WL2021R21_043_1.pdf

Complex project ‘Realisatie van extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen’

Geïntegreerd onderzoek Ontwerprapport 10 Simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

10/12/2021

DOCUMENTINFORMATIE Naam project

Complex project ‘Realisatie van extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen’ (CP ECA)

Rapporttitel

Ontwerprapport 10: Simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Opdrachtgevers

Departement Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken Havenbedrijf Antwerpen Maatschappij Linkerscheldeoever

Contactpersoon opdrachtgevers

Dr. Reginald Loyen Programmadirecteur CP ECA Reginald.loyen@mow.vlaanderen.be

Opdrachtnemer

Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium

Contactpersoon opdrachtnemer

Dr. ir. Katrien Eloot

Projectnummer

21_043

VERSIEBEHEER Versiedatum

Auteur(s) document

Doc.verantwoordelijke

Doc.screener

10/12/2021

Eloot, Katrien

Loyen, Reginald

Verwilligen, Jeroen

DISCLAIMER "Dit onderzoeksrapport is een ontwerprapport. Het werd niet formeel goedgekeurd door de bevoegde instanties.

Voorliggend ontwerprapport wordt nog aangepast en verliest de ontwerpstatus pas na het openbaar onderzoek over het projectbesluit. Pas op dat ogenblik krijgen de eindrapporten een juridische betekenis."

Extra Containercapaciteit Antwerpen Ontwerprapport 10: Simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Project Acroniem:

ECA

Project titel:

Complex project ‘Realisatie van extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen’

Grant Agreement Nr.

2020-BE-TM-0086-S

Website:

www.cpeca.be

Versie:

1.0

Datum:

10 december 2021

Disclaimer De inhoud van deze website valt onder de verantwoordelijkheid van het ECA-project management en weerspiegelt niet noodzakelijk de standpunten van de Europese Unie.

Dit project krijgt financiële steun van de Europese Unie

21_043_1 WL rapporten

Complex project Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen DEPARTEMENT MOBILITEIT & OPENBARE WERKEN

Deelrapport 1 Geïntegreerd onderzoek deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex waterbouwkundiglaboratorium.be

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Eloot, K.; Verwilligen, J.

Cover figure © The Government of Flanders, Department of Mobility and Public Works, Flanders Hydraulics Research Legal notice Flanders Hydraulics Research is of the opinion that the information and positions in this report are substantiated by the available data and knowledge at the time of writing.

The positions taken in this report are those of Flanders Hydraulics Research and do not reflect necessarily the opinion of the Government of Flanders or any of its institutions.

Flanders Hydraulics Research nor any person or company acting on behalf of Flanders Hydraulics Research is responsible for any loss or damage arising from the use of the information in this report.

Copyright and citation © The Government of Flanders, Department of Mobility and Public Works, Flanders Hydraulics Research 2021 D/2021/3241/295 This publication should be cited as follows: Eloot, K.; Verwilligen, J. (2021). Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen: Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex. Version 5.0. FHR Reports, 21_043_1. Flanders Hydraulics Research: Antwerp Reproduction of and reference to this publication is authorised provided the source is acknowledged correctly.

Document identification Customer: Keywords (3-5): Knowledge domains: Text (p.): Confidential:

Port of Antwerp Ref.: WL2021R21_043_1 ULCS, toegankelijkheid, Duplex; realtime simulaties Havens en vaarwegen > Manoeuvreergedrag > Oevers > Simulaties Havens en vaarwegen > Scheepsbeweging > Ontwerp Vaarweg en haven > Simulaties 48 Appendices (p.): 52 ‫ ܈‬No ‫ ܈‬Available online

Author(s):

Eloot, Katrien

Control Name

Signature Getekend door:Jeroen Verwilligen (Signa Getekend op:2021-12-07 09:04:30 +01:0 Reden:Ik keur dit document goed

Reviser(s):

Project leader:

Verwilligen, Jeroen

Eloot, Katrien

Getekend door:Katrien Eloot (Signature) Getekend op:2021-12-06 17:09:54 +01:0 Reden:Ik keur dit document goed

Approval Head of Division:

F-WL-PP-16.03.01-02 Valid as from 6/11/2021

Bellafkih,K

Getekend door:Abdelkarim Bellafkih (Sig Getekend op:2021-12-06 21:22:45 +01:0 Reden:Ik keur dit document goed

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Abstract The Duplex alternative is one of three designs for a second tidal dock adjacent to the Deurganck dock. The Boomerang (NL Boemerang) and L-square (NL Winkelhaak) alternatives have previously been evaluated through real time simulations while the L-square dock was also part of a traffic real time simulation study with four Ultra Large Container Ships (ULCS) interacting in the same virtual environment. The Duplex alternative has been examined in 20 simulation runs executed during two days by four pilots of the Flemish and Dutch pilotage and assisted by a tug pilot of Boluda or Antwerp Towage. The accessibility of a 400 m and 430 m ULCS is guaranteed for wind forces restricted to a maximum of 6 Bft with maximum flood and ebb current. Head in mooring has mainly been considered but also some head out outbound manoeuvres have been realised. Tug configurations (with at least three 80 ton tugs for 6 Bft) are proposed to assist the ULCS in these manoeuvres. In future research the results of these individual manoeuvres will be used as a start for traffic simulations with four ULCS in one virtual environment interacting with each other.

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

III

F-WL-PP-16.03.01-02 Valid as from 6/11/2021

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................ III Contents ............................................................................................................................................................ V List of tables...................................................................................................................................................... VI List of figures ................................................................................................................................................... VII 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1

2

Simulation setup and program .................................................................................................................. 3

3

2.1

Simulation setup ................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2

Design ship......................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3

Simulation program ........................................................................................................................... 7

Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1

3.1.1

Flood current ........................................................................................................................... 11

3.1.2

Ebb current .............................................................................................................................. 19

3.2

4

Inbound ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Outbound ........................................................................................................................................ 25

3.2.1

Flood current ........................................................................................................................... 25

3.2.2

Ebb current .............................................................................................................................. 34

Conclusions and future work ................................................................................................................... 41

References ....................................................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix 1: Pilot card 430 m en 400 m ULCS ................................................................................................. A1 Appendix 2: Manual for KMZ tracks ................................................................................................................ A7 Appendix 3: Feedback ................................................................................................................................... A10 Appendix 4: Time graphs ............................................................................................................................... A13

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

V

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

List of tables Table 1 – Simulation program ........................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2 – Overview of simulations and parameters .......................................................................................... 9 Table 3 – Inbound simulations with flood current and standardised feedback.............................................. 11 Table 4 – Inbound simulations with ebb current and standardised feedback ................................................ 20 Table 5 – Outbound simulations with flood current and standardised feedback........................................... 26 Table 6 – Outbound simulations with ebb current and standardised feedback ............................................. 34 Table 7 – Proposed tug configuration as function of head in/out mooring, in/outbound and flood or ebb . 44 Table 8 – General description of timesaving manoeuvres according to mooring direction, current and in- or outbound sailing .............................................................................................................................................. 46

VI

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

List of figures Figure 1 – Boomerang dock ............................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2 – L-square dock .................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3 – Duplex dock ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 4 – Navigation lines (yellow) in the second tidal dock: 100 m out of quay lines and northern yellow slope – vertical wall line .................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 5 – Maximum flood current profile for 155 dm draft ............................................................................ 5 Figure 6 – Maximum ebb current profile for 135 dm draft ............................................................................... 6 Figure 7 – Comparison of maximum flood current middling for 155 dm (black), 135 dm (red) and 120 dm (green) draft ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 8 – Example KMZ of run 9..................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 9 – Inbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 2 at SW 5 Bft......................................................................... 12 Figure 10 – Inbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 3 at SW 5 Bft....................................................................... 13 Figure 11 – Run 11: tug operation ................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 12 – Inbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 11 at SW 5 Bft .................................................................... 15 Figure 13 – Inbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 12 at NW 6 Bft .................................................................... 16 Figure 14 – Inbound flood (head in, 430 m): all runs ...................................................................................... 17 Figure 15 – Inbound flood (head out, 400 m): run 2 052021 .......................................................................... 18 Figure 16 – Inbound flood: comparison of head in (run 12, red) and head out (run 2 052021, green), min 10 to 33................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 17 – Inbound ebb (head in, 400 m): run 13 at NW 6 Bft (detail).......................................................... 20 Figure 18 – Inbound ebb (head in, 400 m): run 4 at NE 5 Bft.......................................................................... 21 Figure 19 – Inbound ebb (head in, 430 m): tug operation for run 14 and 15 at NW 6 Bft ............................. 22 Figure 20– Inbound ebb (head in, 430 m): run 14 at NW 6 Bft ....................................................................... 23 Figure 21 – Inbound ebb (head in, 430 m): run 15 at NW 6 Bft ...................................................................... 24 Figure 22 – Inbound ebb (head in, 430 m): run 15 at NW 6 Bft: min 11 to 24................................................ 25 Figure 23 – Outbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 7 at S 6 Bft: overview ...................................................... 26 Figure 24 – Outbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 8 at S 5 Bft ....................................................................... 27 Figure 25 – Outbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 9 at S 5 Bft ....................................................................... 28 Figure 26 – Outbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 17 at NW 6 Bft ................................................................. 29 Figure 27 – Outbound flood (head in, 400 m): run 18 at NW 5 Bft ................................................................. 30 Figure 28 – Outbound flood (head out, 400 m): run 19 at NW 5 Bft .............................................................. 31 Figure 29 – Outbound flood (head out, 400 m): run 20 at NW 5 Bft .............................................................. 32 Figure 30 – Outbound flood (400 m) ............................................................................................................... 33

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

VII

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 31 – Outbound ebb (head in, 400 m): run 5 at NW 6 Bft ..................................................................... 36 Figure 32– Outbound ebb (head in, 400 m): run 6 at NW 6 Bft ...................................................................... 37 Figure 33 – Outbound ebb (head in, 430 m): run 16 at SW 6 Bft .................................................................... 38 Figure 34 – Outbound ebb (head out, 400 m): run 10 at W 5 Bft ................................................................... 39 Figure 35 – Outbound ebb (400 m): comparison of head in (run 6) and head out (run 10) ........................... 40 Figure 36 – Comparison of the boundaries of the Duplex alternative (white) to the Boomerang and L-Square alternatives (black) .......................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 37 – Overall evaluation for head in and head out manoeuvres for Boomerang and L-Square alternatives (430 m ULCS) ................................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 38 – Overall evaluation for head in and head out manoeuvres for Duplex alternative (430 m and 400 m ULCS)................................................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 39 – Determination of waiting areas for inland ships .......................................................................... 44 Figure 40 – Sedimentation at the corners of Deurganck dock and second tidal dock .................................... 45

VIII

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

1 Introduction During the elaboration phase, of the Complex Project Extra container handling capacity in the Port of Antwerp (PoA), three alternatives have been defined for a second tidal dock: a Boomerang dock (Figure 1, Boemerangdok in Dutch), a L-square dock (Figure 2, Winkelhaakdok in Dutch) and a Duplex dock (Figure 3).

