International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 2
Number 1
March 2008
The Environmental Effects of Projected
Container Terminal to the Safely Manoeuvring
C. Yurtoren, O. Duru & T. Satir
Istanbul Technical University, Maritime Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey
ABSTRACT: This paper investigates vessel traffic risks that are exposed by a new port installation. A vessel
traffic risk analysis was performed by the Ship Handling Simulator team for container terminal installation in
Izmit Bay. The main purpose is to evaluate whether the container terminal project shall affect the proper
operation of nearside Oil Refinery Terminal. Construction and revision of shore structures may form
significant threats for masters in ports and narrow waterways. The Ship handling simulator of ITUMF
presents the environmental objects’ effects, vessel traffic and weather conditions. Furthermore, the
Environmental Stress Model of Inoue (2000) may give an opportunity to analyse vessel traffic risks
quantitatively by SHS.
Merchant vessels reach to projected container
terminal in Izmit Bay by a narrow strait (see Figure
1). Izmit Bay has over a hundred ports and terminals
inside with an intensive maritime traffic. Many
commercial vessels that berthing and unberthing
expose a restricted and congested vessel traffic flow.
The projected container terminal shall be located
18.8 miles after the Izmit Bay entrance.
Petrochemical and oil refinery complex is also
located 140 metres nearside the planned container
terminal. A buoy mooring combination is used to
handle vessel queue of oil refinery. In this respect, a
conflict between the cross vessel traffic of two port
establishment should be analysed quantitatively and
take balance of judgement of terminals into serious
Three dimensional (3D) model of this geographic
area is created by geographic position, oceanogra-
phical, meteorological and topographical structure,
vessel traffic data of Petrochemical and oil refinery
complex and planned container terminal. Vessel
traffic and maneouvering stresses that caused by
ports and effect safely maneouvering, are investi-
gated by Environmental Stress Model (ES) due to
simulation applications. Environmental Stress model
is widely used tool to evaluate maneouvering results
with a quantitatively way by an ability to determine
indexes in order to standard limit conditions of ship
handling operation. ES model was developed at
“Inoue Laboratory” of Kobe University, Japan in
1995 and is revised continuously.
Current study of petrochemical and oil refinery
terminal intensified to quantitative analysis of safely
maneouvering restrictions by planned container
terminal in this local area that limited by refinery
establishment, due to investment projects of
petrochemical and oil refinery terminal to supply
national demand.
Fig. 1. Objective area of projected container terminal
The study is completed by the stages of:
I. Data introduction of environmental conditions
that included by the terminal area to the
simulation system interface.
II. Design of simulation scenarios due to port
vessel traffic data.
III. Application of scenarios in different variable
conditions of weather, sea, length of vessel etc
by experienced pilots of Izmit Bay in Full
Mission Bridge Simulators as a Real Time
Simulation process.
IV. Output analysis on ES model that obtained from
V. Risk evaluation of ES model results.
2.1 Simulation Process
Istanbul Technical University Maritime Faculty
Japan Marine Science (JMS) Bridge Simulators have
an ability to construct required geographic terrain by
a single operator and simulate all geographic effects.
Introduction of environmental data like depth, bank
effect and berth equipments, meteorological and
oceanographical effects are performed by an operator
too. (see Table.1) For this purposes, interface
software of JMS and 3D design software of
Multigen Paradigm, Creator v2.0 are used for data
entrance and 3D object rendering.
Table 1. Sea and weather condition at applications
Application No Weather Current Wave
#1 SSW 2-3m/s SW 0.2kt SW 1m
#2 SSW 3.0m/s SW 0.2kt SW 1.4m
#3 SW 2.5m/s SW 0.2kt SW 1m
#4 SSW 2.5m/s SW 0.2kt SW 1m
#5 WSW 3m/s SW 0.4kt SW 1.4m
#6 SW 2-4m/s SW 0.4kt SW 1.4m
#7 SSW 2.5m/s SW 0.2kt SW 1m
Probable vessel traffic shall be generated on the
simulation system that provides to analyse safely
manoeuvering risks in a realistic environment.
Operated vessels are 100.000 DWT Aframax
Tanker, 37.000 DWT Handymax Bulker and 10.000
DWT Handysize Tanker. 5.000 GRT coaster is used
inside the port. 4.000 TEU Panamax container ship
is also berthed to the container terminal and mooring
arrangement tests are performed to determine
maximum handling weather conditions. Tug boats
are taken into assistance due to scenario that have
a variety of characteristics; 30 tons of bollard-pull
and horse power in the range of 2500-4000.
2.2 ITUMF Full Mission Bridge Simulator System
ITUMF full mission bridge simulator has the latest
generation equipments that can be found on a
newbuild commercial vessel. FMBS provides the
manoeuvering in a restricted narrow waters and
operation of bridge consoles by actual equipment
instruction with a real psychological circumstances.
The system includes two independent cubicles; main
bridge and secondary bridge that can be operated as
dependent in a same scenario or independent in
different scenarios.
Main bridge represents the core module of
system. It has a 240 degrees view that is generated
by 7 CRT projectors (wing to wing) and 360 degrees
view can be provided by view point move as well.
