City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge

IMITATIONS City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 13, 23-26 May 2016 Prepared by: MITAGS-PMI 07/01/2016

Inherent in any simulation is the accuracy of the data programmed into the simulator. Simulated environmental conditions used in the MITAGS-PMI simulators (wind, sea, current) are based on the information provided by requesting company, and are typically based on actual values and modeled data based on real world conditions. The visual scenes are also based on data provided by the client and the electronic charts for these areas. The accuracy of the data provided has a significant impact on the validity of the test results. Errors in the electronic charts may also create errors in the database. This is especially true of electronic charts that are using dated surveys and datum references other than WGS-84. Errors may also occur when converting AutoCAD drawings of channels and terminals to the WGS-84 datum reference. The hydrodynamic ship models from the MITAGS-PMI Ship Library have been previously vetted by experienced pilots, MITAGS-PMI staff, and British Columbia pilots prior to the start of the tests. The models are a very good approximation of the particular classes of vessels. Specific vessels in real-world situations may handle significantly different from those programmed into the simulator. Ship to bank interaction is not a fully understood science. The simulated ship interaction effects are highly dependent on the accuracy of the width of the channels, the bottom contours, the bank slopes, the under-keel clearances, the currents, and speed of the models during the simulation runs. Only where required were the forces adjusted based on the collective experiences of the ship handling experts and client representatives. However, most of the exercises were at low speeds thereby reducing the impact of any interaction forces. The test results assume highly experienced pilots and tug masters operating vessels with the latest technology. Since this is a new bridge structure operational limits should take into account the need for local pilots and tug masters to gain experience. MITAGS-PMI accepts no liability for the use of the conclusions and recommendations contained within this report. Additionally, MITAGS-PMI cannot be held responsible for errors in the data provided by third parties used to program the simulator hydrodynamic models and databases. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 2 of 68

Table of Contents Table of Contents... 3 Table of Tables... 4 Table of Figures... 5 1 Executive Summary... 7 Background... 16 Project Charter... 17 Project Stakeholders... 18 2 Study Objectives and Setup... 19 Simulator Setup... 19 Vessel Modeling... 19 Area Modeling: Spatial database... 22 Environmental Modeling... 25 Simulation Run Method... 27 3 Simulation Runs & Analysis... 28 Phase 1 (Impact Force Transit Testing) Simulation Run Summary... 28 Phase 2 (Best Practices) Simulation Run Summary... 38 4 Appendices... 57 Appendix A: Run Data Phase 1... 58 Appendix B: Run Data Phase 1... 59 Appendix C: Pilot Cards... 60 Appendix D: Glossary of Terms... 66 Appendix E: References... 68 City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 3 of 68

Table of Tables Table 1 - Participants... 18 Table 2 - Vessel model particulars... 21 Table 3 - Phase 1 Runs Parameters Summary (less familiarization, unused line items)... 28 Table 4 - Phase 1 Runs 1-123 Composite Data Table... 31 Table 5 - Phase 2 Tug Models Employed... 42 Table 6 - Phase 2 Barge Models Employed... 42 Table 7 - Towing Mode: Towing Astern (advantages and disadvantages)... 46 Table 8 - Towing Mode: Towing Alongside (advantages and disadvantages)... 47 Table 9 - Towing Mode: Push/Pull (advantages and disadvantages)... 48 Table 10 - Diagnostics graphs parameters and sample key... 57 Table 11 - Vessel model particulars... 60 City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 4 of 68