The Boomerang dock was examined through real time simulations and reported in (Eloot et al., 2019a), the L-square dock in (Eloot et al., 2019b) and the Duplex dock is subject of the research in this report.

The aim of this study was to examine the accessibility of the Duplex dock through real time simulations with pilots and tug captains during two days. The design ship is a 430 m ship and wind and tidal conditions are chosen at determining conditions for the evaluation of the accessibility. 20 simulation runs have been executed, 10 per day, and the simulation program and setup are described in Chapter 2. The analysis is based on an evaluation of each individual simulation run and subdivided according to the inbound or outbound manoeuvre, the current state (flood or ebb) and the mooring condition (head in or head out) in Chapter 3.

Conclusions and future work are summarized in Chapter 4.

Figure 1 – Boomerang dock [source PoA: plan DOECA-001-ONT_CI-025]

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

1

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 2 – L-square dock [source PoA: plan DOECA-001-ONT_CI-024]

Figure 3 – Duplex dock [source PoA: plan DOECA-001-ONT_CI-026]

2

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

2 Simulation setup and program 2.1 Simulation setup The simulation environment is based on the design plan in Figure 3. The entrance of the second tidal dock is turned towards the river Scheldt compared to the identical entrances for the Boomerang and L-Square alternatives. The entrance of the Duplex dock is also more narrow with a entrance width of 325 m instead of 350 m for the two other alternatives. The second part of the dock after the bend or kink is designed as a two sided dock with quay walls. It is important to examine the accessibility of a dock with a width of 350 m (after the kink) for operations at both sides of the dock with moored ships at the quays. The second tidal dock is more narrow than the Deurganck dock at the Kieldrecht lock (a minimum of 400 m) but there is no lock to be considered.

As the dock will need facilities for mooring and waiting areas for inland navigation, three zones were filled with inland vessels: 1. the first 480 m of the quay from the entrance; 2. the slope opposite to the quay wall before the bend with sufficient depth for the draft of the inland vessels and safety distance to passing sea-going vessels; 3. the end of the dock perpendicular to the quay walls.

Figure 4 – Navigation lines (yellow) in the second tidal dock: 100 m out of quay lines and northern yellow slope – vertical wall line

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

3

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Navigation lines have been added to the Portable Pilot Unit (PPU) of the pilots with (Figure 4): • • •

one 100 m out of quay wall line in the first part from entrance to kink; a slope intersection line between the vertical northern wall at the entrance of the dock and the slope in the kink; two 100 m out of quay wall lines in the second part of the dock.

A uniform wind field was used, in which no wind shielding by other vessels or buildings was considered. The wind field is gusty according to a Von Karmann spectrum. The adverse directions for southwesterly up to northeasterly winds were investigated and an average wind force of 5 or 6 Bft with peaks up to two Bft classes higher were chosen. As a remark for the influence of wind, a difference between the perception of the wind force in reality (rather on 1/3rd highest wind speeds) and the average wind force during simulation is seen.

As a result, the wind force during simulation is generally considered to be more powerful. As a guide value for the required tug assistance, at a wind force of 6 Bft (average speed 12.3 m/s) one can expect a lateral wind pressure on the 400 m ship of 160 tonnes (or at least two 80 ton tugs) and higher on the 430 m ship.

Since peaks above this average speed occur in the wind, two 80 ton tugs will not suffice at higher wind speeds to move the ship against the wind at low speed.

Two current profiles were chosen corresponding to a maximum flood (Figure 5) and a maximum ebb (Figure 6) condition. A three-dimensional current profile was calculated through an original Scaldis model 2013 (Smolders, S.; Maximova, T.; Vanlede, J.; Verwaest, T.; Mostaert, 2015) updated with bathymetry of 2019 (Vanlede et al., 2020). The three-dimensional profile was middled over three different ship drafts of 120 dm, 135 dm and 155 dm from the water surface (e.g. Figure 7). The turned Europe terminal (Eloot et al., 2020) was taken into account in the current profile calculation for the three alternative docks. A tidal cycle (mean spring tide) of 24 to 25th of March 2019 has been used.

• •

Maximum flood: -00:54 to high water Prosperpolder with a tidal level of +5.34 m LAT Maximum ebb: +03:11 and +03:21 after high water Prosperpolder with a tidal range of +3.49 to +3.3 m LAT.

Based on validation through measurements in the actual Western Scheldt and previous comparison with numerical calculations, a multiplicator has been used with factor 1.15 which gives an increase with 15% compared to the calculated current profile.

4

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 5 – Maximum flood current profile for 155 dm draft (overview and detail)

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

5

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 6 – Maximum ebb current profile for 135 dm draft (overview and detail)

6

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 7 – Comparison of maximum flood current middling for 155 dm (black), 135 dm (red) and 120 dm (green) draft

2.2 Design ship In previous research for Boomerang and L-Square dock a 430 m design ship with a beam of 62 m was used (see Appendix 1). In the meantime a 400 m Ultra Large Container Ship (ULCS) is developed with a beam of 61.5 m and used in the design simulation study for an extension of the North Sea terminal in the framework of the Complex project ECA. Because the 430 m design ship is only available at drafts of 15 m and more, it can be interesting to include simulations with the 400 m ship at tide independent drafts (13.1 m and lower).

2.3 Simulation program The parameters that have been varied during the simulations are: • • • •

Inbound (9) or outbound (11); Head in (17) or head out (3): most of the time head in mooring was considered for the Duplex alternative. Some additional runs of head out moored simulations have been examined. No emergencies are done.

For current conditions a choice is made between maximum flood (12) or ebb (8). No simulations at low water have been executed.

The wind conditions were varied between S and NE with Beaufort classes of 5 and 6 Bft (S: 3; SW: 5; W: 1; NW: 10; NE: 1).

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

7

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

•

All tugs were type Azimuth Stern Drive tugs with a bollard pull of 80 tons. A maximum number of three tugs has been used.

Four pilots (one from the Dutch pilotage and three from the Flemish pilotage) contributed to the simulation study with their expertise. The tugs were handled with a simplified tug console with realistic tug operation software module. The tugs were activated by a tug captain from Antwerp Towage or from Boluda and they brought their knowledge into the project.

The simulation program with 20 real time simulation runs is summarized in Table 1. The run name, date, ship length and draft, in or outbound, head in or head out, current, wind and tug configuration are summarized.

Table 1 – Simulation program

Run

Date

Ship (L / T)

In/Out

Current

Wind

Tugs 1

Duplex_1

30/08/2021

430 m/ 15 m

In (head in)

Flood

SW5

F

A

Duplex_2

30/08/2021

430 m/ 15 m

In (head in)

Flood

SW5

F

A

Duplex_3

30/08/2021

430 m/ 15 m

In (head in)

Flood

SW5

F

A

Duplex_4

30/08/2021

400 m/ 13.1 m

In (head in)

Ebb

NE5

F

A-SS / A-PS

Duplex_5

30/08/2021

400 m/ 13.1 m

Out (head in)

Ebb

NW6

F

A

Duplex_6

30/08/2021

400 m/ 13.1 m

Out (head in)

Ebb

NW6

F

A

Duplex_7

30/08/2021

430 m/ 15 m

Out (head in)

Flood

S6

F

A / P-PS

Duplex_8

30/08/2021

430 m/ 15 m

Out (head in)

Flood

S5

F

A

Duplex_9

30/08/2021

430 m/ 15 m

Out (head in)

Flood

S5

F

A

Duplex_10

30/08/2021

400 m/ 13.1 m

Out (head out)

Ebb

W5

F

A

Duplex_11

06/09/2021

430 m/ 15 m

In (head in)

Flood

SW5

F

A-SS / A-PS

Duplex_12

06/09/2021

430 m/ 15 m

In (head in)

Flood

NW6

F

A

Duplex_13

06/09/2021

400 m/ 13.1 m

In (head in)

Ebb

NW6

F

A-SS / A-PS

Duplex_14

06/09/2021

430 m/ 15 m

In (head in)

Ebb

NW6

F

A-SS / A-PS

Duplex_15

06/09/2021

430 m/ 15 m

In (head in)

Ebb

NW6

F

A-SS / A-PS

Duplex_16

06/09/2021

430 m/ 15 m

Out (head in)

Ebb

SW6

F

A

Duplex_17

06/09/2021

430 m/ 15 m

Out (head in)

Flood

NW6

F

A

Duplex_18

06/09/2021

400 m/ 13.1 m

Out (head in)

Flood

NW5

F

A

Duplex_19

06/09/2021

400 m/ 13.1 m

Out (head out)

Flood

NW5

F-PS / F

A-SS

Duplex_20

06/09/2021

400 m/ 13.1 m

Out (head out)

Flood

NW5

F-PS / F

A-SS

For the 80 ton tugs P means (Pusher), F (Fore) en A (Aft) to indicate the pushing or towing mode and position with additional SS (starboard side) or PS (port side) or centre lead if not mentioned.

