a: Ships manager module Modification of encountering
find_encounter
b: Encountering summary summary
a: Ship’s ID
get_ship_beam b: Ships manager module Number
c: Vessel input module
a: Ship’s ID
get_ship_draught b: Ships manager module Number
a: Ship’s ID
get_ship_dwt b: Ships manager module Number
a: Ship’s ID
get_ship_hazard b: Ships manager module Number
a: Ship’s ID
get_ship_length b: Ships manager module Number
a: Ship’s ID
get_ship_position b: Time [min] Number
c: Ships manager module
i
Table A.1. Auxiliary functions list (cont.)

a: Ship’s ID
b: Ships manager module
get_ship_speed c: Layout input module Number
d: Traffic rules input module
e: Variation coefficient [%]
a: Tidal input module
get_tidal_elevation Number
b: Time [min]
a: Ships manager module Modification of ships manager
b: Time step [min] module
new_ship_position
c: Nautical manager module Modification of encountering
d: Encountering summary summary
a: Terminal [-]
b: Vessel type [-]
obtain_max_speed c: Layout input module Number
d: Traffic rules module
e: Vessel input module
a: Ship’s ID
remove_ship_from_berth b: Ships manager module Modification of berth manager
c: Berth manager module
a: Ship’s ID
b: Ships manager module
sailing_time c: Vessel input module Number
d: Traffic rules input module
e: Layout input module
a: Ship’s ID
service_time b: Ships manager module Number
a: Ships manager module
Modification of ships manager
ship_arrival_at_port b: Nautical manager module
Module
c: Time [min]
a: Terminal [-]
b: Vessel type [-]
ship_deceleration Number
d: Traffic rules module
a: Nautical manager module Modification of nautical manager
ship_in_nautical
b: Ships manager module module
a: Ships manager module
ship_leave_port b: Nautical manager module
module
c: Time [min]
a: Ship’s ID Modification of queue manager
ship_out_queue
b: Queue manager module module
a: Ship’s ID
ship_to_port b: Ships manager module
module
c: Time [min]
ii
Table A.1. Auxiliary functions list (cont.)

a: Ship’s ID
Modification of queue manager
ship_to_queue_in b: Queue manager module
module
c: Priority coefficient (0 or 1)
a: Ship’s ID
Modification of queue manager
ship_to_queue_out b: Queue manager module
module
c: Priority coefficient (0 or 1)
a: Ship’s ID
ship_to_sea b: Ships manager module
module
c: Time [min]
a: Ship’s ID
time_from_berth b: Ships manager module Number
c: Route input module
a: Ship’s ID
time_to_berth b: Ships manager module Number
c: Route input module
iii
B. TAMAN SEAPORT SET UP OF INPUT MODULES

In this section, the programmed modules for the Taman Seaport are presented. The scenario presented here
corresponds to the situation of the final throughput of the port (year 2025), operation with a one – way channel
and
General input
% GENERAL INPUT FILE
% Port general characteristics
number_terminals = 10; % number of terminals
% Fleet characteristics
vessel = [73,0;163,0;174,0]; % first row number of calls, second k-Erlang factor

save ('calls1.mat','vessel')
clear vessel
clear vessel
vessel = [52,0;39,0;147,0;329,0]; % first row number of calls, second k-Erlang factor
clear vessel
vessel = [24,0;214,0;92,0;9,0;51,0;85,0;16,0]; % first row number of calls, second k-Erlang
factor
clear vessel
vessel = [14,0;0,0;16,0;18,0;20,0;24,0;9,0;9,0;23,0;28,0;27,0;38,0;66,0;58,0;124,0;56,0;12,0];
% first row number of calls, second k-Erlang factor
clear vessel
clear vessel
vessel = [5,0;0,0;25,0;57,0;99,0;109,0]; % first row number of calls, second k-Erlang factor
clear vessel
vessel = [57,0;59,0;90,0;0,0;38,0;67,0;4,0;5,0;6,0;0,0;4,0;5,0]; % first row number of calls,
second k-Erlang factor
clear vessel
vessel = [5,0;31,0;56,0;64,0;4,0;5,0;11,0;16,0;21,0;31,0;189,0]; % first row number of calls,
second k-Erlang factor
clear vessel
vessel = [50,0;43,0;93,0;59,0]; % first row number of calls, second k-Erlang factor
clear vessel
% Terminal service rate
service_rate=1.5*[0,0,720;0,0,720;960,960,0;1500,3000,0;0,3000,0;0,5000,0;0,3000,0;1500,3000,0;
1500,3000,0;0,3000,0];
service_dist=[3;3;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2];
% Simulation characteristics
Ti = 1; % simulation start time

