441
1 INTRODUCTION
The Adriatic Sea penetrates deep into the middle of
the European continent, providing the cheapest
maritimeroutefromtheFarEast,viatheSuezCanal,
tomuchofEurope.Largecommercialandindustrial
hubs like Vienna, Munich and Milan are just a few
hours’drive away. Inthe
lasttwenty yearsthetotal
container traffic in the northern Adriatic ports has
increased almost exponentially, on average 7% per
year,thoughtheratehasvariedamongports(Fig.1),
(NAPA). The fastest growth of container traffic was
recorded atthe Port of Koper, atan average of 14%
per
year,inVenicethegrowthwasconstant,whileat
Ravenna the traffic barely increased at all. The
minimumthroughputwasandremainsatthePortof
Rijeka, which lost a great deal of traffic due to the
stateofwarinCroatia;sinceabout2003theincrease
inRijekaʹscontainer
throughputhasbeenmoreinline
withthatofKoper,Trieste,andVenice.
2008 and 2009 – the worst years of the global
economicandfinancialcrisis–offersomeinteresting
results.InVeniceduringthisperiod,throughputkept
steadily increasing by 5% per year; the other four
ports experienced
a decrease averaging 15%. The
largest drop in traffic was recorded in Trieste, a
decreaseofmorethan58,000TEUs(17.5%),thoughby
The Increase in Container Capacity at Slovenia's Port
of Koper
M.Perkovic,E.Twrdy&M.Batista
UniversityofLjubljana,FacultyofMaritimestudiesandTransport,Slovenia
S.Jankowski&L.Gucma
M
aritimeUniversityofSzczecin,Poland
ABSTRACT:The portsofthenorthernAdriatic areranged inthree countries, Koperʹs beingthe onlyone in
Sloveniaandthereforeofdistinctiveimporttothecountry,whichwithitslimitedcoastalspacehasnoother
optionsforexpandingmaritimetradethanincreasingthecapacity
ofthisoneextantport.ThestateofSlovenia
isthelargestshareholderandthefuturedevelopmentoftheportdependsondecisionsmadebytheMinistryof
Infrastructure. The increase in container throughput in the Port of Koper requires a reconstruction and
extension of the current container terminal as an
absolute priority. Regarding economic sustainability the
extensionmustbeinlinewiththeestimatedgrowthoftrafficaswellaswiththeexploitationofpresentand
future terminal capacities. The occasional expansion projects must fulfil environmental and safety
requirements.Forlargecontainervessels(LOAmorethan330m)callingat
thePortofKoperthesafetyofthe
berthinganddepartureconditionshavetobesimulatedundervariousmetoceanconditions.Atthesametime
manoeuvresshouldnotbeintrusive–expectedpropellerwashorbottomwashphenomenamustbeanalysed.
When large powerful container vessels are manoeuvring in shallow water bottom
wash is expected and
becausesedimentsattheportarequitecontaminatedwithmercurysomenegativeenvironmentalinfluenceis
expected.Themostimportantexpectedinvestmentinthecontainerterminalisthereforeextending(enlarging)
and deepening the berth. The paper will present statistics and methods supporting container terminal
enlargementanda
safetyandenvironmentalassessmentderivedfromtheuseofashiphandlingsimulator.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 7
Number 3
September 2013
DOI:10.12716/1001.07.03.17
442
percentageRijekafaredworse,decliningattherateof
22.5% (38,000 TEUs less). We performed the shift‐
shareanalysisproposedbyNotteboom(2007).Inthis
analysis we include absolute growth of container
trafficABSGRandtheshareeffectamongports.The
calculationisbasedonthefollowingformulas
10
-
kkk
ABSGR TEU TEU (1)
1
0
i
i
k
i
i
TEU
SHARE
TEU
(2)
Figure1.ContainerthroughputinNAPAportsduring1991‐
2012(1000TEUs),(NAPA)
Table1.Absolutegrowthofcontainerthroughputandtotal
shiftofcontainersforNAports(1991‐2011)
_______________________________________________
Period Koper Rijeka Trieste Venezia Ravena
_______________________________________________
AbsolutegrowthTEU
_______________________________________________
1991 1995 ‐3,758 2,000 8,200 32,300 34,600
1995 1999 19,821‐29,866 35,163 76,703 ‐11,595
1999 2003 48,033 18,164‐66,765 83,864 ‐13,045
2003 2007 179,411 116,742 147,465 45,845 46,220
2007 2011 283,666 5,637 127,323 128,851 8,756
1991 2011 527,173 112,677 251,386 367,563 64,936
_______________________________________________
ContainersshiftTEU
_______________________________________________
1991 1995 ‐11,851‐4,065‐12,307 16,801 11,422
1995 1999 10,121‐34,235 10,592 51,003 ‐37,481
1999 2003 38,067 16,572‐84,646 59,706 ‐29,698
2003 2007 68,289 71,020 37,144‐124,752 ‐51,700
2007 2011 125,743‐50,263 8,739 ‐16,309 ‐67,910
1991 2011 263,476 13,175‐62,571‐7,743‐206,337
_______________________________________________
Figure2.TheevaluationoftheshiftsharesinNAPAports
(1991‐2011)
ResultsofthecalculationaredisplayedinTable1,
andFigure2,whichshowsthattheportofKoperhas
by far experienced the largest absolute growth and
shiftintheregion.