1

8

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

In Table 2 an overview is given of the run number for the different parameters. Only three runs have been executed starting in the second tidal dock heading out. For the inbound manoeuvre no runs are available in which the ship is going astern (head out) into the dock, due to lack of time and known swinging manoeuvres to the Deurganck dock, which are partially needed for an astern entering of the second tidal dock. A colour code is used with grey for runs not to be considered (habituation run or impact from external visitors), red for runs stopped before completion (and repeated) and black for runs to be considered. Italic means a simulation run with the 400 m vessel.

Table 2 – Overview of simulations and parameters

Head in

In, flood

In, ebb

Out, flood

Out, ebb

1, 2, 3, 11, 12

4, 13, 14, 15

7, 8, 9, 17, 18

5, 6, 16

19, 20

10

Head out

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

9

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

3 Analysis The analysis was based on: • • •

KMZ presentations of the ship track with tugs to be opened in Google Earth (Figure 8). These KMZ files are attached to the report. The manual for using these files is described in Appendix 2; Feedback of the pilots per simulation with also a standardized evaluation form (Appendix 3); Graphs with the kinematic (speed) and control variables (propeller rate, rudder angle and bow thruster) and the use of tugs as function of time (Appendix 4).

The analysis can consider the difference in ship length of the 430 and 400 m vessel. The visualization of the tracks on Google Earth gives the opportunity to replay the simulation run and to judge the manoeuvre of the ship with tugs in relation with the infrastructure, depth lines (grounding) and navigation lines.

Besides the track of ship and tugs the time dependent variables of ship and tugs (required bollard thrust) are shown on the time graphs. If the required power of the control devices is large, the manoeuvre is executed with minimum reserve. As only severe conditions of current and wind are chosen in this selected simulation study, the control devices (rudder, bow thruster and tugs) will be in the overall real life operation used less frequently and at smaller rates than during the simulations.

Figure 8 – Example KMZ of run 9

The analysis is subdivided in the inbound manoeuvre (chapter 3.1) and the outbound manoeuvre (chapter 3.2) for flood and ebb current.

10

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

3.1 Inbound Nine simulations have been executed for an inbound manoeuvre to the second tidal dock, Duplex alternative, five with maximum flood current (Table 3) and four with maximum ebb current (Table 4).

3.1.1

Flood current

All simulation runs have been executed with the 430 m containership at 15 m draft, four at wind SW 5 Bft and one at NW 6 Bft. Run 1 was taken as an habituation run of the first simulation day with main focus on getting familiar with the new dock configuration and the 430 m ULCS. The ship entered the second tidal dock close to the northern vertical wall what gives no realistic reserve.

Table 3 – Inbound simulations with flood current and standardised feedback

Run

Ship (L / T)

Wind

Tugs

Reserve

Difficulty

Duplex_1

430 m/ 15 m

SW5

F

A

-

-

Duplex_2

430 m/ 15 m

SW5

F

A

4

2

Duplex_3

430 m/ 15 m

SW5

F

A

2

2

Duplex_11

430 m/ 15 m

SW5

F

A-SS / A-PS

2

2

Duplex_12

430 m/ 15 m

NW6

F

A

3

2

The simulation conditions were repeated in run 2 and run 3, but in run 2 while entering the second tidal dock the ship touched the northern wall (orange collision line at the northern vertical wall on Figure 9). In the inbound manoeuvre with maximum flood current the current can be used to make the turn to the dock.

Nevertheless the rate of turn (ROT) and the (forward) speed need to be balanced so that the ship enters more in the centreline of the dock. In Figure 9 it can be seen that the speed over ground (SOG) decreased to almost zero knots while the ROT was above 15 degrees per minute. Bow thruster and tugs are assisting the swinging manoeuvre into the dock with enough reserve. An eddy of the current in the Deurganck dock river mouth brings the bow to the north while entering the second tidal dock so that good balance between ROT and SOG helps in avoiding a difficult entrance position. The pilots advised to round the corners of the northern dock wall and to foresee some fendering. The detailed track plot in Figure 9 took almost 25 minutes (from north buoy 86 to upwards the northern wall).

The same conditions were repeated in run 3. A larger distance to the current deflecting wall (CDW_SPER on Figure 10) was considered with a turning manoeuvre on the river in full flood current profile so that the ship was moved to the southern part of the Deurganck dock river mouth. The ROT increased to almost 20 degrees and the SOG decreased to 1 knot. The bow thruster (more than 10 minutes full) and the fore tug at maximum bollard pull have been used to bring the bow back to the centre leading light of the Deurganck dock. There was thus no reserve. The pilots decided that in further runs it should be advised to keep the bow in between the western and centre leading lights of the Deurganck dock while turning to the entrance of the second tidal dock. The entrance manoeuvre presented in the detailed track plot in Figure 10 took less time (not more than 20 minutes) than in run 2.

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

11

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 9 – Inbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 2 at SW 5 Bft (overview and detail)

12

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 10 – Inbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 3 at SW 5 Bft (overview and detail)

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

13

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

This advice of keeping the bow between the western and centre leading lights is realised in run 11 with identical conditions as in run 2 and 3. Although in previous runs 1 to 3 only two tugs were used (one fore and one aft) two aft tugs and one fore tug are operating in run 11 (Figure 11). Only for less than 3 minutes full bollard pull is used of the two aft tugs to increase the ROT to a value above 20 degrees with the effect that the speed is also decreasing from 4 to 1 knot (Figure 12). The fore tug keeps the bow between the leading lights with half bollard pull. The entrance manoeuvre to the second tidal dock is safe and smooth with reserve to the northern wall and the moored inland ships at the southern wall. This entrance manoeuvre takes a little more than 15 minutes (see the detailed track plot in Figure 12).

Figure 11 – Run 11: tug operation

In run 12 the wind direction was changed to northwest and 6 Bft strength and only one fore and one aft tug were assisting (Figure 13). The ship comes close to the current deflecting wall because the pilots expected that the ship would be swayed to port by the wind. The lateral wind force and yawing moment are important.

While turning, the bow can be kept on the centre leading light of Deurganck dock but only by full bollard pull for both tugs during almost 5 minutes together with maximum bow thrust. There is thus no reserve. It was concluded that at least three tugs (of which two 80 tons) should be used for wind forces of 6 Bft and higher for ULCS from 400 m length on. The duration of the entrance manoeuvre is comparable with run 11.

All runs with this tidal condition and current are shown in Figure 14. The black zones show the path on the river and in the dock of most runs. The zone in Deurganck dock mouth, from the western leading light to halfway in between the eastern leading light and the red PAAL_BB, is mainly occupied during the turning.

Further on, the ships enter the second tidal dock north of the 100 m out of quay navigation line. A good balance between ROT and SOG is necessary to avoid a track close to the northern wall. In the dock itself the bend can be taken with enough distance to the moored ships and with small tug and bow thruster assistance.

The forward speed is between 2 (bend) and 4 (straight stretches) knots in the dock. In Table 3 the feedback of the pilots is summarised as between sufficient (2) and no reserve (4 – contact without damage) while the difficulty of the manoeuvre is for all pilots normal. Less reserve in run 12 is due to the lack of a third tug for the manoeuvre at 6 Bft wind and higher. Up to 5 Bft two 80 ton tugs should suffice for ULCS.

14

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 12 – Inbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 11 at SW 5 Bft (overview and detail)

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

15

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 13 – Inbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 12 at NW 6 Bft (overview and detail)

16

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 14 – Inbound flood (head in, 430 m): all runs (overview and detail)

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

17

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 15 – Inbound flood (head out, 400 m): run 2 052021 (overview and detail)

18

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

All simulations in August-September 2021 for Duplex, inbound and flood, were head in manoeuvres. To be able to compare a head in with a head out manoeuvre, a head out manoeuvre in the L-Square dock executed by the Flemish pilotage in May 2021 is included in this report. In Figure 15 a head out track is executed at flood tide and NW 5 Bft with a 80 tons fore and aft tug. The current profile and the water surface in blue on Figure 15 are from the Duplex alternative. The difference between both L-Square and Duplex dock can therefore be recognized. In Figure 16 the head in run 12 in red and the head out run in green are both presented from minute 10 to 33 so that the position of the ship at start is almost the same while at minute 33 the heading in ship is already past the bend in the Duplex alternative while the heading out ship is still alongside the northern wall of the dock 2.

Figure 16 – Inbound flood: comparison of head in (run 12, red) and head out (run 2 052021, green), min 10 to 33

3.1.2

Ebb current

Two simulations (4 and 13) have been executed with the 400 m ULCS and two (14 and 15) with the 430 m vessel. Run 13 will further not be discussed as the simulation took place while a film crew was on the bridge to make videos for a promotion film and they influenced the manoeuvre (with several full ahead telegraph commands between minute 13 and 16, Figure 17). All simulations at maximum ebb current have been

Run 2 was executed with a 400 m ULCS with 15 m draft and although the difference in time-place relationship for both runs is significant the two runs can not exactly be compared. In run 2 for example a two minutes delay has occurred due to a lack of understanding about an applied minimum telegraph astern propeller rate while the indicated telegraph position at the bridge seen by the pilot was higher.

2

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

19

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

executed with three 80 tons tugs, one fore and two aft at starboard and port side. This tug configuration is related to the head in turning manoeuvre into the dock with a strong current flowing against the turning motion of the aft ship.