Tf = 365*24*60; % simulation final time
dt = 5; % simulation time step
iv
% General characteristics
latitude = 45+8/60+19/3600; % positive north hemisphere, negative south hemispere

tidal_window = 0; % 0: no, 1: yes
port_operation = 1; % 1: 24 hr, 2: daylight operation
% Strike characteristics
str_prob = 0.01; % probability of occurrence of a strike during 1 year (%)

str_dur = 1; % most probable duration of a strike (d)
% Weather characteristics
ice_prob = 5; % probability of occurrence of ice during 1 year (%)

ice_dur = 8; % most probable duration of ice layer (hr)
fog_prob = 5; % probability of occurrence of fog during 1 year (%)
fog_dur = 4; % most probable duration of fog (hr)
wave_prob = [0.1 0.17;0.3 0.32;0.5 0.49;0.7 0.66;0.9 0.78;1.1 0.85;1.3 0.89;1.5 0.92;1.7
0.95;1.9 0.96;2.1 0.97;2.3 0.983;2.5 0.989;2.7 0.993;2.9 0.995;3.1 0.997;3.3 0.9980;3.5
0.9986;3.7 0.9991;3.9 0.9995;4.1 0.9997;4.3 0.9978;4.5 0.99985;4.7 0.999914;4.9 0.999932;5.1
0.999949;5.3 0.999966;5.5 0.999983;5.7 1];
wind_prob = [2 0.13;6 0.25;10 0.315;14 0.34;18 0.35;0 1.0];
cross_curr = 0; % cross current (kn)
long_curr = 0; % longitudinal current (kn)
% Channel general characteristics
vessel_speed = 2; % Vessel speed in outer channel; 1: fast> 12 knots; 2: moderate >8-12

knots; 3: slow 5-8 knots
vessel_speed2 = 3; % Vessel speed in inner channel; 2: moderate >8-12 knots; 3: slow 5-7
knots
nav_aids = 2; % 1: excellent with shore traffic control; 2: good; 3: moderate with
infrequent poor vissibility; 4: moderate with frequent poor vissibility
bot_surf = 2; % 1: smooth and soft; 2: smooth or sloping and hard; 3: rough and hard
basic_manouv = 1; % 1: good; 2: moderate; 3: poor
traff_dens = 1; % 1: light; 2: moderate; 3: heavy
bank_clear = 1; % 1: sloping channel edges and shoals; 2: steep and hard embankments,
structures.
save
('input.mat','number_terminals','Ti','Tf','dt','tidal_window','port_operation','latitude','str_
prob','str_dur','ice_prob','ice_dur','fog_prob','fog_dur','wave_prob','wind_prob','cross_curr',
'long_curr','vessel_speed','vessel_speed2','nav_aids','bot_surf','basic_manouv','traff_dens','b
ank_clear','service_rate','service_dist')
clear all
Layout input
% LAYOUT INPUT FILE
% Dimensioning of nautical infrastructure
Loac = 12800; % Length [m] % Outer access channel

Woac = 170; % Width [m]
Doac = 21.3; % Depth [m]
Liac = 1700; % Length [m] % Inner access channel
Wiac = 244; % Width [m]
Diac = 21.1; % Depth [m]
Dic = 500; % Turning circle diameter [m] % Turning circle
% Dimensions of passing section
v
passing_sec = 0; % Passing section status: 1: active; 0: inactive