All other ports have oscillations. The most
unpleasantsituationisattheportofRavenna.
Althoughthetotalcontainer
trafficinthenorthern
Adriatic ports increased in recent years it still
representsanegligibleproportionintotalthroughput
oftheEuropeanports.Thedataindicate(Table2)that
container traffic in northern Adriatic ports in the
European Common throughput shows a slight
increase–in2008itwas1.6
percentanditamounted
to almost 2 percent in 2011. In the proportion‐the
throughput of all North Adriatic ports present just
15.2 percent of the throughput, which has created
EuropeʹslargestportPortofRotterdamin2011.
Table2. Container throughput (in TEUs in 1000).
ComparisonofthethreelargestEuropeanportsandNorth
Adriatic(NA)ports
_______________________________________________
2008 2009 2010 2011
10
3
TEU 10
3
TEU 10
3
TEU 10
3
TEU
_______________________________________________
Rotterdam 10784 9743 11147 11877
11.9% 12.5% 13.0% 12.9%
Hamburg 8664 7310 8468 9014
9.6% 9.4% 9.8% 9.8%
Antwerp 9737 7008 7896 8664
10.7% 9.0% 9.2% 9.4%
NAports 1423 1305 1471 1806
1.6% 1.7%
1.7% 2.0%
_______________________________________________
EU90710 78011 86014 92164
_______________________________________________
2 INCREASINGCONTAINERCAPACITYINTHE
PORTOFKOPER
Container vessels are becoming larger, necessitating
the expansion of the infrastructure at the Port of
Koperʹs container terminal. Thus far investment
toward the extension of the container shore,
expansion of storage space and the purchase of
specialized transport equipment has
proven to be
decisive in combating the financial crisis in part
throughmaritimetrade.Thequantity oftransported
containershasreachingenviablenumbers.Thisvery
success, though, has at the same time created a
problem.Thegrowthofcontainer throughputinthe
Port of Koper is at the limit of
the capacity for the
existingcontainerterminal.Therefore,itisnecessary
tostartconstructiononanewcontainerterminaland
reconstructionandextensionofthecurrentcontainer
terminal. Theextensionis inlinewith the estimated
growth of traffic as well as with the exploitation of
presentandfutureterminalcapacities.
New projects and potential investments are
important steps for the development of the Port of
Koper, enhancing its performance and increasing its
market share. The figure below (Fig. 3) shows the
enlargementplanofthePortofKoper.Anewpier,3,
isforeseenasanadditionalcontainerterminal,while
the existing container terminal shall be extended to
accommodateonemoreberth(berth7D).Atpresenta
large container vessel can call at the container
terminal(berth7C)withalimiteddraftof11.6m.