Table 4 – Inbound simulations with ebb current and standardised feedback

Run

Ship (L / T)

Wind

Tugs

Reserve Difficulty

Duplex_4

400 m/ 13.1 m

NE5

F

A-SS / A-PS

2

2

Duplex_13

400 m/ 13.1 m

NW6

F

A-SS / A-PS

-

-

Duplex_14

430 m/ 15 m

NW6

F

A-SS / A-PS

2

2

Duplex_15

430 m/ 15 m

NW6

F

A-SS / A-PS

4

3

Figure 17 – Inbound ebb (head in, 400 m): run 13 at NW 6 Bft (detail)

In run 4 the head in manoeuvre is executed with a northeastern wind of 5 Bft (Figure 18) with a 400 m ULCS. Coming alongside the current deflecting wall the turning motion is started but both aft tugs need to pull for about 7 minutes at 80 tons to be able to counteract the ebb current. The fore tug is not used during the complete manoeuvre while the bow thrusters are working for about 3 minutes while turning in the dock or taking the bend in the dock. With the two aft tugs a ROT of about 15 degrees can be reached while the speed is between 4 and 1 knot. The duration of the turning from buoy 86 to upwards the northern wall in the dock is up to 18 minutes.

20

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 18 – Inbound ebb (head in, 400 m): run 4 at NE 5 Bft (overview and detail)

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

21

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Run 14 and 15 are executed with a 30 m longer ULCS than in run 4 and a northwesterly wind of 6 Bft is applied. In Figure 20 the turning motion into the dock is shown for run 14. The telegraph remains in the ahead thrust during the turning so that the speed is around 3 knots and the ROT can only slowly be built up. The fore tug and the aft tug at port side are used at maximum bollard pull as well as the bow thruster and the southern corner of the dock can be avoided smoothly although the distance is very small. The second aft tug could have been used to reduce the speed more quickly. The difference between a 400 m and 430 m ULCS becomes clear taking also the decreased width of the entrance into account which lowered to 325 m instead of 350 m in the other alternatives. The turning motion from buoy 86 to upwards the northern wall takes 20 minutes which is comparable to run 4.

In run 15 (Figure 21) another manoeuvre was chosen to turn the ship head in in the second tidal dock using a 270 degrees swinging manoeuvre. First a classic swinging manoeuvre to the Deurganck dock at ebb was executed followed by a head in turning manoeuvre into the second tidal dock. The ship with a draft of 15 m grounded at the bow (-10 m LAT red depthline on Figure 21) while turning on the river. Nevertheless at 15 m draft an inbound sailing ship from Flushing will not arrive at maximum ebb tide at the Deurganck dock mouth.

A smaller tide independent draft is more convenient. The total manoeuvre takes more than 30 minutes (much longer than run 14) and all three tugs have been used regularly at maximum power (Figure 19).

(a) Run 14

(b) Run 15 Figure 19 – Inbound ebb (head in, 430 m): tug operation for run 14 and 15 at NW 6 Bft

The evaluation by the pilots in Table 4 gives a reserve between sufficient (2) and no reserve (4 – contact without damage) while the difficulty is between normal and more than normal difficulty. It is clear that the head in inbound manoeuvre at ebb is more difficult than the head in manoeuvre at flood. It is also more difficult for a 430 m vessel compared to the 400 m. Changing the direct turning manoeuvre into a classic swinging manoeuvre followed by a head in motion from one dock to the other does not necessarily solve the situation, except for traffic situations where intermediate positions during the swinging manoeuvres could help for the passage of other ships or when less tugs are available (smoother manoeuvres with less tugs – for example two – and with less risk of breaking tug lines).

22

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 20– Inbound ebb (head in, 430 m): run 14 at NW 6 Bft (overview and detail)

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

23

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 21 – Inbound ebb (head in, 430 m): run 15 at NW 6 Bft (overview and detail)

24

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

No head out inbound manoeuvre has been executed but to focus on the first part of the manoeuvre a part of run 15 has been plotted in Figure 22 with the tracks from minute 11 to 24 (13 minutes). The ship is turned and heading as the leading light of the second tidal dock. A head out inbound manoeuvre is therefore feasible. The duration could be comparable to or a bit longer than the head in manoeuvre which takes 18 to 20 minutes.

Figure 22 – Inbound ebb (head in, 430 m): run 15 at NW 6 Bft: min 11 to 24

3.2 Outbound Eleven simulations have been executed for an outbound manoeuvre from the second tidal dock, Duplex alternative, seven (of which three were stopped before completion) with maximum flood current (Table 5) and four with maximum ebb current (Table 6).

3.2.1

Flood current

Four simulations have been executed with the 430 m ULCS at 15 m draft (wind S 5 or 6 Bft and NW 6 Bft) and three with the 400 m ULCS at 13.1 m draft, all at NW 5 Bft. Run 7 to 18 were head in outbound manoeuvres while in run 19 and 20 a head out outbound manoeuvre was tried with two fore tugs and one aft tug (at starboard side) to counteract the strong flood current while turning onto the river.

Run 7 (Figure 23) was executed with a strong southern 6 Bft wind and ended with the aft ship in the slope of the bend (and at a moored inland ship) as the ship could not be turned quickly enough in the bend. The reason is not clear but could be attributed to a strong head wind and the ship’s inertia. While going astern in the straight stretch of the dock between the moored ships at both quays, a balanced turning manoeuvre, clear from the moored ships, is more difficult than the turning before the bend due to the increased space Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

25

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

between slope and moored ship at the single-sided quay. Run 7 was repeated in run 8 and 9 with a southern 5 Bft head wind.

Table 5 – Outbound simulations with flood current and standardised feedback

Run

Ship (L / T)

Wind

Tugs

Reserve Difficulty

Duplex_7

430 m/ 15 m

S6

F

A / P-PS

6

-

Duplex_8

430 m/ 15 m

S5

F

A

2

2

Duplex_9

430 m/ 15 m

S5

F

A

2

2

Duplex_17

430 m/ 15 m

NW6

F

A

6

3

Duplex_18

400 m/ 13.1 m

NW5

F

A

2

2

Duplex_19

400 m/ 13.1 m

NW5

F-PS / F

A-SS

6

-

Duplex_20

400 m/ 13.1 m

NW5

F-PS / F

A-SS

1

2

Figure 23 – Outbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 7 at S 6 Bft: overview

26

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 24 – Outbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 8 at S 5 Bft: overview and detail from min 24 to 45

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

27

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 25 – Outbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 9 at S 5 Bft: overview and detail from min 10 to 31

28

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Run 8 is a head in outbound manoeuvre with the 430 m ship going astern to the river and making the course change in the flood current (Figure 24). It takes time to stop the ULCS at a draft of 15 m from going astern so that the ship is nearly grounding at the shallow zone nearby buoy 95. During this turning manoeuvre on the river the fore tug and the bow thruster are working at maximum power while the aft tug up to half bollard pull. There is temporarily no reserve at the bow. The duration of the manoeuvre from leaving the second tidal dock to the end of the simulation (position at green side of the river along the current deflecting wall) is 21 minutes (detail in Figure 24). Moving to the red side of the river will take some minutes longer.

In run 9 the same conditions are taken as in run 8 but another manoeuvre is executed. The ship first turns astern into the Deurganck dock and then leaves the dock in a forward motion onto the river (Figure 25). The bend inside the dock was not considered in this run to reduce the simulation time. The ship comes with the stern close to the moored ship in the Deurganck dock and should stay away from the zone in between quay and western leading light. The aft tug has an important task to make the turn into the Deurganck dock. While leaving the mouth of Deurganck dock a ROT of 5 degrees to port was built up to counteract the current.

Reducing this ROT to avoid coming close to the current deflecting wall was not necessary. The fore tug is only used at the end of the simulation to help the bow turn into the course of the red side of the river. The duration of the manoeuvre from leaving the second tidal dock to the end of the simulation is also 21 minutes as in run 8 but the ship is now already at the red side near buoy 86 (detail in Figure 25).

In run 17 only the wind direction and strength had been changed compared to runs 8 and 9 to a northwesterly 6 Bft wind (Figure 26). On the river the ship will have to encounter flood current and wind working in the same direction. With only two tugs (one fore and one aft) and due to the large angle (rather 90 degrees) with the current while approaching the river, the ship did not succeed to make the turn and was drifted towards the Ineos jetty. A collision could be avoided but the simulation was stopped. The combination of a 430 m vessel with 15 m draft, maximum flood current and a very strong wind is an exceptional situation as at that time of the tide only a shift to for example the river terminals is realistic. This situation requires three tugs.

Figure 26 – Outbound flood (head in, 430 m): run 17 at NW 6 Bft: overview Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

29

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 27 – Outbound flood (head in, 400 m): run 18 at NW 5 Bft: overview and detail

30

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

The conditions of run 17 were made more realistic by decreasing the wind to NW 5 Bft and by taking the 400 m ULCS at a tide independent draft of 13.1 m for run 18 (Figure 27). The pilot approaches the river close to the northern wall (stable due to wind direction and zero to negative lateral speed) to be able to have reserve for the flood current (again with an angle). The astern speed is higher compared with the speed in run 17. The aft tug is almost not used while the fore tug and bow thrusters are both working at maximum power during the turning manoeuvre on the river. The reserve to the Ineos jetty is large. The duration is about 15 minutes between leaving the second tidal dock and the end of the simulation run.

In run 19 and 20 a heat out outbound manoeuvre has been executed with the same ship and draft as in run 18 and the same wind. Run 19 (Figure 28) was stopped before completion because turning the ship in the intersection zone between dock and river without adjusting the course in a more sheltered area, did not succeed with two fore tugs. With a forward speed of 2 to 3 knots the ship drifted towards the shallow zone and grounded in between PAAL_BB and buoy 95.