Bridge equipments that interconnected with
computer based system include:
Navigation console that formed by engine
telegraph, bow & stern thrusters, water jet
propeller, doppler log, steering gear, alarm panel,
main engine alarm panel, emergency stops,
internal communication, VHF phone, air horn and
multi function monitor.
Display panel that formed by engine revolution,
speed gauge, rudder gauge, rate of turn gauge,
wind speed & course monitor and ship’s clock.
Steering console.
Gyro repeater.
Magnetic compass.
Electronic Chart(ECDIS).
Multi Function Monitor(GPS, Echosounder,
Doppler Log).
2.3 Application of environmental stress model
Maritime traffic simulation is a real time simulation
that includes actions for collision avoidance with
human factor in this study. Applying the
environmental stress model to this simulation
results, real environmental stress value (ES value)
can be obtained. The concept of the real
environmental stress value is introduced to show the
real ship-handling difficulties imposed potentially on
mariners of a ship manoeuvring at the port.
ES values are obtained by calculating the stress
value, assuming that own ship navigations at a speed
along a route depend on the mariner behaviour with
making all collision avoidance actions against
encountering ships. This is intended to avoid
concealing information on stress levels that each
encounter would naturally impose on the mariner by
taking collision avoidance actions against other
ships. The extent of such unacceptable real
environmental stress value is considered to indicate
the necessity for collision avoidance manoeuvres.
In the model, a situation giving the same SJ
value, regardless of direction, was taken as the
standard situation. The relationship between each
stress ranking and the acceptable level was found
through the ship-handling simulator experiments.
The ES model, therefore, allows us to judge how
great the stress value will be when it is no longer
acceptable and to point out the disadvantages of the
topographical and traffic situation in a waterway.
The ES values over 750 are “unacceptable”. (see
Table 2.)
Table 2. Stress Ranking and Acceptance Criteria
The results of a 7-times (approx. 9 hours totally)
real time simulation were analysed. The level of
stress imposed was assessed for the ship during
manoeuvre at the objective area for assessment.
3.1 Vessel Manoeuvering Simulator Applications
Totally of seven real-time simulations have been
performed. The scenarios consisted tankers and bulk
carriers of 10,000, 37,000 and 100,000 DWT under
various weather conditions with port and starboard
side docking scenarios. The findings and comments
of the pilots performing these simulations are given
Application #1: It consists of a starboard side
docking tanker of 10,000 DWT under calm weather
conditions. A “slapping” effect has been performed
using the rudder and the engine to speed-up turning
and good performance has been achieved. 2 tugs of
3,000 HP each have been used. The manoeuvering
radius has been reduced due to the planned container
terminal with the expected consequence of increased
manoeuvering time. Except this negative result of
increased manoeuvering time, the operation was
completed successfully with minimum risk (see
Figure 2).
0 249 499 749 999 1249 1496 1746 1996 2245
Time (sec)
ES Value
Fig. 2. ES value graphic for Application #1
Application #2: This consists of a starboard side
docking tanker of 10,000 DWT under calm weather
conditions. It has been observed that starboard side
landing takes more time and effort than a port side
landing. The operation took more time and required
more attention due to a distance of only 300 meters
between the port landfill and the ship’s bow. The
tugs have been used more to reduce the parallel
vessel movement than to adjust the heading of the
vessel (see Figure 3).
1 251 501 751 1001 1251 1501 1751 2001 2251 2501 2751 3001
ES Value
Fig. 3. ES value graphic for Application #2
Application #3: This consists of a port side
docking tanker of 10,000 DWT under calm weather
conditions. To better simulate the common real life
conditions, an anchored LPG tanker has been placed
at the east side of the manoeuvering zone.
Manoeuvering has been performed mostly with the
help of the pushing tugs. A fast forward motion
towards the projected pier and the anchored LPG
tanker has been avoided, causing an increased but
acceptable manoeuvering time (see Figure 4).
1 251 501 751 1001 1251 1501 1751 2001
Time (sec)
ES Value
Fig. 4. ES value graphic for Application #3
Application #4: This consists of a port side
docking tanker of 37,000 DWT under calm weather
conditions. The obvious effect was getting too close
to the ships docked alongside the planned pier on the
landfill, increasing the manoeuvering risks. Non
acceptable risky vessel speeds have been carefully
avoided during manoeuvering. Manoeuvering area
gets highly reduced under port side landing
conditions because of the projected terminal (see
Figure 5).
0 249 499 749 999 1249 1499 1749 1999 2249 2499
Time (sec)
ES Value
Fig. 5. ES value graphic for Application #4
Application #5: This consists of a port side
docking bulk carrier of 100,000 DWT under calm
weather conditions. The possible maximum landing
speed has been used as a function of the container
terminal location. The vessel’s aft was observed to
come too close to the ships docked alongside the
terminal and the minimum docking time was
observed to be 30 minutes (see Figure 6).