443
Figure3.Existingandextendedpiers(Perkovicetal.2012b)
To extend the pier and to determine the
appropriate channel depth, deterministic and semi‐
probabilistic methods for designing a channel were
applied. The minimum width and shape of the
channel must be appropria te for safe calling and
departureofcharacteristiccontainervesselspresented
at wind conditionsupto 5 knots. As
a result of the
extension of pier 1 the entrance into basin 1 will
narrow, which can affect the safety of approach for
the largest cruisers (LOA up to 347m, draft 14.0m)
callingatberths1and2.
The extended plan with a fully loaded berth is
presentedinfigure
4.Theinitialstepwastoanalyse
aspects relative to safety of an approaching cruiser
whiletheextendedcontainerterminalisoccupiedby
a large container vessel – figure 5a, shows the
approachingtrajectoryandmeasurementlinesofsafe
margins.
Figure4. Basin 1‐fully loaded berths; at top extended
containerterminal(berth7D)
Figure5bshowstheresultsofthefirstattemptat
designinganentrancetoachanneldredgedto‐15m
andthetrajectoryofalargecontainervesselentering
basin1.The designer hopedto make the channelas
shortaspossibletominimisedredging costs,whichis
why the designed
entrance was steep and narrow.
Suchanapproachwasalsochosenbecauseoflimited
amount of landfill capacities. Even brief simulation
usingafullmissionshiphandlingsimulator(Transas
NTPro 5000, version 5.25) (Transas 2012) running
with previously chosen container vessel model‐
clearlyshowsthatsuchachannelisnot
anadequately
safe approach for large container vessels. Based on
those initial simulations further research work was
ordered(Perkovicetal.2013).
Figure5a. Basin 1 – approaching trajectories of cruising
vessel
Figure5b. Basin 1 – approaching trajectories of container
vessel(initialtest)
2.1 Determiningnominalchannelwidthbythe
deterministmethod
The fundamental criterion for defining and
dimensioningelementsforminganavigationchannel
or a harbour basin is safety in manoeuvring and
operations carried out within them (Puertos del
Estado 2007). The criteria for the geometric layout
definition of the following navigation channels
and
harbour basins: fairways, harbour entrances,
manoeuvringareas,anchorages,mooringareas,buoy
systems, basins and quays is based on knowing the
spacesoccupiedbyvessels,whichdependson:a)the
vesselandthefactorsaffectingitsmovements,b)the
water level and factors affecting its variability. The
main references for
defining those factors are ROM
3.1“TheRecommendationsfortheDesignoftheMaritime
Configuration of Ports, Approach Channels and Harbour
Basins” (Puertos del Estado, 2007) and PIANC
“Permanent International Association of Navigation
Congresses” (PIANC 1997). The key parameters in
approach channel design according to PIANC and
ROM are
alignment, traffic flow, depth, and width.
Theyareallinterrelatedtoacertainextent,especially
depth and width. Factors included in determination
ofthechannelwidthinclude:vesselmanoeuvrability
(oo), ship speed (a), prevailing cross wind (b),
prevailing cross current (c), prevailing longitudinal
current (d), significant wave height (e), aids
to
navigation(f),bottomsurface(g),depthofwaterway
(h),cargohazardlevel(i),widthforbankclearance(j).
The minimum channel width designed for the
analyzed container vessel turned out to be 162.64
meters for wind conditions 4‐6 according to the
Beaufort scale (Table 3). As a particular
(gusty)
444
katabatic wind is present in that area‐manoeuvres
should not be allowed at wind stronger than 5
according to the Beaufort scale. That limit was
confirmed by the simulation (semi‐probabilistic)
method described in the next paragraph. The
effectiveness of such simulations depends on the
simulator capabilities to properly represent
maneuvering characteristics and factors influencing
shipbehavior(Kobylinski2011).