Lpp = 3000; % Length of passing section (m)
xpp = 4000; % Outer edge of the passing section (m)
Wpp = 500; % Width of the passing section (m)
% Intermediate anchorage
int_anch = 0; % Intermediate anchorage status: 1: active; 0: inactive

x_anch = 8000; % Position of the intermediate anchorage (m)
% Dimensioning of berth
b1=835; % Container terminal 1

b2=685; % Container terminal 2
b3=885; % Steel terminal
b4=1175; % Grain terminal
b5=570; % Coal terminal 1
b6=835; % Iron terminal
b7=655; % Coal terminal 2
b8=835; % Fertilizer terminal 1
b9=589; % Sulphur terminal
b10=590; % Fertilizer terminal 2
save layout
clear all
Priority input
% PRIORITY INPUT FILE
% This file allows user to incorporate those terminals that will have a
% larger priority (traffic purposes).
priority_rule=1; % 1 means priority rules are on; 0 are off.
priority=[1 2];
save priority
Route input
% ROUTE INPUT
clear all
route(1,1)=1850; % Inner distance to container terminal 1

route(2,1)=1150; % inner distance to container terminal 2
route(3,1)=1850; % Inner distance to steel terminal
route(4,1)=1800; % Inner distance to grain terminal
route(5,1)=2350; % Inner distance to coal terminal 1
route(6,1)=1750; % Inner distance to iron terminal
route(7,1)=1700; % Inner distance to coal terminal 2
route(8,1)=1300; % Inner distance to mineral terminal 1
route(9,1)=2350; % Inner distance to sulphur terminal
route(10,1)=2100; % Inner distance to mineral terminal 2
save route
clear all
vi
Tidal / current input

% TIDAL AND CURRENT INPUT
clear all
% Definition of tidal components (base case M2 and S2)
amplitude=[0;0]; % Amplitude vector [m]

period=[12+25.2/60;12]; % Period vector [hr]
phas=[0;0]; % Phase angle vector [rad]
% Definition of current components
speed_curr=[0;0]; % Current speed [m/s]

period_curr=[12;8]; % Period vector [hr]
phas_curr=[0;0]; % Phase angle vector [rad]
save tidal_input amplitude period phas speed_curr period_curr phas_curr
Traffic rules input

% TRAFFIC RULES INPUT
clear all
% Type of channel
type_channel=2; % 1: two-way channel; 2: one-way channel; 3: mixed operation channel
% Safety distance
safety_distance=5; % minimum distance with respect to previous ship, expressed in ship length
% Maximum speed
max_speed=12; % maximum speed allowed in the channel (kn)
% Entrance speed
entr_speed=4; % entrance speed (kn)

tug_speed=2; % ship assisted by tugs speed (kn)
% Multiple entrance points
mul_entr=0; % 0: single entrance point (outer entrance); 1: multiple

entrance points
entr_mat=[0 18; 5000 12; 8000 8]; % definition of entrances and maximum draught allowed on it
% Speed reduction
speed_red=0; % 0: speed reduction not allowed; 1: speed reduction allowed
save traffic_rules
Vessel input
% VESSEL INPUT FILE
vii
clear all
% Vessel characteristics (dwt, loa, beam, draught, operation (1 loading,

% 2 unloading, 3 container (50% loading, 50% unloading))
v(1,:)=[2.2 90.5 11.9 4.1 18]; % CH-2

v(2,:)=[3 82 12.3 5.7 18]; % CH-3
v(3,:)=[3 140 16.65 4.5 18]; % CH-3,5
v(4,:)=[4.2 100 13.5 5.6 18]; % CH-4,2
v(5,:)=[6.08 140 16.5 4.2 18]; % CH-4,5
v(6,:)=[5.5 140 16.6 4.6 18]; % CH-5
v(7,:)=[5.4 110 16.5 6 18]; % CH-5,4
v(8,:)=[7.5 124.3 17.5 6.2 18]; % CH-7
v(9,:)=[7.52 122.3 17.8 7 18]; % CH-8
v(10,:)=[12 139.92 26 6.5 18]; % CH-12
v(11,:)=[16 153.5 22.4 8.2 18]; % CH-15
v(12,:)=[18.35 165 23 10.5 18]; % CH-20
v(13,:)=[23.75 181.5 22.9 9.5 18]; % CH-25
v(14,:)=[30 170 27 10 18]; % CH-30
v(15,:)=[47.8 197.1 32.2 11.5 18]; % CH-48
v(16,:)=[51.5 197.9 32.2 12 18]; % CH-52
v(17,:)=[58.6 196 32.26 13 18]; % CH-60
v(18,:)=[77.5 230 36 12.7 18]; % CH-70
v(19,:)=[82 250 32.2 14.5 18]; % CH-80
v(20,:)=[100 235 43 15.3 18]; % CH-100
v(21,:)=[115 255 43 14 18]; % CH-115
v(22,:)=[120 255 43 15.27 18]; % CH-120
v(23,:)=[161 280 45 17.5 18]; % CH-150
v(24,:)=[200 290 48 18 18]; % CH-200
v(25,:)=[8.75 121.4 18.2 6.7 18]; % CKH-750
v(26,:)=[35 225 32.2 12 18]; % CKH-2500
v(27,:)=[53.6 295 32.2 13.5 18]; % CKH-5000
v(28,:)=[85.7 304.1 40 14 18]; % CKH-6500
v(29,:)=[5.2 100.6 18.2 6.5 18]; % CKH-go500
clear dwt loa beam draught maxvel
% Deadweight definition
i = 1;
dweight(1,:)=1.6*[v(28,i) v(25,i) v(29,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];