0 249 499 749 999 1249 1499 1749
Time (sec)
ES Value
Fig. 6. ES value graphic for Application #5
Application #6: This consists of a starboard side
docking tanker of 100,000 DWT under calm weather
conditions. 3 tugs have been used. Docking time
was observed to be 55 minutes and this should be
considered as the longest estimated docking time
in all simulations. The vessel speed has been greatly
reduced during docking to decrease risks (see
Figure 7).
0 248 498 748 998 1248 1498 1742 1978 2228 2478 2728
Time (sec)
ES Value
Fig. 7. ES Value graphic for Application #6
Application #7: This consists of a starboard side
docking bulk carrier of 100,000 DWT under windy
weather conditions. The turning radius was large and
combined with the wind effects; this caused the
vessel to drift on top of the pipeline marker buoys.
This scenario clearly showed that at the presence of
the wind and an anchored ship, starboard side
docking is a high-risk operation (see Figure 8).
0 249 499 749 999 1249 1499 1749 1999 2249 2499 2749
Time (sec)
ES Value
Fig. 8. ES Value graphic for Application #7
3.2 Investigation of Simulator Application. Results
3.2.1 Risk Analysis in order to Manoeuvering
1 Projected container terminal restricts the
manoeuvering area of tankers that berthing and
unberthing to refinery piers and also other
assistance like tugs.
2 Manoeuvering duration is determined maximum
55 minutes and minimum 30 minutes by
simulation experiences.
3 In terms of diffuculty and manoeuvering duration,
starboard berthing is found less feasible than port
4 Applications were carried out with taking care of
ship speed that expected not to excess higher risk.
The case formed to keep risks at minimum.
5 In port berthing, nearmiss risks are found to be
existed by the vessels that berthed on east piers of
container terminal. Therefore, manoeuverings are
advised to be carried out in a special care on
higher beaford forces.
6 Mooring safety of a full loaded 4000 TEU
container vessel is tested on 5 m/sec. south and
northeast winds. In order to mooring tests,
container vessel remains on safe berth at south
winds, but she loses position and takes free
movement at northeast winds. The vessel cuts
the bow line at 77 minutes after the beginning
of scenario and takes a dangerous case for any
vessels nearside region that containing refinery
terminal installations. However, if necessary
measures are taken into pilotage and mooring
policy, that minimizes remaining risks (see
Table 3.)
Table 3. Drifting records of container vessel on berth
3.2.2 Risk Analysis for Manoeuvers in Harbour
Risk analysis is carried out by introduction of
quantitative results of simulations to ES model.
The model results give some forecoming evaluations
about risks that refinery installations are effected
by projected container terminal manoeuvers.
Environmental stresses that exposed by vessel traffic
and risk measures are investigated below.
1 As pointed out on Figure 9, ES values are
determined as 82% negligible, 17,4% marginal
and 0.6% critical levels.
2 In spite of 82% negligible risk level, 17,4%
marginal risk that means a dangerous situation
may be occurred in any time, observed due to
restrictions of maneouvering area. A good manner
and experienced assistance should be provided for
mentioned refinery terminal by masters and
marine pilots. Otherwise, marginal levels can
reach to unpreventable realizations.
Fig. 9. Risk Distribution of ES Model
3 0.6% critical levels must be reduced in any case
for safety of navigation and berthing. 0.6% ratio
of critical levels may not be accepted as
preventable and it is seriously taken into project
plan to remove.
A container terminal installation on a shore structure
brings some additional risks in this port region.
Quantitative analysis of the risks that caused by the
maritime traffic is a considerable tool to measure
safety and determine safety policy of the local area.
Furthermore, separation of negligible or critical risks
is a useful and vital opportunity for masters and
pilots. Research exposed that concerned refinery
terminal manoeuvers reached to 0.6% critical ratio.
Critical ratio introduces risks that must be reduced
mostly and it may cause an accident. 0.6% critical
ratio is lower as an ordinary level that may be
observed in any berth-pier combinations. Absence of
catastrophic ratio indicates that there is no need to
revise project.
Quantitative analysis of maritime traffic risks is
an important part of emergency case plans in a
waterway region. It is expected to apply for the all
ports of Turkiye as well.
The authors would like to thank to Prof Kinzo Inoue
for constructive comments and assistance about ES
Model experiments.
Inoue K. 2000. Evaluation Method of Ship-handling
Difficulties for Navigation in Restricted and Congested
Waterways, The Journal of Royal Institute of Navigation,
Vol.53 No:1, pp.167-180, January.
Inoue K. 1999. Rating the Quality of Ports and Harbours from
the Viewpoint of Ship-handling Difficulties, Proceeding of
International Harbour Congress, pp. 203- -214,
Yurtören C & Deniz C. 2006. Research on Effects of Port
Installations to the Vessel Traffic, Shores and Sea Regions
of Turkiye VI. National Congress, pp. 699-709, November.
Inoue K., et al. 1998. Modeling of Mariners' Perception of
Safety, The Journal of Navigation, No. 98, pp. 235-245,
1998.3. (in Japanese).
Inoue K., Yurtoren C., Wataru S., Usui H., Hirono K. 2003.
Method of Quantitatively Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Safety Improvement of Navigational Condition, Inter-
national Association of Institute of Navigation, World
Congress-11, Berlin, October.