Table3. PIANC approach – factors determining minimum
channelwidth
_______________________________________________
Basicmanoeuvringlanewidth Factorsformultiplying
andadditionalwidthsvesselbeam(B=42.8)
_______________________________________________
00 vesselmanoeuvrability(poor)1.8
_______________________________________________
AdditionalWidthsforStraight wind<4
0
Bfwind4‐6
0
Bf
ChannelSections
_______________________________________________
a shipspeed(slow,lessthan5knots) 0.00.0
b prevailingcrosswind0.10.5
c prevailingcrosscurrent0.10.2
(low,0.2–0.5knots)
d prevailinglongitudinalcurrent(low) 0.00.1
e significantwaveheight0.00.1
f aidstonavigation(moderate0.30.3
withpoorvisibility)
g bottomsurface0.10.1
(smoothandsoft,<1.5T)
h depthofwaterway(h/T)1.25–1.5 0.40.4
i cargohazardlevel(lowtomedium) 0.20.2
j widthforbankclearance0.10.1
_______________________________________________
Sum3.13.8
_______________________________________________
Thebottomwidthof132.68m 162.64m
thewaterway(channel)
_______________________________________________
2.2 Determiningnominalchannelwidththroughthe
semi‐probabilisticmethod
Channelgeometricdesigninthisprocedureismainly
based on statistically analysing the areas swept by
vessels in the different manoeuvres considered,
which, should a sufficient number of manoeuvre
repetitions be available, will enable the resulting
designtobeassociated
totheriskpresentineachcase
(Brigsaetal.2003,Solari etal.2010).Thismethodwas
applied on the basis of real simulator studies. The
simulations were performed in different
meteorological conditions. Under every type of
condition adequate numbers of trials were executed
byhumannavigators.Afterthe
simulations,eachtrial
was processed statistically in order to obtain the
probability density function of shipsʹ maximum
distances from the centre of the waterway and the
accident probability calculation in the given
conditions.Finally,asafewaterareawasplottedwith
consideration of previously set up admissible risk
level.
Thenavigational
riskRisdefinedas:
R
PC (3)
where:P‐probabilityofaccident,C–consequences.
Theriskisexpressedusuallyinmonetaryvaluesover
a given period of time (one year in this kind of
analysis).Thevesselcansafelynavigateonlyinsuch
an area where each point satisfies the depth
requirement.Ifsuchcase
exists,theareaisreferredto
asthe safenavigable area.The vesselcarrying outa
manoeuvreinanavigableareasweepsacertainarea
determinedbythesubsequentpositionsofthevessel.
Theparametersofthatareahavearandomcharacter
and depend on a number of factors. Therefore, for
fairways and harbour entrances the navigational
safety condition can be tra nsformed to this form
(Gucma2013).
s
mijkm
Dt d
(4)
where:
m
Dt – breadthofthenavigableareaatthem‐th
pointofthefairwayatthemomentt,for
which the safe depth condition is
satisfied:h(x,y,t)T(x,y,t)+(x,y,t);
s
ijkm
d ‐ breadthofthesafemanoeuvring areaat
them‐thpointofthefairwayforthei‐th
vessel,performingthej‐thmanoeuvrein
k‐thnavigationalconditions.
(, , )hxyt –area depth at a point with the
coordinates(x,y)atthemomentt,
(, , )Txyt
‐ vessel’s draft at a point with the
coordinates(x,y)atthemomentt,
(, , )
x
yt
– under‐keel clearanceata pointwith the
coordinates(x,y)atthemomentt.
s
ijkm ijkm
dfd (5)
where:
ijkm
d – sweptpathofthei‐thvesselperforming
the j‐th manoeuvre in k‐th navigational
conditions for the m‐th point of the
waterway.
Thelayoutofasweptpathispresentedinfigure6
Figure6. The breadth of a swept path at a specific
confidencelevelatpoints(i)and(i+1)ofthefairway.
2.3 Simulationsandresults
First,itwasnecessarytobuildtheplanned,enlarged
port area based on precise bathymetry. The sailing
area was created using Transas application Model
Wizard (Transas 2011). Highly precise bathymetry
(Figure 7) (spatialresolution1mx 1m) was inserted
and the projected manoeuvring area was quickly
created.
Figure 8 is a screenshot from the ship
handlingsimulatorNTPro5000(Transas2012).
445
Figure7. Modified channel‐created with Model Wizard
sw.
Figure8. Fully loaded container vessel (111626 DWT)
approachingterminalwithassistanceprovidedbypilotand
twotugs–wind5knotsfrom060°
Figure9. Final layout – the green sector shows the
minimumrequiredwidthbasedonstatistical analysesanda
95%confidencelevelatvariousmetoceanconditions.