Table of Figures Figure 1 - General arrangement of new Johnson Street Bridge, with identified risk impact zones... 7 Figure 2 - New Johnson Street Bridge, closed, viewed from Lower Harbour looking North... 8 Figure 3 - New Johnson Street Bridge, open, viewed from Upper Harbour looking South... 8 Figure 4-North-East Plaza... 8 Figure 5-South-East Plaza, looking West... 8 Figure 6-South-East Plaza, looking East... 8 Figure 7-West Plaza... 8 Figure 8 - Phase 1 Visual Summary of Impact Forces Maximums by Location on Bridge Structure... 9 Figure 9 - Example Risk Assessment Code Matrix... 11 Figure 10 - Phase 2 Visual Summary of Impact Forces Maximums by Location on Bridge Structure... 12 Figure 11 - Map overview of Victoria Harbor and Johnson Street Bridge (source: maps.google.com)... 16 Figure 12 - Rendering of new Johnson Street Bridge, East view, no boat, bridge closed... 17 Figure 13 Visual images of Large, Medium, and Small tugs built by MITAGS-PMI for this study... 19 Figure 14 - Ledcor L6000 Series Barge Specifications (excerpt)... 20 Figure 15 - New bridge modeling overhead view (Phase 1 Run 116)... 23 Figure 16 - View toward South end and at East side of visually modeled bridge from Lower Harbour... 23 Figure 17 - Closer view toward South end at East side of visually modeled bridge from Lower Harbour. 23 Figure 18 - View toward West Bridge showing camel fender on the West side (Phase 1, Run 16)... 24 Figure 19 - View in bridge hole area: old bridge pier, stake piles, Graving Dock (Phase 1 Run 17)... 24 Figure 20 - Detailed view of fendering and stake piles at water line (Phase 1 Run 79)... 24 Figure 21 - Unobstructed view of West side of bridge fender and camel (Phase 2, Run 10)... 24 Figure 22 - Underwater view of West and East sides of Bridge (phase 2, Run 11b)... 24 Figure 23 - Phase 1 (Runs 1-123) Composite Data Analysis: Location and Force of Impact... 32 Figure 24 - Phase 1 Visual Summary of Impact Forces Maximums by Location on Bridge Structure, with percent occurrence... 33 Figure 25 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (North end of East Bridge)... 34 Figure 26 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (South end of old East Bridge)... 34 Figure 27 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (North end of West Bridge)... 35 Figure 28 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (South end of old West Bridge)... 35 Figure 29 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (East Fender)... 36 Figure 30 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (West Fender)... 36 Figure 31 - Pivot Point with towing mode illustration... 44 Figure 32 - Pivot Point illustration... 44 Figure 33 - Six (6) towing configurations utilized during these Phase 2 simulation trials... 51 Figure 34 - Phase 2 Impact Risk Graphic (tonnes, t, of impact force, % of runs that impacted)... 53 Figure 35 - diagnostics graphs key... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 36 - Boat Nomenclature and Terminology (source: AmericanBoating.org)... 66 Figure 37 - Bridge structure locations and angles of strike... 67 City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 5 of 68

(BLANK BETWEEN TABLE OF CONTENTS AND FIRST PAGE OF REPORT TEXT) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 6 of 68

CITY OF VICTORIA JOHNSON STREET BRIDGE MARITIME SIMULATION STUDY, 13, 23-26 MAY 2016 1 Executive Summary This report, City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study, records and analyzes test runs conducted at Pacific Maritime Institute (PMI) in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. The Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study involved one day of hydrodynamic and vessel modeling validation on May 13, followed by two phases of simulation-based testing on May 23-26, 2016. The Johnson Street Bridge project is studying the severity of forces on the bridge and its associated structures resulting from impacts during tug and barge transit through the waterway between the Upper and Lower Harbors passing through the new Johnson Street Bridge when open. The City of Victoria is also studying the best practices of conducting such tug and barge transits in order to reduce the probability of such impacts. North end of West Bridge North end of East Bridge Figure 1 - General arrangement of new Johnson Street Bridge, with identified risk impact zones West fender East fender South end of Old West Bridge South end of Old East Bridge Phase I involved an assessment of risk to the bridge structure from identified plausible impact forces by vessels transiting to/from the upper harbor past the bridge. The scenarios simulated barge strikes of the bridge fendering structure and record the various impact and shearing forces imparted to the bridge, in order to provide data to consider in designing suitable protection systems for the bridge structure itself (e.g. dolphins, absorption barriers, etc.). A total of 90 runs were performed in the Phase 1 Impact Forces testing. Phase 2 involved an exploration of operational considerations (speed, number of tugs, towing configurations, barge displacement, environmental conditions etc.) that affect the potential for bridge strikes. This entailed the use of a tug operating expert to help explore various combinations/numbers of tugs, tow configurations, and any speed or operational constraints that will factor into recommended best practices. Operational recommendations resulted from explorative navigational trials. A total of 25 runs were performed in the Phase 2 Best Practices testing. A combined total of 115 runs in this maritime simulation study have yielded two main results. First, the study quantified the severity of impact forces as risks to be mitigated. Engineered risk mitigation controls such as fender solutions could be modified and implemented to protect the bridge structure from these forces. The study also produced a set of operational best practice and recommendations to operationally further mitigate the likelihood of such risks occurring. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 7 of 68