% Container terminal 1
dweight(2,:)=1.6*[v(28,i) v(27,i) v(26,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
dweight(3,:)=0.6*[v(20,i) v(14,i) v(10,i) v(5,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Steel terminal
dweight(4,:)=0.4*[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(13,i) v(8,i) v(6,i) v(3,i) v(1,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Grain terminal
dweight(5,:)=0.6*[v(23,i) v(21,i) v(20,i) v(19,i) v(18,i) v(17,i) v(16,i) v(15,i) v(14,i)
v(13,i) v(12,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) v(5,i) v(9,i) v(11,i) v(12,i)]; % Coal terminal 1
dweight(6,:)=1*[v(24,i) v(23,i) v(22,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Iron terminal
dweight(7,:)=0.6*[v(23,i) v(21,i) v(20,i) v(18,i) v(17,i) v(15,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Coal terminal 2
dweight(8,:)=0.9*[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i)
v(13,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) 0 0 0 0 0]; % Mineral terminal 1
dweight(9,:)=0.75*[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i) v(12,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) v(7,i) v(4,i) v(2,i)
v(6,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Sulphur terminal
dweight(10,:)=0.9*[v(19,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(9,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Mineral terminal 2
% Length definition
viii
i = 2;
loa(1,:)=[v(28,i) v(25,i) v(29,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];

loa(2,:)=[v(28,i) v(27,i) v(26,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
loa(3,:)=[v(20,i) v(14,i) v(10,i) v(5,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Steel terminal
loa(4,:)=[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(13,i) v(8,i) v(6,i) v(3,i) v(1,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Grain terminal
loa(5,:)=[v(23,i) v(21,i) v(20,i) v(19,i) v(18,i) v(17,i) v(16,i) v(15,i) v(14,i) v(13,i)
v(12,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) v(5,i) v(9,i) v(11,i) v(12,i)]; % Coal terminal 1
loa(6,:)=[v(24,i) v(23,i) v(22,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Iron terminal
loa(7,:)=[v(23,i) v(21,i) v(20,i) v(18,i) v(17,i) v(15,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Coal terminal 2
loa(8,:)=[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i)
v(11,i) v(9,i) 0 0 0 0 0]; % Mineral terminal 1
loa(9,:)=[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i) v(12,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) v(7,i) v(4,i) v(3,i) v(6,i) 0
0 0 0 0 0]; % Sulphur terminal
loa(10,:)=[v(19,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(9,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Beam definition
i = 3;
beam(1,:)=[v(28,i) v(25,i) v(29,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];

beam(2,:)=[v(28,i) v(27,i) v(26,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
beam(3,:)=[v(20,i) v(14,i) v(10,i) v(5,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Steel terminal
beam(4,:)=[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(13,i) v(8,i) v(6,i) v(3,i) v(1,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Grain terminal
beam(5,:)=[v(23,i) v(21,i) v(20,i) v(19,i) v(18,i) v(17,i) v(16,i) v(15,i) v(14,i) v(13,i)
beam(6,:)=[v(24,i) v(23,i) v(22,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Iron terminal
beam(7,:)=[v(23,i) v(21,i) v(20,i) v(18,i) v(17,i) v(15,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Coal terminal 2
beam(8,:)=[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i)
beam(9,:)=[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i) v(12,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) v(7,i) v(4,i) v(3,i) v(6,i) 0
0 0 0 0 0]; % Sulphur terminal
beam(10,:)=[v(19,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(9,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Draught definition
i = 4;
draught(1,:)=[v(28,i) v(25,i) v(29,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];