Figure 28 – Outbound flood (head out, 400 m): run 19 at NW 5 Bft: overview

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

31

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 29 – Outbound flood (head out, 400 m): run 20 at NW 5 Bft: overview and detail

32

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

To overcome this grounding the speed is decreased to a low value while leaving the second tidal dock in run 20 (Figure 29). The bow thrusters are used for at maximum power while the aft tug is working at 75% while turning the ship. The fore tugs are rarely used so that there is still reserve on this manoeuvre. The built up ROT starts with 5 degrees (to port) while entering the river but can be, after decreasing due to the current, increased to -10 degrees again. High rudder angles combined with ahead propeller thrust can also be used to steer the aft ship and to counteract the current. It is a slow manoeuvre with a duration of more than 15 minutes between leaving the second tidal dock and the end of the simulation at the green to centre side of the river.

In Figure 30 a head in (run 18) and head out (run 20) manoeuvre with identical conditions are combined in one plot for minutes 7 to 21. In a head in manoeuvre going astern to the river, while balancing the speed, the ship can be brought immediately to the red buoy side while in the head out manoeuvre the turning should happen at the green side so that other inbound sailing vessels are hindered as long as the ship did not move to the red side.

Figure 30 – Outbound flood (400 m): comparison of head in (run 18) and head out (run 20), min 7 to 21

The evaluation of the pilots in Table 5 gives for all completed runs a reserve of much (1) to sufficient (2) and a normal (2) difficulty. The difference between a 430 m vessel at a draft of 15 m or a 400 m vessel with a draft of 13.1 m is also seen. The difference in ship’s inertia (due to different displacement) influences the astern motion in the head in outbound manoeuvre which need to be solved with a good balancing of speed and angle to the current. Although in the head in outbound manoeuvre only two tugs (one fore and one aft) were used in these strong conditions, a third tug which is standby (e.g. for pushing), should be advised.

The astern motion for taking the bend in the second tidal dock was only once simulated but can be compared with the other runs of the outbound manoeuvre with ebb current discussed in 3.2.2.

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

33

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A head out outbound manoeuvre at maximum flood will, based on the simulations, take longer than a head in manoeuvre so that a slight preference is given to this latest manoeuvre for the Duplex alternative. In traffic situations with other inbound and outbound sailing ships this can become important.

3.2.2

Ebb current

Three simulations have been executed with the 400 m ULCS at 13.1 m draft with head in (run 5 and 6 and NW 6 Bft) and head out (run 10 with W 5 Bft) manoeuvre and one with the 430 m ULCS at draft 15 m (run 16 at SW 6 Bft).

Run 5 was not successful because the pilot, familiar with the Boomerang and L-Square alternatives, thought that he needed a kind of astern zig zag manoeuvre from the second tidal dock entrance to the river (Figure 31). Therefore, the ship was entering the river at the downwards side and with an angle that could not be compensated on the river. The ebb current moved the ship to the north and the only solution was to turn the ship in the current and try to overcome the situation with a 270 degrees turn to port. Nevertheless, the ship grounded in the shallow zone in between PAAL_BB and buoy 95.

Table 6 – Outbound simulations with ebb current and standardised feedback

Run

Ship (L / T)

Wind

Tugs

Reserve

Difficulty

Duplex_5

400 m/ 13.1 m

NW6

F

A

6

2

Duplex_6

400 m/ 13.1 m

NW6

F

A

4

2

Duplex_10

400 m/ 13.1 m

W5

F

A

1

2

Duplex_16

430 m/ 15 m

SW6

F

A

1

2

The conditions of run 5 have been repeated in run 6 (Figure 32). The head in outbound manoeuvre at ebb is more difficult than at flood because, when the aft ship reaches the current, the ship is turned to port away from the necessary course change to starboard. The astern speed was higher than in run 5 with -4 knots while also the angle with the current was reduced. Two tugs (maximum bollard pull on the river) together with the bow thrusters (both full for more than 10 minutes) are used to turn the ship. The manoeuvre is successful but there is no reserve on the tugs and thrusters. At least an additional third tug should be available to assist.

The aft ship reached the shallow zone at the red buoy line south of buoy 88 so that an incident occurred without damage. The ROT while approaching the current was negative (turn to port) and increased immediately when the aft ship reached the ebb current (detail in Figure 32). A solution which was not simulated, is an outbound manoeuvre with turning from the second tidal dock to the Deurganck dock, while using also the northwesterly 6 Bft wind, and then speeding up to counteract the ebb current in a forward motion.

Run 16 (Figure 33) with a 430 m ULCS and a southwesterly 6 Bft wind gave a very smooth manoeuvre while sailing astern to the river with a speed of -4 knots with restricted tug power but more intensive bow thruster use (10 minutes maximum power) in the straight stretch of the second tidal dock counteracting the wind effect. The portside ROT was always smaller than -2.5 degrees and helped together with the wind effect to turn the bow towards the river. Comparing run 6 and 16 not only the current has an influence but also the additional wind effect helps or worsens the manoeuvre. The duration of the manoeuvre from leaving the second tidal dock to the end of the simulation is up to 22 minutes with the ship at the red buoy line.

34

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

In Figure 34 a head out outbound manoeuvre at ebb is executed in run 10 from the straight stretch after the dock bend to the river. The wind is westerly 5 Bft perpendicular to the dock orientation at start and in line after the bend. The ahead motion in the dock is smooth with speeds from 2 knots at start to almost 4 knots after the bend. The use of the tugs and the bow thrusters is restricted inside the dock thanks to the westerly dock orientation in the second stretch. The bow thrusters (maximum thrust for 8 minutes) and the aft tug (75% bollard pull for 15 minutes) are intensively used for the turning motion onto the river. The ebb current is used first on the bow but a good balance between speed and ROT is again necessary to turn successfully on the river. The fore tug is almost not used and gives thus reserve in these conditions. The duration of the manoeuvre from leaving the dock until the end of the simulation (north of buoy 88) is 20 minutes. A head out outbound manoeuvre can therefore be evaluated as slightly less time consuming than the astern motion.

The wind effect will also influence the difference in head in or head out manoeuvring.

If the ahead (head out) or astern (head in) motion in the dock is compared, the tracks of run 6 and 10 with other wind conditions give comparable positions within the same time frame (Figure 35). There is therefore no significant advantage of sailing ahead compared to astern in relation to time. Also the use of tugs does not show real difference.

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

35

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 31 – Outbound ebb (head in, 400 m): run 5 at NW 6 Bft: overview and detail 36

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 32– Outbound ebb (head in, 400 m): run 6 at NW 6 Bft: overview and detail

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

37

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 33 – Outbound ebb (head in, 430 m): run 16 at SW 6 Bft: overview and detail

38

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 34 – Outbound ebb (head out, 400 m): run 10 at W 5 Bft: overview and detail

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

39

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 35 – Outbound ebb (400 m): comparison of head in (run 6) and head out (run 10)

The evaluation of the pilots in Table 6 gives for run 10 and 16 an evaluation of much reserve (1) and normal (2) difficulty. As stated, runs 5 and 6 with strong NW 6 Bft wind ended with difficulties but needed still some habituation of the pilots to the situation. The difficulty of the manoeuvre remained normal. The difference between a 400 m and a 430 m is not really seen, nor in the entrance of the second tidal dock neither in the mouth of Deurganck dock. In all runs only two tugs (one fore and one aft) have been used with for most 5 and 6 Bft wind cases enough reserve. For disadvantageous wind directions at 6 Bft a third standby tug could be advised.

40

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

4 Conclusions and future work In this report the Duplex alternative is being examined for the first time in real time manoeuvring simulations during two simulation days at Flanders Hydraulics Research in cooperation with the Flemish and Dutch pilotage and the tug companies Antwerp Towage or Boluda. A simulation environment was set up with the boundaries of the Duplex alternative, additional digital navigation lines to be used in the Portable Pilot unit and the design ships of 430 m and 400 m with beams of 62 and 61.5 m respectively and varying drafts of 15 m 3 for the 430 m ULCS and the tide independent draft of 13.1 m for the 400 m ULCS. The current profile for the Duplex alternative for a mean spring tide cycle was calculated and reported within project 20_091 and maximum flood and ebb current at the mouth of the Deurganck dock have been selected to test the inbound and outbound manoeuvres. Comparing Duplex with Boomerang and L-Square some general remarks can be made: •

• •

•

3

The Duplex alternative is turned to an inbound heading of 283 degrees while the L-Square dock has an inbound heading of 299 and the Boomerang dock of 302 degrees (Figure 36). From a heading parallel to the current deflecting wall of 175 degrees a turn of 108 (Duplex) to 127 (Boomerang) degrees has to be realized in an ahead motion. The decrease of almost 20 degrees necessary turn helps the overall accessibility.

The entrance width of the second tidal dock in Duplex is smaller than in the other two alternatives with 325 m compared to 350 m. This is a disadvantage but in all alternatives short distances to the entrance walls should be avoided by training on the specific manoeuvre in the entrance.

The second straight stretch of Duplex after the bend is realized as a two sided dock while Boomerang and L-Square only have quay walls at the southern boundary and slopes at the northern. This limits the space for the turning ship in the bend of the Duplex dock (see run 7 and repeated in run 8 and 9).

A current eddy in the mouth of the Deurganck and second tidal dock seems to be more pronounced in the Duplex alternative than for the other two alternatives. Overall the distance between the entrance of the second tidal dock and the river is shorter in the Duplex alternative than the others (shorter is less time to act).

No lower draft is available in the simulator database.