These runs primarily used three different hypothetical tug models (Large, Medium, and Small) and one hypothetical barge model (Loaded and Empty conditions). The tugs represented a composite of dimensions and capabilities of the primary vessels presently transiting this waterway while not call out any specific existing tug working in this region. The barge represented a worst case composite dimension of present and future barges used in this region and not the specific dimensions of any specific company barge used in this waterway. (Appendix C: Pilot Cards) The below design illustrations provide visual representation of the general arrangement, and show the layout with integration of amenities to the surrounding community (Figures 2 7). South end of Old West Bridge South end of Old East Bridge Figure 2 - New Johnson Street Bridge, closed, viewed from Lower Harbour looking North North end of East Bridge North end of West Bridge Figure 3 - New Johnson Street Bridge, open, viewed from Upper Harbour looking South Figure 4-North-East Plaza Figure 5-South-East Plaza, looking West Figure 6-South-East Plaza, looking East Figure 7-West Plaza City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 8 of 68

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Phase 1 (Impact Force Transit Testing) Simulation Run Summary A total of ninety (90) simulation trials were run. Forty seven (47) were run with a loaded barge and forty three (43) with empty barge. In Phase 1 testing, the North end of the East and West Bridge sections sustained the greatest force of impact (Severity). The East and West Fenders sustained the least force of impact (Severity). North end of West Bridge 1100t 1200t North end of East Bridge West fender 250t 370t East fender South end of Old West Bridge 1060t 900t South end of Old East Bridge Figure 8 - Phase 1 Visual Summary of Impact Forces Maximums by Location on Bridge Structure Key: Force of Impact (tonnes, t) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 9 of 68

The last group of Phase 1 runs served as an excellent transition to the Phase 2 tests, and began to identify some potential best practices in terms of operational considerations such as environmental conditions, operating configurations, and human factors such as training and experience. Below is a summary of these early Best Practice Observations, gleaned from Phase 1: Operators should transit with windows open to provide additional sensory input. Shorten towline to place shackle at tug stern in most situations, including extreme conditions of 30 knots of wind from SW Avoid outbound transits with an empty barge in winds approaching 30 knots from SW. Be especially cautious of the challenges of transiting an extended length of bridge (new bridge plus old bridge pilings), further increasing need to run with short tow. Consider a 20 knot wind operational limit for bridge transits. During high winds (30Kts from SW), consider using visual references of old West Bridge, allowing barge to set to East largely from the wind effect on an empty barge. Also, consider using escort tug on port quarter into turn, through turn, and then reposition onto starboard quarter when coming out of turn. Fender considerations are obviously the impact forces, but it appears that the floating fender on the west side might not stop a light barge with rake (very small draft) from riding up and contacting the rest piers. Tether medium assist tug port quarter astern with empty barge inbound in high 30 knot winds, to create drag and facilitate twisting barge. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 10 of 68