draught(2,:)=[v(28,i) v(27,i) v(26,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
draught(3,:)=[v(20,i) v(14,i) v(10,i) v(5,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Steel terminal
draught(4,:)=[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(13,i) v(8,i) v(6,i) v(3,i) v(1,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Grain terminal
draught(5,:)=[v(23,i) v(21,i) v(20,i) v(19,i) v(18,i) v(17,i) v(16,i) v(15,i) v(14,i) v(13,i)
draught(6,:)=[v(24,i) v(23,i) v(22,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Iron terminal
draught(7,:)=[v(23,i) v(21,i) v(20,i) v(18,i) v(17,i) v(15,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Coal terminal 2
ix
v(6,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Sulphur terminal
draught(10,:)=[v(19,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(9,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Operation definition
oper(1,:)=[3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Container terminal 1

oper(2,:)=[3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Container terminal 2
oper(3,:)=[2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Steel terminal
oper(4,:)=[2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Grain terminal
oper(5,:)=[2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2]; % Coal terminal 1
oper(6,:)=[2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Iron terminal
oper(7,:)=[2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Coal terminal 2
oper(8,:)=[2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0]; % Mineral terminal 1
oper(9,:)=[2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Sulphur terminal
oper(10,:)=[2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Mineral terminal 2
% Maximum velocity definition
i = 5;
maxvel(1,:)=[v(28,i) v(25,i) v(29,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];

maxvel(2,:)=[v(28,i) v(27,i) v(26,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
maxvel(3,:)=[v(20,i) v(14,i) v(10,i) v(5,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Steel terminal
maxvel(4,:)=[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(13,i) v(8,i) v(6,i) v(3,i) v(1,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Grain terminal
maxvel(5,:)=[v(23,i) v(21,i) v(20,i) v(19,i) v(18,i) v(17,i) v(16,i) v(15,i) v(14,i) v(13,i)
maxvel(6,:)=[v(24,i) v(23,i) v(22,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Iron terminal
maxvel(7,:)=[v(23,i) v(21,i) v(20,i) v(18,i) v(17,i) v(15,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Coal terminal 2
maxvel(8,:)=[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i)
maxvel(9,:)=[v(18,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(13,i) v(12,i) v(11,i) v(9,i) v(7,i) v(4,i) v(3,i) v(6,i)
0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Sulphur terminal
maxvel(10,:)=[v(19,i) v(16,i) v(14,i) v(9,i) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
% Cargo hazard level (1 low, 2 medium, 3 high)
hazard(1,:)=[1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Container terminal 1

hazard(2,:)=[1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Container terminal 2
hazard(3,:)=[1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Steel terminal
hazard(4,:)=[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Grain terminal
hazard(5,:)=[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]; % Coal terminal 1
hazard(6,:)=[1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Iron terminal
hazard(7,:)=[1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Coal terminal 2
hazard(8,:)=[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0]; % Mineral terminal 1
hazard(9,:)=[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Sulphur terminal
hazard(10,:)=[1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]; % Mineral terminal 2
clear v i
save vessel
clear all
x
C. TAMAN SEAPORT LAYOUTS

Figures C.1 and C.2 present layouts of the Taman Seaport, prepared by Witteeven + Bos (2012) during the
development of its engineering project.
xi
Figure C.1. Longitudinal and cross sections of the Taman’s access channel
xii
Figure C.2. Layout of Taman’s terminals and inner basins
xiii
D. TAMAN SEAPORT LIST OF PROJECTED SHIPS

The list of projected ships for the different terminals of the Taman Seaport is presented in Table D.1. Information about
the expected number of ships per year (for the initial and final throughput scenarios) and dimensions of the vessels for the
different fleets is available.
xiv
Table D.1. Taman’s fleet characteristics
Number of ship
Hull height Hh(m)
Ships displace-
entries (in one
Draft loaded
depth (m)
direction)
Moulded
Нгр (m)
(тыс,т)
Vessels
Beam
B (m)
L (m)
ment
DWT
LOA
Per Year Berthing
Quay Type of ships representatives
of the vessel
full
Stage 1 development speed angle
(2017) 2025 (m/s) (º)
CKH-6500 40 73 85.7 304.1 40 24.2 14
Container Quay 1 Containership CKH-750 100 163 8,0-9,5 121.4 18.2 8.3 6.7
CKH-go500 108 174 5.2 100.6 18.2 8.25 6.5
CKH-6500 11 15 85.7 304.1 40 24.2 14