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

41

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Figure 36 – Comparison of the boundaries of the Duplex alternative (white) to the Boomerang and L-Square alternatives (black)

20 simulations have been executed during the two days with mainly head in manoeuvres. The simulations have been livestreamed and the videos are available. The simulations have only been executed at severe conditions of maximum flood or ebb tide and strong wind to determine the limits. These conditions do not give an overall representation of the real conditions in a year of traffic handling.

The overall evaluation of head in and head out manoeuvres for the Boomerang and L-Square alternatives is summarized in Figure 37 and based on previous reports Eloot et al. (2019a) for the Boomerang dock and Eloot et al. (2019b) for the L-Square dock. Figure 37 is based on simulations with the 430 m design ship while in the simulations with Duplex a difference can be seen between a 430 m and 400 m ULCS for some conditions (Figure 38). Based on the evaluation in Figure 37 a preference was given to a head in mooring but in the Duplex alternative, especially for 430 m vessels, this preference is not necessarily clear. Head out and head in mooring is scoring comparably with head out giving based on the limited simulations (no statistical analysis) a slightly larger duration of the manoeuvres what will influence the traffic completion if more ULCS want to approach and leave the two tidal docks.

Figure 37 – Overall evaluation for head in and head out manoeuvres for Boomerang and L-Square alternatives (430 m ULCS) 42

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

In Figure 38 the evaluation of the head out inbound manoeuvres (no simulations executed) is based on the knowledge of swinging manoeuvres to the Deurganck dock as these are partially necessary for a head out astern entering of the second tidal dock. No real difference between Duplex and Boomerang or L-Square is expected for these cases. The more orange evaluation of head in outbound manoeuvres in Duplex than for the other alternatives is related to the shorter distance between the entrance of the second tidal dock and the river.

Figure 38 – Overall evaluation for head in and head out manoeuvres for Duplex alternative (430 m and 400 m ULCS)

The duration of ahead or astern motions in the second tidal dock itself for the Duplex alternative is almost the same so that no preference of head in or head out mooring is found in this part of the overall inbound and outbound manoeuvres. Tugs are necessary in the dock to counteract the wind effect and to keep the vessel at a safe distance to the moored ships and the operating cranes. So the speed is also adjusted to these tug assisted manoeuvring of ships with values between 2 and maximum 4 knots in the dock.

For wind conditions of a mean 5 Bft at least two 80 tons tugs are necessary while from 6 Bft on three 80 tons tugs are required of which one can operate as pusher (in standby condition). Generally at least one fore and one aft tug are taken. For some specific manoeuvres an additional third tug is proposed, independent of the wind (Table 7): • •

Inbound head in with maximum ebb current: two aft tugs Outbound head out with maximum flood current: two fore tugs

The tug companies draw attention to two points: • •

The manoeuvring space for the tugs must be kept in mind (see banks and waiting areas) in the second tidal dock.

The time tugs are assisting is larger than for the actual operations in the port of Antwerp. This must be taken into account.

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

43

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex Table 7 – Proposed tug configuration as function of head in/out mooring, in/outbound and flood or ebb

Tug configuration 4 Head in

Flood

Ebb

Inbound

F tug and A tug

F tug and A(-SS) 5 + A(-PS) tugs

Outbound

F tug and A tug

F tug and A tug

Head out

Flood

Ebb

Inbound

F tug and A tug

F tug and A tug

F(-PS) + F tugs and A(-SS) tug

F tug and A tug

Outbound

Waiting areas for inland ships were considered at the first 480 m of the quay from the entrance of the second tidal dock, above the slope at the northern boundary and at the end of the dock. Based on the simulations in the dock (Figure 39) inland ships can moor over a length of 550 m from the northern vertical wall over the slope at the northern boundary and the 480 m at the southern quay is kept. No simulations have been executed to evaluate the mooring area at the end of the dock.

Figure 39 – Determination of waiting areas for inland ships

For the conditions with only two advised tugs a third (pusher) tug should be available for wind conditions with strength of 6 Bft. 5 ( ) means that this position is suggested based on the simulations but must be decided by the pilot.

4

44

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Based on Figure 39 it can also be seen that a safe distance to the moored ULCS in the second stretch after the bend is kept and that at least more than 100 m to the quay wall (see navigation line) is respected at the first stretch. In the bend itself the overall path is wider but does not cause restrictions except for mooring inland ships until a certain distance from the inbound corner of the vertical wall to leave space for the assisting tugs in the bend area.

Some points of attention or improvement are mentioned: • • • •

Both corners of the northern vertical wall of the second tidal dock should be rounded with Teflon.

The bathymetry should be at full depth nearby and at least in line with the corners of the northern vertical wall which was during the simulations at full depth. Sedimentation at the corners of the 325 m entrance should be avoided so that the full width does not give restrictions.

Sedimentation in the mouth of Deurganck dock nearby the southern quay of this dock (side of the mouth opposite to the second tidal dock entrance) should also be controlled and removed.

The eddy of the current in the mouth of Deurganck dock will also influence the manoeuvres to the Deurganck dock.

For the evaluation of the Duplex alternative real time traffic simulations are also necessary so that the impact of the specific layout of this dock can be measured for interacting inbound and outbound manoeuvres to the two tidal docks. For this future research the individual manoeuvres discussed in this report can be shortly described as in Table 8 and taken as a start for the traffic simulations.

Figure 40 – Sedimentation at the corners of Deurganck dock and second tidal dock (orange -14.5 m LAT, red -10 m LAT)

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

45

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex Table 8 – General description of timesaving manoeuvres according to mooring direction, current and in- or outbound sailing

Head in

Flood

Ebb

Inbound

Direct turning from river to dock entrance with good balance between speed and ROT. Avoid to turn on the river in full current field, so search for the reduced flow in the Deurganck dock mouth. Keep the bow between the western and the center leading light of the Deurganck dock.

Direct turning from river to dock entrance is possible but two aft tugs are necessary to help the stern turn against the current. Avoid a drop of the ROT while the bow is moving through the reduced flow mouth of the Deurganck dock.

Outbound

Go astern from the dock entrance to the river but balance the angle between the ship heading, the current direction and the astern speed so that the turning on the river can be completed before swaying to the southern (red) side of the Deurganck dock. Balancing angle and speed is necessary to avoid grounding at the current downside (nearby Ineos jetty or red buoy line).

An alternative manoeuvre is a turning from the second tidal dock astern to the Deurganck dock followed by an ahead motion from the Deurganck dock to the river (negative ROT also necessary, see head out outbound flood)

Go astern from the dock entrance to the river but keep the angle between the ship heading and the current direction small and give a positive ROT (to starboard) to the ship before the stern reaches the counteracting ebb current. Reach the river at the southeastern area so that the stern can still sway in order to turn the ship to the north while moving astern with enough speed on the river.

An alternative manoeuvre is a turning from the second tidal dock astern to the Deurganck dock followed by an ahead motion from the Deurganck dock to the river (see head out outbound ebb)

Head out

Flood

Ebb

This manoeuvre (not simulated for Duplex) is a partly classical manoeuvre to the Deurganck dock mouth where at west-east heading the ship can go astern into the second tidal dock. As the width of the Deurganckdock is restricted at a minimum of 450 m the speed of the 400 m but especially the 430 m must be very low to avoid grounding at the red dock side.

This manoeuvre (not simulated for Duplex) is a partly classical manoeuvre to the Deurganck dock mouth where at west-east heading the ship can go astern into the second tidal dock.

As the width of the Deurganckdock is restricted at a minimum of 450 m the speed of the 400 m but especially the 430 m must be very low to avoid grounding at the red dock side.

This manoeuvre can be executed as a direct turning from the entrance of the dock to the river but only if the speed is very low (to zero) to make the turn especially in the protected area with low current in the mouth of Deurganck dock. Also a negative ROT (to port) must be given to the ship before the bow reaches the counteracting flood current field of the river.

(An alternative manoeuvre that was not simulated is a head in turning from the second tidal dock to the Deurganck dock followed by an astern motion to the river and letting the flood current swing the stern – tree-trunk manoeuvre)

This manoeuvre can be executed as a direct turning from the dock to the river but better at the eastern leading light of the Deurganck dock mouth to take reserve for the ebb current helping the turning of the bow but also swaying the ship to the north. The forward speed must be good balanced and remain low so that the necessary turn can be made on the available waterway width.

Inbound

Outbound

46

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

The number of head out manoeuvres was restricted in these two days simulations but will be further examined through the traffic simulations. Also other periods of the tidal cycle will be taken as input for the traffic simulations while Flanders Hydraulics Research is working on tide varying parameters so that the tidal period is chosen at the start of the traffic simulation and further changing according to the time frame passing by during the simulation.

Emergencies are also necessary with failures of bow thrusters or tugs. This can help further in comparing head in and head out mooring and their related inbound and outbound manoeuvres. The selection of head in or head out mooring can be based on the overall blocking time of the mouth of the Deurganck dock during the inbound and outbound manoeuvres as both determine the hindrance caused by one vessel during the residence time in the port.

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

47

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

References Eloot, K.; Verwilligen, J.; Mostaert, F. (2019a). Complex project: extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen: achtergronddocumentatie - Deelrapport 7. Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor de bouwsteen tweede getijdendok van alternatief 9. Versie 4.0. WL Rapporten, 16_117_7. Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium: Antwerpen. Available at: http://documentatiecentrum.watlab.be/owa/imis.php?module=ref&refid=312180 Eloot, K.; Verwilligen, J.; Mostaert, F. (2019b). Complex project: extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen: Achtergronddocumentatie - Deelrapport 8. Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor een variant tweede getijdendok binnen Alternatief 9. Versie 3.1. WL Rapporten, 16_117_8. Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium: Antwerpen Eloot, K.; Verwilligen, J.; Mostaert, F. (2020). Haven van Antwerpen: alternatievenonderzoek voor de Europaterminal: deelrapport 2. Simulatiestudie: ontmoetingen. Versie 3.0. WL Rapporten, 19_046_2.

Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium: Antwerpen Smolders, S.; Maximova, T.; Vanlede, J.; Verwaest, T.; Mostaert, F. (2015). Integraal Plan Bovenzeeschelde: Subreport 1 – 3D Hydrodynamisch model Zeeschelde en Westerschelde: Antwerp, Belgium Vanlede, J.; Chu, K.; Smolders, S.; Decrop, B.; Mostaert, F. (2020). Update SCALDIS 2019: a 3D hydrodynamic model of the Scheldt Estuary: calibration report. Version 3.. FHR reports, PA016_1. Flanders Hydraulics Research: Antwerp. Available at: http://documentatiecentrum.watlab.be/owa/imis.php?module=ref&refid=334271

48

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Appendix 1: Pilot card 430 m en 400 m ULCS Pilot card 430 m op 62.0 m ULCS

CON430_620 PRINCIPLE CHARACTERISTICS based on fast-time simulations Name Project

Con430_620_160.SHI 16_117 CP ECA

Main Dimensions LOA

[m]

430

LPP B

[m] [m]

409 62

T M

[m] [ton]

16 263734

Awind frontal

[m²]

2728

Awind lateral

[m²]

15932

Propeller #

[-]

1

[1/s]

1.56 No

[-] [HP] [-] [HP]

1 4250 -

Rudders #

[-]

1

dmax Time from +35 to -35

[°] [s]

35 23

nmax CPP Thruster Bow thruster Total Power Stern Thruster Total Power

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A1

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Manoeuvring speeds

Manoeuvring Full Ahead Half Ahead Slow Ahead Dead Slow Ahead

RPM [-] 60 48 36 24

UKC=100% [kn] 16.4 13.1 9.8 6.4

UKC=20% [kn] 14.0 11.2 8.4 5.6

UKC=10% [kn] 12.6 10.1 7.6 5.0

Stopping specifications Time From Man. Full Ahead to Full Astern From Slow Ahead to Slow Astern

[s] 604 915

[min] 10.07 15.25

Distance [m] 2380 2027

Advance [m] 1380 1375

Transfer [m] 872 874

Tact Diam [m] 1879 1874

1614 1494

1252 1139

2489 2296

2156 1966

1838 1635

3640 3266

Turning specifications UKC = 100% Full Ahead Slow Ahead UKC=20% Full Ahead Slow Ahead UKC=10% Full Ahead Slow Ahead

A2

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Pilot card 400 m op 61.5 m ULCS

Con400_615 PRINCIPLE CHARACTERISTICS based on fast time simulations Name Project

Con400_615_160.shi 00_107

Main Dimensions LOA

[m]

400

LPP B

[m] [m]

383 61.5

T m

[m] [ton]

16.0 266,699

Awind frontal

[m²]

2,885

Awind lateral

[m²]

16,304

Propeller #

[-]

1

[1/s] [1/s]

1.24 0.28 No

[-] [kW] [-] [kW]

2 2 x 3000 -

Rudders #

[-]

1

dmax Time from +35 to -35

[°] [s]

35 26

nmax nmin CPP Thruster Bow thruster Total Power Stern Thruster Total Power

271 m

Final version

129 m

WL2021R21_043_1

A3

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Manoeuvring speeds

Sea Full Ahead Manoeuvring Full Ahead Half Ahead Slow Ahead Dead Slow Ahead Minimum

UKC=150% [kn] 21.49 16.07 13.09 10.23 7.39 4.20

RPM [-] 74.3 55.6 45.4 35.8 26.6 17.0

UKC=35% [kn] 13.83 11.29 8.89 6.55

UKC=20% [kn] 10.59 8.32 6.10 3.60

UKC=10% [kn] 9.15 7.22 5.34 3.30

Stopping specifications Distance

Time [s]

[min]

[m]

Advance [m] 1176.3 1139.7

Transfer [m] -662.7 -659.3

Tact Diam [m] -1420.8 -1416.1

1224.6 1201.0

-848.6 -839.8

-1712.2 -1698.3

1212.9 1195.8

-923.0 -911.1

-1805.9 -1781.4

Advance [m] 1176.0 1149.8

Transfer [m] 678.9 673.2

Tact Diam [m] 1457.3 1450.2

1105.2 1079.0

753.3 739.8

1524.7 1493.9

1256.6 1229.0

957.4 929.5

1829.5 1785.5

From Man. Full Ahead to Full Astern From Slow Ahead to Slow Astern Turning specifications Portside UKC = 150% Full Ahead Slow Ahead UKC = 35% Full Ahead Slow Ahead UKC=20% Half Ahead Slow Ahead Turning specifications Starboardside UKC = 150% Full Ahead Slow Ahead UKC = 35% Full Ahead Slow Ahead UKC=20% Half Ahead Slow Ahead

A4

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Con400_615 PRINCIPLE CHARACTERISTICS based on fast time simulations Name Project

Con400_615_120.shi 00_107

Main Dimensions LOA

[m]

400

LPP B

[m] [m]

383 61.5

T m

[m] [ton]

12.0 194,920

Awind frontal

[m²]

2,987

Awind lateral

[m²]

17,030

Propeller #

[-]

1

[1/s] [1/s]

1.24 0.28 No

[-] [kW] [-] [kW]

2 2 x 3000 -

Rudders #

[-]

1

dmax Time from +35 to -35

[°] [s]

35 26

nmax nmin CPP Thruster Bow thruster Total Power Stern Thruster Total Power

271 m

Final version

129 m

WL2021R21_043_1

A5

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Manoeuvring speeds

Sea Full Ahead Manoeuvring Full Ahead Half Ahead Slow Ahead Dead Slow Ahead Minimum

UKC=150% [kn] 22.72 17.00 13.88 10.92 8.02 4.74

RPM [-] 74.3 55.6 45.4 35.8 26.6 17.0

UKC=35% [kn] 14.04 11.46 9.03 6.71 4.21

UKC=20% [kn] 11.07 8.72 6.44 3.91

UKC=10% [kn] 9.93 7.83 5.81 3.60

Stopping specifications Distance

Time [s]

[min]

[m]

Advance [m] 1245.6 1211.1

Transfer [m] -681.6 -680.8

Tact Diam [m] -1430.0 -1420.1

1217.8 1197.8

-874.0 -869.7

-1807.5 -1797.2

1298.2 1284.8

-1012.5 -1001.1

-1969.9 -1951.9

Advance [m] 1152.6 1132.5

Transfer [m] 660.5 658.2

Tact Diam [m] 1383.9 1382.2

1173.5 1152.2

856.4 839.6

1758.8 1730.7

1241.2 1219.0

953.1 931.7

1824.8 1784.2

From Man. Full Ahead to Full Astern From Slow Ahead to Slow Astern Turning specifications Portside UKC = 150% Full Ahead Slow Ahead UKC = 35% Full Ahead Slow Ahead UKC=20% Half Ahead Slow Ahead Turning specifications Starboardside UKC = 150% Full Ahead Slow Ahead UKC = 35% Full Ahead Slow Ahead UKC=20% Half Ahead Slow Ahead

A6

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Appendix 2: Manual for KMZ tracks The simulations can be replayed with animation in Google Earth based on the attached KMZ files. A short manual describes the actions and possibilities.

Install Google Earth (the version used for the images in this manual is a Dutch version) Go to Windows Explorer or the KMZ files attached to the report and double click on a selected KMZ file: e.g. Duplex_9_Report.kmz The KMZ file with animated graphs and animated simulation can be seen in the temporary locations at the left pull down menu. On the main screen the location is seen with the simulation data on top of it and the overlay graphs (right column with time graphs). You can tick on or off the different overlay graphs in the left pull down menu.

The overlay graphs are light red on top of the different series in the graphs because the animation is presented from the start to the end of the simulation. If you use the slider on the top left location, you can go back and forward on the graphs and also on the track.

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A7

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

To clearly focus on the track of the own ship you can select the pull down list of the animated simulation

A8

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

and double click on “own”. Then the Google Earth presentation zooms to the track of the own ship. You can once again use the slider to go back and forward in the simulation.

In the pull down list of the animated simulation there is also a PLAY button, by double clicking on this button the simulation replays with a vertical red line on the overlay graphs to show where you are in the graphs for the presented own ship on the Google Earth view. In the left corner below, the play button is presented and can be used for increasing the replay speed.

The following graphs are shown on the Google Earth presentation: The longitudinal speed component (u), the lateral speed component (v) and the rate of turn (r) of the vessel.

The rudder angle (d1) with a minimum of -35 degrees (to starboard) and a maximum of 35 degrees (to port).

The propeller rate (rn1) with a minimum of -60 rpm (harbour full astern) and a maximum of 60 rpm (harbour full ahead).

The bow thruster(s) (rn3 and rn4) with a minimum propeller rate of -450 rpm (to port) and a maximum propeller rate of 450 rpm (to starboard).

The tugs (tug1, tug2, tug 3, tug 4) with the given thrust of the tug shown in tons. Tugs of 80 tons bollard pull have been used.

On the Google Earth overview are the red lines the depth lines at -10 m LAT, the orange lines the depth lines at -14.5 m LAT and the yellow lines at -18.0 m LAT.