Phase 2 (Best Practices) Simulation Run Summary: 25 total runs Towing best practices are procedure tools to manage the risk of allision during a Johnson Bridge Transit. In combination with engineering, human factor and protective equipment controls, they bring the risk of bridge allision to an acceptable level. An acceptable level of risk for this analysis is defined as a combination of probability and severity of the risk, that once mitigated, results in a mid-level, MODERATE or better rating on a 4 by 4 risk assessment scale, as demonstrated in the example Figure 9. In Phase 1, the operators were working Figure 9 - Example Risk Assessment Code Matrix to make a normal or routine passage with their tow, but were asked to allow the barge to intentionally strike the bridge structure, as if they lost control or experienced a mechanical failure, in order to measure the impact forces (Severity). In Phase 2, the operators were attempting to safely transit during more extreme weather conditions and using difference barge make-up configurations and trying to avoid contact with the bridge structure, as they would normally do when operating in the waterway. During this second Phase, the East Fender sustained both the greatest force of impact (Severity) and the highest percentage of total number of impacts (Probability). The majority of the bridge strikes during Phase 2 were to the East span and fender system. The Primary tug made up alongside allowed for lower speed of approach while maintaining control. The Primary tug towing astern requires a faster speed in order to maintain directional stability of the barge. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 11 of 68

North end of West Bridge North end of East Bridge West fender 205t (14%) East fender South end of Old West Bridge 250t (2%) 110t (2%) South end of Old East Bridge Figure 10 - Phase 2 Visual Summary of Impact Forces Maximums by Location on Bridge Structure The inbound transits with a loaded barge were most challenging due the 90 turn, set towards the marina on the east side, and limited distance and time to attain an effective line-up for the bridge. The outbound transits were less challenging because the required 30 turn prior to bridge lineup was shallower than on the inbound and allowed more time and distance to make a good approach to the bridge span. It is critical to have sufficient time and distance to establish an effective approach line and regain directional stability on the inbound transits. Managing speed is a critical factor in creating an effective ratio between the tow s rate of turn and advance on the inbound 90 turn to port. Positive control of the tow s trailing end is critical to checking the stern and slide to starboard on the inbound transit. Positive control of the tow s trailing end can be achieved by making up the primary tug on the hip or tethering the assist tug on the stern. A tug running free and pushing on the starboard quarter of the barge is of limited use in checking the starboard slide on the inbound transit. Towing astern is an effective towing mode for controlling the leading end of the tow. Tug masters use visual cues to judge heading, rate of turn and distance. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 12 of 68

A fixed maximum speed limit is not appropriate in the context of a bridge transit. Rather, transit speed should meet safe speed criteria. Safe speed is slow enough to build a cushion of space and time for the towing operators to perceive a deviation from the intended track, maneuver the tug to apply a corrective force and have the tow respond in a timely and effective manner. Safe speed is also fast enough to add directional stability to the tow. Both these factors will vary depending on tug capability and towing configuration. The speed associated with a successful bridge transit is a consequence, not the cause, of tug operators successfully balancing these factors. The simulator trial data indicates a range of 2.5 to 4.5 knots as the speed over ground associated with successful transits. Speed varied widely from light barge to loaded and towing alongside vs. towing astern. Light barge outbound was over 5 knots most of the time when line haul tug towing astern. Loaded barge was less than 4 most of the time. Made up alongside allows tug to approach slower and maintain adequate control. Line haul tug alongside speed was below 4knots consistently. Being made up alongside the tow does not depend on directional stability as much as towing astern because a tug made up alongside has more direct control. Line haul tug towing astern will always require more speed to maintain directional stability. The data indicates that the Johnson bridge transit presents a moderate maneuvering challenge that requires experienced tug operators and tugs positioned in a towing configuration that enables positive control of both the leading and trailing end of the tow. This last is a critically important point. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 13 of 68