44simulationswereexecutedinvarious metocean
conditions.Manoeuvreswereprocessedaccordingto
the model previously described. The resulting safe
waterway area at a 0.95% confidence level is
presented with figure 9 (green colour). Such a
confidence level is used most frequently for the
designofthewaterways.
In more
critical solutions the level 99% could be
considered.Inportbasins,however,theshipʹsspeed
is slow enough to significantly reduce the
consequences of accidents, which explains the
toleranceof0.95%asastartingpointformoreserious
considerationsandriskanalyses.
3 BOTTOMWASH
Among the many environmental issues
concerning
transport,onethatseemstobelargelyoverlookedis
thatofre‐sedimentation,theeffectofmaritimevessels
ontheseabottom‐particularly,ofcourse,inandnear
ports. The Gulf of Trieste is a semi‐enclosed gulf in
the north‐eastern part of the Adriatic Sea,ashallow
water area with an average depth of 16 m and a
maximumdepthof25m.Thisshallowareaissubject
to special pollution consideration related to bottom
wash phenomena. There is a high mercury
concentration(InthetownofIdrija,Slovenia,theworldʹs
secondlargestmercuryminewas
activefor500yearsand
an estimated 37,000 tons of mercury has in consequence
dispersedthroughouttheenvironment)inthesubaquatic
sedimentwhichrisesintotheseacolumnwhileships
are manoeuvring. This sediment cloud (smaller
particles)isthenmovedbycurrentsforseveralhours
beforere‐sedimenting,whichhas
anefariouseffecton
theaquaticfoodchain.Theprocessofbottomwashis
basically a function of the size, type and speed of
propeller, vessel speed, sub‐propeller clearance and
sedimentconditions(Gucma&Jankowski2007).Itis
obvious that the process is dynamic; continuously
changing vessel position results in
variable
bathymetry and vessel/tug propulsion. This process
can be simulated and compared with actual
manoeuvringresultswheretelegraphrecordingdata
iscollectedtogetherwithvesseldynamics.
Figure10. Intrusive manoeuver “full astern” resulting in
extensivepropellerwash
446
Anexampleofanintrusivemanoeuverisvisiblein
figure5.Thepilotorderingfullastern,whichequaled
‐72 RPM, while the ship was at rest, resulted in
maximumslipandthrustcreating extensivepropeller
wash.
Figure 11 shows the departure procedure, but
simulated,wherethefullmissionsimulator
wasused
togetherwithtwovirtualbridges;thefirsttugwasthe
VoithSchneiderpropulsiontypeandthesecondwas
thetractorpropulsiontype.
Figure11. Simulated based Container departure, ship
resistanceandtugsforces
3.1 Modelandsomeresults
As a vessel moves, the propeller produces an
underwaterjetofwater.Thisturbulentjetisknownas
propellerwash,orbottomwash(orpropwa sh). Ifthis
jet reaches the bottom, it can contribute to re‐
suspensionormovementofbottomparticles.Velocity
distribution behind the
propeller is, for fully
developed turbulentflow, given by (Albertson et al.
1950):
2
2
0
11
exp 1
22 2
x
v
v
(6)
where
22
1
00
r
CX r
rzy
DD
(7)
and v
0 is initial velocity, D0 propeller diameter, C1
empirical constant and x, y, z are coordinates. The
maximal velocity at a given ρ is obtained from the
condition
22 2
22
0
exp 0
22
x
v
d
dv
(8)
so
andmaximalvelocityis
,
0
11
exp
22
xmax
v
v
(9)
Atthebottomwehave
0
h
D
therefore
1
2
,
0
00
~ 0.303
2
bmax
v
e
hh
v
DD
(10)
In Propeller Wash Study (Moffatt & Nichol, 2005)
themaximalbottomvelocity isgivenby
,
0
0
bmax
v
h
v
D
(11)
whereαis0.22foropenpropellersand0.3forducted
propellers.
The simulated manouvering procedure described
in figure 7 and 11 was this time analysed for the
purpose of bottom wash calculation. Ship position,
dynamics and tug forces were recorded with a time
resolutionofonesecond(1
Hz).Datawerestoredand
used for the bottom wash model where velocity
streamsarecalculatedfortheseabottomlevel.