Container Quay 2 Containership CKH-5000 14 20 53.6 295 32.2 21.6 13.5
30,0-
CKH-2500 14 20 40,0 225 32.2 18.8 12
CH-100 32 52 100 235 43 25.4 15.3

Bulkcarrier CH-30 32 39 30 170 27 13.8 10
Steel quay
CH-12 100 147 12 139.92 26 13.6 6.5
River-sea vessel CH4,5 321 329 6.08 140 16.5 6 4.2
Service fleet quay ???
СН – 70 10 24 77.5 230 36 - 12.7

СН – 52 86 214 51.5 197.9 32.2 - 12
СН – 25 37 92 23.75 181.5 22.9 - 9.5
Grain quay Bulkcarrier unloading СН-7 9 9 7.5 124.3 17.5 - 6.2
unloading СН-5 51 51 5.5 140 16.6 - 4.6
unloading СН-3,5 85 85 3.8 104.3 14.1 - 5
unloading СН-2 16 16 2.2 90.5 11.9 - 4.1
xv
Table D.1. Taman’s fleet characteristics (cont.)
Number of ship
Hull height Hh(m)
Ships displace-
entries (in one
Draft loaded
depth (m)
direction)
Moulded
Нгр (m)
(тыс,т)
Vessels
Beam
B (m)
L (m)
ment
DWT
LOA
Per Year Berthing
of the vessel
full
(2017) 2025 (m/s) (º)
Not in
СН-150 2017 14 161 280 45 - 17.5
СН-115 14 Not in full dev 119.1 255 43 - 14
СН-100 16 16 105.7 234.9 43 - 15.27
СН-80 18 18 82 250 32.2 - 14.5
СН-70 20 20 77.4 230 36 - 12.7
Bulkcarrier СН-60 24 24 58.6 196 32.26 - 13

specific technology СН-52 9 9 51.5 197.9 32.2 - 12
СН-48 9 9 47.8 197.1 32.2 - 11.5
Coal1 quay
СН-30 23 23 30 170 27 - 10
СН-25 28 28 23.75 181.5 22.9 - 9.5
СН-20 27 27 18.35 165 23 - 10.5
СН-15 38 38 16 153.5 22.4 - 8.2
СН-8 66 66 7.52 122.3 17.8 - 7
СН-4,5Г 58 58 6.08 140 16.5 - 4.2
Bulkcarrier СН-8 124 124 7.52 122.3 17.8 - 7
Grab technology СН-15 56 56 16 153.5 22.4 - 8.2
СН-20 12 12 18.35 165 23 - 10.5
Not in
СН-200 2017 36 200 290 48 - 18
Iron ore quay bulkcarrier Not in
СН-150 2017 42 161 280 45 - 17.5
СН-120 167 52 120 255 43 - 15.27
xvi
Number of ship
Hull height Hh(m)
Ships displace-
entries (in one
Draft loaded
depth (m)
direction)
Moulded
Нгр (m)
(тыс,т)
Vessels
Beam
B (m)
L (m)
ment
DWT
LOA
Per Year Berthing
of the vessel
full
(2017) 2025 (m/s) (º)
Not in
СН – 150 2017 5 161 280 45 - 17.5
СН – 115 3 Not in full dev 115 255 43 - 15
Coal 2 quay bulkcarrier СН – 100 12 25 105.7 234.9 43 - 15.27
СН – 70 29 57 77.5 230 36 - 12.7
СН – 60 49 99 58.6 196 32.26 - 13
СН – 48 55 109 47.8 197.1 32.2 - 11.5
СН -70 57 57 77.45 230 36 - 12.7