Recommendations Both known factors (environmental conditions, tug capability, tug master familiarity and experience, and barge size, load and trim) and unknown factors (e.g., current anomalies or high vessel traffic density) are required to determine an effective towing configuration and bridge transit plan. Rather than being prescriptive, these best practice recommendations describe critical elements that towing companies and operators should consider in their policies, procedures and training programs as tools to minimize the risk of allision. Two tugs for each transit Minimum 1500 aggregate HP between the two tugs, for the big barge Maximum environmental conditions of 30 knots of wind and 1 knot of current for a loaded barge, and 25 knots of wind and 1 knot of current for an empty barge. Towing configurations should enable o Direct control of the tow leading and trailing ends o Minimal added width to the tug/tow unit o Checking the starboard slide on inbound transits with strong westerly winds Recommended Inbound Towing Configurations are: o Primary tug towing astern/assist tug tethered to the barge starboard stern o Primary tug towing on the hip, made up on the barge port stern, assist tug towing astern o Primary tug towing on the hip, made up on the barge starboard stern, assist tug tethered forward of primary tug. (Most control, slowest speed required) Recommended Outbound Towing Configurations are: o Primary tug towing astern/assist tug tethered to one or the other side of the stern o Primary tug towing on the hip, assist tug towing astern o Primary tug towing on the hip, assist tug tethered forward of the Primary tug. With strong NW wind this configuration should have both tugs made up on port side of barge to better enable barge to be held up into the wind and control barge setting into the south span. Towing companies to hold additional trials to establish standard towing configurations suitable for each companies tug and barge specifications Towing companies to develop tug/barge communication protocols to establish standardized terminology and procedures to communicate the barge set, line-up, distance to obstructions and corrective actions Towing companies to establish tug master qualification standards for Johnson Street Bridge Transits including: o General towing experience o Tug familiarization o Number of route familiarization transits o Required training o Route standard of competency criteria Install visual navigation aids such as range markers or lights to assist vessels in determining effective line up for safe bridge transit City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 14 of 68

Consider removal or reduction in size of old bridge west pier to allow more clearance for the 90 degree turns City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 15 of 68

Background Project Understanding The City of Victoria is in the process of replacing the Johnson Street Bridge in Victoria Harbor and Ralmax is proposing development of Port Hope shipyard. In the interest of public safety and the alleviation of potential damage to the revised bridge, the City of Victoria would like to know the minimum fender requirements to mitigate potential damage from allision with local vessel traffic. Figure 11 - Map overview of Victoria Harbor and Johnson Street Bridge (source: maps.google.com) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 16 of 68

Figure 12 - Rendering of new Johnson Street Bridge, East view, no boat, bridge closed Scope of Work Once model validation is complete (single day), the maritime simulation study testing is proposed in two phases (to occur within a week s sequence of testing days): 1. Phase 1 (Impact Force Transit Testing) is an assessment of possible impact forces to the bridge structure by vessel or barges transiting to/from the upper harbor past the bridge. The transit will allow the tug to tow the barge in such a manner and speed (based on routine cargos and operations) as to allow the barge to make worst case contact with the bridge structure, and to record the various collision/allision forces imparted to the bridge and the means by which contact can occur. This will provide information about possible scenarios leading to contact with the bridge structure and data from which to create suitable protection systems for the bridge structure itself (e.g. dolphins, absorption barriers, etc.). This phase will culminate with a report detailing the situations and forces as well as any other noted conclusions. 2. Phase 2 (Best Practices) is an exploration of operational considerations (speed limits or minimums, number of tugs, load of barge, etc.) to prevent or minimize the potential for impact with the bridge structure. This will entail the use of a tug operating expert to help explore various combinations/numbers of tug, configuration of barge tow, and any speed or operational constraints, resulting in a report summarizing the recommendations. Project Charter Using maritime simulation, validate area and vessel hydrodynamic modeling; assess possible impact forces to the bridge structure by vessel or barges transiting to/from the upper harbor past the bridge; and explore operational considerations to prevent or minimize the potential for impact with the bridge structure. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 17 of 68