Figure 12 shows propeller jet streams at the sea
bottom for the approaching manoeuvre of the
analysedcontainervessel. Wherever bottomvelocity
streams exceed 0.5 m/s some re‐sedimentation
is
expected.
Figure 13 shows propeller jet streams at the sea
bottomforthedeparturemaneuverofapostpanamx
bulkvesselinballastcondition.Figure14corresponds
to streams associated to two tugs assisting the bulk
carrier.Figure15isthecumulativecompositionfora
departingbulkcarrierand
tugstogether.
Even though the Container Carrier installed
engine is much greater, the applied power during
berthing is much less compared to the bulk carrier
departurecondition.
Further modelling must be done to calculate the
total amount of sediment transport divided further
into bed‐load, suspended‐load and wash load,
analysed
separately for approaching and departure
manoeuvres.
Figure12. Bottom velocity streams for approaching
Containercarrier
447
Figure13.BottomvelocitystreamsforBC
Figure14.BottomvelocitystreamsforTUG’s
Figure15. Departure; Total bottom velocity streams (Balk
Carrier+TUG’s)
Atanyratethenexttwofiguresdemonstratethat
therewillbenomajorincreaseofre‐sedimentationfor
large container vessels calling at the Port of Koper.
Installation power of main engine will increase by
10%,butwhenanalysingbottomwashatzerospeed
(when the vessel is on stop
and start to accelerate,
maximum wash is expected) with telegraph
commandorderedto“SlowAhead”propulsionpower
is equal 2.803 kW for larger container carrier
comparedwith2.545kWforexistingvessel.Themain
hullandpropulsionparticularsare:
Figure 16 shows the axial and vertical velocity
streams,where
theleft edgeof theimage represents
the water surface, while the right edge is the sea
bottommargin.Theimageshowsthevelocitystreams
of the studied vessel where the shaft line is‐9.9 m
under the sea surface and 11.4 m above the sea
bottom while the existing vessel
has 2.4 meters
smaller draft (limited vessel draft of 11.6 m
comparing to 14 m draft after the dredging). The
studiedseadepthis21.3m.Figure17aand17bshow
thebottomvelocitystreamsintheaxialdirection.The
main difference in bottom velocity streams between
existing (Fig 17b)
and larger container carriers (Fig
17a)ismostlyduetotheincreaseofthevesseldraft.
Again such increase is minor; maximum speed at
bottomwillincreaseonlybyapproximately0.2m/s.
StudiedContainershipExistingContainership
Displacement =132.540t 120.000t(estimated)
Enginepower =60.950kW 54.853kW
Servicespeed =22.8knt 25.0knt
Lengtho.a. =346.98m 318.20m
Breadthm. =42.80m 42.80m
Draft=14.00m 14.00m(limitedto11,6m)
Figure16.Velocitystreamsforplanedcontainercarriers
Figure17a.Bottomvelocitystreamsforplannedcontainer
carriers
448
Figure17b.Bottomvelocitystreamsforexistingcontainer
carriers
4 CONCLUSION
Thefuturewillbringeverlargerandmorecontainer
vessels, Ro‐Ro traffic will remain heavy and likely
increase,andpassengervesselsseemlikelytogrowin
sizeas well.The Portof Koperestimatesthatit will
havetoincreasecargooperationsfromthecurrent16‐
18 million
tons to 30‐40 million tons in five to ten
years, doubling the cargo capacity and nearly
doublingthenumberofvesselscalling.
Foreachalterationattheprecisepointwherethe
land meets the sea at a port, a number of
considerations are likely to arise. The two concerns
discussedherearesafety andpotentialenvironmental
harm. Not for the first time, we demonstrated that
ship handling simulators can help reconstruct real
domain thrust conditions in a variety of
circumstances.Anumberofcarefulsimulationswere
necessary to determine the best, that is, safest and
mostcost‐efficient,meansfor
expandingaberthand
channel,theextentofdredgingrequired,andthebest
approachforlargevessels.