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A9

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Appendix 3: Feedback [21_043] Duplex Beoordeling reserves 1. gelukt met veel reserve 2. gelukt met voldoende reserve 3. gelukt met weinig reserve 4. ten einde gebracht met incidenten (geen schade) 5. niet gelukt met schade 6. niet gelukt / opgegeven

Moeilijkheidsgraad op de simulator 1. het werd vlot uitgevoerd 2. het werd normaal uitgevoerd 3. meer dan normale moeilijkheid 4. het was moeilijk 5. het was uiterst moeilijk, riskant 6. onuitvoerbaar

Uitvoerbaarheid Is dit manoeuvre - zoals u het op de simulator uitvoerde - ook veilig uitvoerbaar op het kanaal? Ja/Nee

A10

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Run

Feedback

Duplex_1

Habituation run

Duplex_2

Condities eerste vaart worden herhaald. Startsnelheid iets lager 3.5 m/s. De snelheid was te laag gevallen (hoewel de sleepboot al gestopt was), minstens 2 knoop aanhouden. Doseren tussen snelheid en rate of turn. Twee fases: riviermanoeuvre en dok in gaan, beter in centerlijn dok komen door meer vaart vooruit te houden.

Duplex_3

Eerst 190° gestuurd, dan naar 185°, heeft er voor gezorgd dat er verder uit gekomen wordt (vgl. uitvaren van het DGD, x knopen snelheid, x° ROT). Om het dok in te varen zat het schip nu goed, maar wel de wind onder controle houden. Het schip op het voorschip laten zwaaien. Eventueel scenario onderzoeken waarbij het schip met boeg tussen noordelijke en midden lichtenlijn van DGD blijft bij draaien naar TGD.

Duplex_4

PPU (probleem tot in monding dok, verschuiving scheepspositie meer naar achter in vergelijking met werkelijke positie), draai over de eb viel mee, maar zeer veel sleepbootkracht achteraan nodig, breed aankomen was het plan en gelukt, vlotte beweging, boegschroef niet bakboord moeten zetten (tegen de stroom in). 20 graden minder bochten voor de eb bij deze Duplex een voordeel! Ook om de knik te nemen 20 graden minder bochten. Als het misloopt in de monding, kan je het DGD nog in gaan.

Duplex_5

Misverstand tussen sleepboot en loods, voorbij de knik moest de achterboot over stuurboord het achterschip ophouden, maar de sleepboot zat aan bakboord. Bij het uitgaan van het dok lag het schip nog goed maar in de monding werd de hoek met de stroom te groot. De loods dacht dat de wind voldoende het achterschip terug zou brengen.

Boegschroeven wel regelmatig op vol in het dok. Het schip te snel gepakt door de stroom.

Balans wind, stroom. Besloten om door bakboord zwaaien manoeuvre terug onder controle te brengen. Simulatie gestopt toen het voorschip aan de grond gelopen was. Stroom is veel sterker dan de wind. Later gaf de loods ook nog mee dat in voorgaande alternatieven er nog een belangrijke hoek moest gemaakt worden om op stroom te komen. Mogelijk heeft dit geleid tot de te grote hoek. Er zou ook in de monding van het DGD gezwaaid kunnen worden maar dan moet je wel zien dat je met een hoek tegen de stroom op stroom komt. De NW wind zou wel helpen voor het zwaaien van de boeg over bakboord in de monding.

Duplex_6

Tot nu toe ondervinden de loodsen geen hinder van de binnenschepen die boven het noordelijke talud zijn afgemeerd (wachtplaatsen). Eens het achterschip op de stroom gekomen ( -4 kn achteruit was wel groot) is het achterschip weg. Met de achtersleepboot het achterschip ophouden. Onder een hoek van eerder 280° achteruit in het TGD naar de monding. Het schip is nu door de hogere snelheid op de overzijde in de ondiepte gegaan.

Duplex_7

De simulatie werd afgebroken in de knik want het schip liep in het talud aan de grond. Er werd, toen het achterschip niet voldoende meedraaide, een extra duwer ingezet. In de knik werd vooruit geslagen om de snelheid achteruit er uit te halen maar dat ging zeer traag (bijna geen vermindering) waardoor het schip aan de grond liep. Mogelijk is dit te wijten aan de sterke zuidelijke wind samen met de inertie van het schip.

Duplex_8

Vorige simulatie wordt herhaald met een kleinere wind Z5 en met een kleinere startsnelheid (kleiner dan -2 knopen). In het dok gaat het nu goed met twee sleepboten maar op de rivier komen is moeilijk, veel (en lang) sleepbootkracht en boegschroef nodig vooraan. Er lijkt toch een verschil met de voorgaande alternatieven waarbij er nu sneller op stroom wordt gekomen en hierdoor het effect van de stroom groter lijkt.

Duplex_9

De condities van de voorgaande simulatie worden gebruikt waarbij nu eerder in de monding zal gezwaaid worden. Alles meer onder controle in het dok. Wanneer boeg vrij, kan deze stuurboord over komen. Bij het op de stroom komen was er eerst 5 graden bakboord ROT

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A11

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

maar dan gestut (want loods vond wat dicht bij de CDW) maar hierdoor stroom meer effect en weer moeilijk om tegen de stroom op te sturen (sleepboten worden dan nog even ingezet).

Duplex_10

Head out manoeuvre bij eb. Ook knik wordt gerond bij W 5 Bft. Alles onder controle, een plezant manoeuvre. Eerst aan de rode pikkel blijven, en dan de stroom zijn werk laten doen.

Duplex_11

Gewenningsvaart met drie sleepboten. Manoeuvre werd uitgevoerd zoals gepland. Drie sleepboten geven comfort. Even vol gebruikt maar later opgelet om dit niet te doen.

Nog strengere condities met NW 6 Bft, en starten met twee sleepboten. Tijdens het inzwaaimanoeuvre in het TGD staat alles op vol. Plan dicht bij CDW maar te dicht, te laat de bocht kunnen nemen. Oplijnen 175, machine te lang moeten laten draaien, daarna Duplex_12 achteruitslaan. Meer effect van de wind verwacht. Met NW 6 in realiteit zou met drie boten uitgevoerd zijn. Niet verwacht bij het zwaaien en achteruit slaan dat het schip nog zo ver vooruit zou geraken.

Camera opname voor Manifesto film DMOW, geeft tussenkomsten van de crew. Cameraman heeft het manoeuvre ook gestuurd, verschillende keren full ahead gevraagd om meer shots Duplex_13 van het commando te kunnen nemen. De loodsen verwachten meer drijven van het schip bij 6 Bft. Deze simulatie wordt niet beschouwd in de analyse.

Zelfde manoeuvre als voorgaande maar met 430 m schip, bij het inzwaaien op en voorbij de stroomnaad worden één achter- en één voorsleepboot gebruikt wel beiden op vol, met ook Duplex_14 vol stuurboord boegschroef. Te rap terug vooruit geslagen (snelheid opbouwen). Na passage zuidkant dok NW wind counteren.

Zelfde manoeuvre als voorgaande maar nu klassiek manoeuvre naar DGD bij eb om dan head in het dok in te draaien. Bij het afstoppen in de monding en het bakboord ROT opbouwen ging het niet snel genoeg waardoor met voorschip in ondiepte. Voor een 430 m schip is de Duplex_15 monding krap, tijd winnen door achteruit door te zwaaien in de monding achteruit. Met dit zwaar schip is het zeer moeilijk om dit manoeuvre te doen. In monding 460 m tussen ondieptes noord en zuid, dus geen ruimte voor een 430 m schip.

Hoek tussen stroom en voorligging schip klein, dan komt dit vlot. Opmerking dat het schip Duplex_16 zeer log is en als de negatieve snelheid wordt afgebouwd dit zeer traag verloopt. Bij 400 m schepen is men gewoon dat dit sneller kan. Snelheid achteruit was tussen -2 en -3 knopen.

Bij het op stroom komen is er een goede hoek met de stroom gemaakt, wel zeer dicht bij ondiepte voor de noordelijke muur van het nieuwe dok. Bij het achteruit op rivier lopen bijsturen met sleepboten zodat het achterschip niet te dicht bij de phenol komt. De wind en Duplex_17 de stroming werken het achteruit bochtmanoeuvre van het schip tegen. Schip zeer veel inertie en daarom moeilijk om er mee te werken. Met deze diepgang 15 m wordt er niet bij maximale vloedstroom op rivier gekomen (tenzij shiften naar NZT).

Het 400 m schip wordt gekozen met een kleinere windsterkte van 5 Bft, nog steeds NW dus zelfde richting als max. vloedstroom. Er wordt gestart met twee sleepboten maar indien Duplex_18 noodzakelijk kan er een bijkomende sleepboot gevraagd worden. Bij het op rivier komen is de ROT bijna -10° over bakboord. Boegschroef en voorsleepboot beide vol op de rivier.

Duplex_19

Moeilijkste manoeuvre bij head out, op stroom komen bij max. vloed. De stroom komt diep in het dok (zie ook neer). Simulatie werd afgebroken.

Zelfde condities, dit lijkt op deze manier geen problematisch manoeuvre, dus niet moeilijker Duplex_20 dan head in achteruit op stroom komen. Traag manoeuvre om voldoende ROT over bakboord op te bouwen, dus snelheid ook laag houden.

A12

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Appendix 4: Time graphs

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A13

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A14

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A15

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A16

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A17

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A18

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A19

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A20

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A21

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A22

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A23

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A24

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A25

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A26

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A27

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A28

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A29

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A30

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A31

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A32

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A33

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A34

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A35

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A36

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A37

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A38

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A39

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A40

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A41

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A42

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A43

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A44

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A45

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A46

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A47

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A48

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A49

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A50

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

Final version

WL2021R21_043_1

A51

Complex project: Extra containerbehandelingscapaciteit in het havengebied Antwerpen Deelrapport 1 – Geïntegreerd onderzoek – deel nautica: simulatiestudie voor het alternatief Duplex

A52

WL2021R21_043_1

Final version

DEPARTEMENT MOBILITEIT & OPENBARE WERKEN Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium Berchemlei 115, 2140 Antwerpen T +32 (0)3 224 60 35 F +32 (0)3 224 60 36 waterbouwkundiglabo@vlaanderen.be www.waterbouwkundiglaboratorium.be