Project Stakeholders MITAGS-PMI conducted testing at the request of City of Victoria, as sponsors of the Johnson Street Bridge Replacement Project. The following individuals took part in or were present during these maritime simulation studies at PMI. Taaj Daliran Jonathan R. Huggett, P.Eng Hugh Tuttle, P.Eng Angus English, P. Eng. Peter Action, P. Eng. Capt. Russell Johnson Capt. Darren Kleaman Malcolm Fiander Capt. Brent Biggins Kevin Ashley Capt. Bill Anderson, Jr. Pasha Amigud Richard Jewart Drew Pine Mark Hokenson Sarah McGann, P.M.P. Table 1 - Participants City of Victoria Engineering and Public Works, Manager, Waste Management and Cleaning Services J.R. Hugget Company Lead Consulting Engineer to City of Victoria Independent Consultant, retained by WSP MMM Group Consulting Engineer WSP MMM Group Vice President, Regional Manager PJA Consulting Consulting Engineer Ports and Harbours RJ Maritime Associates LLC Maritime Projects Investigations and Legal Consulting LedCor Resources and Transportation Captain (500/3000 towing) Ledcor Resources and Transportation LP, Manager, Vessel Operations SeaSpan Marine Port Captain and Captain (towing) SeaSpan Marine Superintendent, Vancouver Island Marine Operations PMI Director, Simulation Project Director PMI Vessel Modeler PMI Area Modeler PMI Simulator Operator PMI Simulator Operator PMI Facilitator, Simulation Analyst, and Report Author City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 18 of 68

2 Study Objectives and Setup Simulator Setup The PMI simulation environment consisted of three interconnected vessel bridges, with visualizations of two manned working tug bridges and one manned barge. The simulation environment initial run setup was operated from a single simulation operator workstation at which virtual displays of both operating area visuals from numerous camera angles as well as virtual repeaters of bridge equipment and indicators were available The vessel bridges visual displays were interconnected, such that the visual distances apparent from the barge were fully aligned with those from the tugs and from all elements of the simulation environment components such as the Johnson Street Bridge. Visuals were also repeated into the associated monitoring and debriefing room for additional stakeholders to observe during each run. The adjoining visual displays of the simulation environment included the engineering specifications draft of the completed bridge, with the proposed graving dock on the north and west of the new bridge, as well as certain structural elements such as remaining old bridge components, log buffers, and dolphins, built into the simulator database. The Simulator Operator controlled the simulator functions, not including vessel model operation, set requested environmental parameters and vessel starting positions and configurations for each run, and initiated introduced events such that run contingencies would be required. The interconnected and Mariner-operated vessel approach allowed for practical evaluation of transits of the revised operating area due to the new bridge design, while capturing direct feedback from the Mariners who already regularly operate tug-and-barge runs in this area as experienced captains. For force impact only runs, the modeled barge was operated directly by the Simulation Operator. The Facilitator managed sequencing and data collection for each of the runs, making notes and annotations of each test. Vessel Modeling Small: No. 1_PMI (7.6t bp) Medium: No. 2_PMI (13t bp) Large: No. 7_PMI (18t bp) Figure 13 Visual images of Large, Medium, and Small tugs built by MITAGS-PMI for this study City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 19 of 68

Particulars Vessel tug and barge models were built specifically for this research Maritime Simulation Study, vice using existing vessel models from the PMI library. The tug vessels were designed to mimic dimensions, specifications, visual layouts, and handling characteristics of three different horsepower capacities, closely replicating some of the actual tug vessels already employed by routine operators (e.g. SeaSpan and Ledcor) in the area of the City of Victoria Harbor or approaches. The barge models were designed to test worst case scenarios in terms of upper limits, notably the vessel specifications of length, width, breadth, draft, and displacement in both loaded or full/heavy and unloaded or light/empty conditions. For force calculations, all models reacted as non-deformable bodies, transferring forces without any consideration for deformation of either the vessel or the fender structures. Barge Model upper limits by draft and displacement informed by existing L6000 Series: Figure 14 - Ledcor L6000 Series Barge Specifications (excerpt) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 20 of 68