Theenvironmentalfactorcoveredhereisonethat
doesnotseemtoattractmuchresearchasofyet–the
effect of vessel manoeuvres in and near ports in
regard to bottom wash
and re‐sedimentation. The
effectsofcurrentshippingtrendsontheseabedmust
beunderstoodwith a long termviewto eliminating
environmentaldamage,inthiscaseparticularlyasit
mayaffectcross‐bordersedimentation.
It is thus far unclear whether the maritime
transport business will reach a period of
something
like stasis, when ships are of optimal size for each
type of cargo, when ports have reached optimal or
maximalcapacity,and,perhapsmostimportantofall,
when all negative effects on the environment have
been eliminated. Until then, perhaps every change
must attract careful scientific scrutiny, so that
the
potential harmful effects of growth in wealth are
mitigated.
NOTE
Partofthepaperistheresultofworkperformedwith
national ARRS project titled “Influence of circulation
and maritime traffic on sediment transport in wide open
bays”numberL2‐4147(D)
REFERENCES
Albertson,N.,DalY.,Jensen,R.,Rouse,H.1950.Diffusion
ofSubmergedJets,ASCEPaperNo.2409
Briggsa, M.J., Borgmanb, L.E., Brattelandc, E. 2003.
Probability assessment for deep‐draft navigation
channeldesign,CoastalEngineering48:29–50.
Gucma S., Jankowski S. 2007. Depth Optimization of
Designed New Ferry Berth. TransNav‐International
Journal
on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation,Vol.1,No.4:407‐411
Gucma,L.(Ed.).2013.LNGterminalsdesignandoperation.
Navigational safety aspects. Marine Traffic Engineering.
Szczecin:1‐268
Kobylinski, L.K. 2011. Capabilities of Ship Handling
SimulatorstoSimulateShallowWater,BankandCanal
Effects. TransNav‐International
Journal on Marine
NavigationandSafetyofSeaTransportation,Vol.5,No.
2:247‐252
Moffatt & Nichols. 2005. Propeller Wash Study. Kitimat
LNGImportTerminal,MNProjectNo.5499.
NAPA,NorthAdriaticPortsAssociation,
http://www.portsofnapa.com/about‐napa
Notteboom, T. 1997. Concentration and load centre
development in the European container port
system,
JournalofTransportGeography,Vol5:99‐115.
Perkovic,M.,Batista,M.,Malacic,V.,Zagar,D.,Jankowski,
S.,Gucma,L.,Gucma,M.,Rostopshin,D.2012a. Bottom
WashAssessment UsingaFull Mission Ship Handling
Simulator,MARSIM:10,Singapore
Perkovic,M.,Gucma,L.,Przywarty,M.,Gucma,M.,Petelin,
S.,Vidmar,
P.2012b.NauticalRiskAssessmentforLNG
Operations at the Port of Koper. Strojniški vestnik‐
JournalofMechanicalEngineering,58vol10:607‐613
Perkovic, M., Twrdy, E., Batista, M., Gucma, L. 2013.
Container Transport Capacity at the Port of Koper,
IncludingaBriefDescriptionofStudiesNecessaryPrior
to
Expansion. Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation: Maritime Transport & Shipping, Weintrit,
A.,Neumann,T.(Ed.).CRCPress.
PIANC. 1997. Permanent International Association of
Navigation Congresses, Approach channels: a guide for
design, final report of the joint working group PIANC and
IAPH,incooperationwithIMPAandIALA,
Supplementto
BulletinNo.95.
Puertos del Estado (Ed.). 2007. ROM 3.1‐99.
Recommendations for the Design of the Maritime
ConfigurationofPorts,ChannelsandHarbourBasins,ISBN
84‐88975‐39‐2
Solari, S., Moñino, A., Baquerizo, A., Losada, M. 2010.
Simulation model for harbour verification and
management,CoastalEngineering,
No32:1‐11
Transas.2011.ModelWizardtechnicalmanual,Transasltd,
http://www.transas.com/products/simulators/sim_prod
ucts/navigational/components/tools/
Transas. 2012. NTPro 5000 technical manual, NTPRO –
Navigational simulator, Transas ltd
http://www.transas.com/products/simulators/sim_prod
ucts/navigational/