СН-52 59 59 51.5 197.9 32.2 - 12
Not in
СН-30 2017 90 30 170 27 - 10
СН-25 90 Not in full dev 23.75 181.5 22.9 - 9.5
СН-15 38 38 16 153.5 22.4 - 8.2
Mineral fertilizer СН-8 67 67 7.52 122.3 17.8 - 7
bulkcarrier
1 quay unloading СН -70 4 4 77.45 230 36 - 12.7
unloading СН-52 5 5 51.5 197.9 32.2 - 12
Not in
unloading СН-30 2017 6 30 170 27 - 10
unloading СН-25 6 Not in full dev 23.75 181.5 22.9 - 9.5
unloading СН-15 4 4 16 153.5 22.4 - 8.2
unloading СН-8 5 5 7.52 122.3 17.8 - 7
xvii
Number of ship
Hull height Hh(m)
Ships displace-
entries (in one
Draft loaded
depth (m)
direction)
Moulded
Нгр (m)
(тыс,т)
Vessels
Beam
B (m)
L (m)
ment
DWT
LOA
Per Year Berthing
of the vessel
full
(2017) 2025 (m/s) (º)
СН – 70 2 5 77.45 230 36 - 12.7
СН – 52 12 31 51.5 197.9 32.2 - 12
СН – 30 21 56 30 170 27 - 10
СН – 25 24 64 23.75 181.5 22.9 - 9.5
СН – 20 2 4 18.35 165 23 - 10.5
bulkcarrier sea
Sulphur quay СН – 15 2 5 16 153.5 22.4 - 8.2
СН – 8 4 11 7.52 122.3 17.8 - 7
СН – 5,4 6 16 5.4 110 16.5 - 6
СН – 4,2 7 21 4.2 100 13.5 - 5.6
СН – 3 10 31 3 82 12.3 - 5.7
River-sea vessel Unloading (CH-5) 189 189 5.9 140 16.65 - 4.5
СН – 80 31 50 82 250 32.2 - 14.5

Mineral fertillizer СН – 52 27 43 51.5 197.9 32.2 - 12
Bulkcarrier
2 quay СН – 30 59 93 30 170 27 - 10
СН – 8 35 59 7.5 122.3 17.8 - 7
xviii

SEAPORT Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

SEAPORT Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEAPORT Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSC THESIS

DEVELOPMENT OF A SIMULATION MODEL FOR THE

Author: Sebastián Rayo V.

Document title: Development of a simulation model for the

Status: Final report

Date: September 18th, 2013

Project: MSc Thesis

Author: Sebastián Rayo V.

Student number: 4179501

Graduation committee: Prof. Ir. T. Vellinga (chairman)

Simulation Model Development

Assessment of the Taman Seaport’s Access Channel

7.2 Modelling of the Taman’s case 120

APPENDIX A – AUXILIARY FUNCTIONS LIST i

5.4 Scheme of a passing section in an access channel 71

7.3 Wind climate of Taman’s area 118

6.8 Vessels’ characteristics 105

8.20 Yearly gained congestion hours per alternative 145

d : Guaranteed depth of a channel [m]

d : Accuracy of a set of results [-]

f : Stopping distance factor [-]

k : Degree of a k-Erlang distribution [-]

m : Safety margin or net under keel clearance [m]

n : Factor of ship float shift [-]

n : Access channel’s availability [-]

r : Vertical motion due to wave response [m]

smax : Maximum sinkage due to squat and trim [m]

u : Current velocity [kn]

x0 : Ship’s position in time step 0 [m]

xi : Ship’s position in time step i [m]

xt  : Ship’s position in time step t [m]

x : Average interval [s]

A : Width of manoeuvring lane [m]

As : Ship type coefficient, IMO formula [-]

B : Ship beam [m]

Bs : Engine type coefficient, IMO formula [-]

C : Admiralty constant [-]

C : Access channel’s capacity [ships/hour]

Cs : Ship length and speed coefficient, IMO formula [-]

CB : Block coefficient [-]

Fnh : Froude depth number [-]

Hs : Significant wave height [m]

J : Day of the year [-]

L : Ship length [m]

L : Outer channel’s length [km]

L pp : Ship length between perpendiculars [m]

N : Number of ships [ships/year]

Pb : Installed power [kW]

Ss : Stopping distance factor, IMO formula [-]

T : Tidal elevation above reference level [m]

V : Ship speed [kn]

V0 : Ship speed in time step 0 [m/s]

Veff : Ship speed with respect to channel bottom [kn]

Vmin : Minimum ship speed for rudder control [kn]

V t  : Ship’s velocity in time step t [m]

W : Bottom width of a waterway [m]

WBM : Basic manoeuvring width [m]

WBg : Bank clearance on ‘green’ side of the channel [m]

WBr : Bank clearance on ‘red’ side of the channel [m]