Details of the various models used in the simulation runs are shown in the table below. Appendix C: Pilots Cards contains this table and the full Pilot Cards for each vessel. Table 2 - Vessel model particulars Name Condition Length /Beam/Draft No. 1_PMI Small No. 2_PMI Medium No. 7_PMI Large Displacement / Bollard Pull (t) N/A 11m /4.77m/1.5m 40t / 7.6t N/A 27.02m /9.1m/2.7m 350t / 13t N/A 28.75m /7.78m/2.72m 256.23t / 18t Victoria Barge Empty 79.87m /21.70m/0.85m 1267t N/A Victoria Barge Loaded 79.87m /21.70m/4.9m 8145t N/A ASD Tug 1 N/A 25.3m /10.36m/2.74m 366t / 53t Key: bp FPP kw m t ZD bollard pull (tractive force of a tug, expressed here in metric tons) Fixed pitch propeller kilowatt (1000 kw = 1341 mechanical horse power) meters tons (or Metric Tons; 1000 tonnes = 1102 tons) Azimuthing drive Power (kw) 2 x 162 kw FPP 100% = 440 rpm 2 x 1119 kw FPP 100% = 307.4 rpm 2 x 486 kw FPP 100% = 253.7 rpm 2 x 1566 kw Azimuth FPP City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 21 of 68

Area Modeling: Spatial database The spatial database for the City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study (Figures 15-20) was built from electronic chart data using PMI s Transas simulator, and incorporated the design of the proposed Johnson Street Bridge and Point Hope Graving Dock, with specifications from Appendix A (Items 15-22). Figure 37 - Bridge structure locations and angles of strike City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 22 of 68

Appendix E: References The La Farge Silo was deliberately included in the spatial database and visual model, as the current tug and barge operators use this as a quick visual reference point aiding to accuracy and safety of navigation. The footings from the old bridge were retained as per current intentions of the construction project, at a height 3m above the high water mark. Also included was a series of 20 stake piles as a roller system, shown in the engineering AutoCAD fender drawings. Figure 15 - New bridge modeling overhead view (Phase 1 Run 116) Figure 16 - View toward South end and at East side of visually modeled bridge from Lower Harbour Figure 17 - Closer view toward South end at East side of visually modeled bridge from Lower Harbour The camel fender on the west side is represented by a solid vertical structure on the outboard face of the camel. In effect, this prevents the barge from running over the camel and impacting the Rest Pier support structure. Any impact scenario on the camel fender needs to be further investigated for the potential for impact with the Rest Pier due to the barge s bow rake light barge in particular, but also loaded or other intermediate loads. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 23 of 68

Figure 18 - View toward West Bridge showing camel fender on the West side (Phase 1, Run 16) Figure 19 - View in bridge hole area: old bridge pier, stake piles, Graving Dock (Phase 1 Run 17) Figure 20 - Detailed view of fendering and stake piles at water line (Phase 1 Run 79) Figure 21 - Unobstructed view of West side of bridge fender and camel (Phase 2, Run 10) Figure 22 - Underwater view of West and East sides of Bridge (phase 2, Run 11b) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 24 of 68

Environmental Modeling The overall environmental model for this testing was based on bathymetry and climate data provided by the City of Victoria. The source data included excerpts from coast pilot references for Juan De Fuca Strait, including Esquimalt, Victoria and Port Angeles Harbours (4864), which describe the port, harbor and other local landmarks, and provide local knowledge of weather and vessel operations. To meet the testing objectives, little weather variation was required except for variation of velocity and direction of the winds as they would affect maneuvering and handling of either the barge or tugs. For this reason, analysis was conducted of historical wind patterns for the immediate vicinity of the Johnson Street Bridge based on provided source data, resulting in the identification of the predominant winds likely to impact the safety of these maneuvers. Wind Direction and Speed Both wind direction and speed impact the ability of the operators to maintain position of both tugs and barge when transiting through the Johnson Street Bridge passage. Wind analysis based on data provided from the City of Victoria (Locations of Wind Data), which included tabular summary of wind direction and magnitude over a 365 day period, provided the basis for establishing a default worse-case condition of wind forces. Based on this provided data, it was established that the most frequent wind direction was 230 degrees. While the wind speeds would range from zero to average sustained speeds of 23 knots, the operational limits of bridge operation were stated to be no more than 30 knots (the bridge would not be operated in winds gusting to 30 knots), and established the upper limit of 30 knots for the purpose of testing. Winds were then included in the simulation scenarios by setting the environmental wind speed and direction as required for each test (see the test matrix), but typically at 230 degrees at 30 knots for the most extreme situations. The simulator then created these steady conditions for the operators to experience during the testing. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 25 of 68

Tides and Currents Currents are also a significant variable for the maritime operator to experience, and must be mitigated during the transits of the bridge. Tidal data was based on provided tide charts of Victoria Harbor (2015 Canadian Hydrographic Service) allowing identification of the extreme conditions (lowest low tide and highest high tide) present during a typical 365 day cycle. The tidal range spanned between 1.0 and 8.9 feet during this period, and characterizes a typical range of tides to be found in this geographic area. While there are weather conditions that could exceed these expected conditions, for the purpose of testing only the typical range was required as most prudent mariners would not venture during the situations which would create the more extreme conditions. The simulation was adjusted to account for these tides, and specific depths were set for each of tests according to the test matrix. Of great importance to the mariner and the safe transit of the bridge is the water current present through the channel. Current data used in the testing consisted of tabular data (node number, latitude, longitude, North vector magnitude, East vector magnitude) of surface currents expected at eight different times throughout the tidal flow cycle. The data was sourced from models created by ASL Environmental Sciences Inc. of Saanichton, BC, Canada. The resulting model produced expected current patterns at peak Ebb and peak Flood as measured at the narrowest point of the bridge passage, and six additional time points evenly spaced between these two extremes. These depth averaged current maps were imported into the simulator and can be activated through toggle settings in the software. The testing called for measuring performance at the most extreme situations, and knowing that the maximum Ebb and Flood conditions create the most difficult handling conditions of tugs and barges, then the Maximum Flood and Maximum Ebb were used within a majority of the test cases presented in the text matrix. The current modeling data used by ASL was based on both present day samples and the 1973 study A Numerical Model Of Victoria Harbour To Predict Tidal Response To Proposed Hydraulic Structures by A. B. Ages of Environment Canada Fisheries And Marine Service Marine Sciences Directorate Pacific Region (March 1973). City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 26 of 68

Simulation Run Method A simulation run matrix was organized prior to beginning the simulation runs. The purpose of the matrix is to guide the discovery process with a sequence of runs in conditions selected for particular objectives. Observations are considered, and the original run matrix is modified according to team consensus. The Simulator Operator and the Facilitator ensure all parameters match the scenario design criteria, and actively capture data and visual snapshots for the run records. A full day was spent on model validation on 13 May, in preparation for the Simulation Runs 23-26 May. Feedback from the model validation yielded some adjustments to operating and handling characteristics as well as visual details for the various tug models. Spatial modeling adjustments were also made, and bathymetric modeling was validated against the data. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 27 of 68

3 Simulation Runs & Analysis Appendix A: Run Data contains the complete run sequence, test matrix, observations, and analysis. For each run, a standard set of run information is included in the report (e.g.run Number, Force Diagram, Track History, and relevant visuals from the Simulation Control Station). See Table 4 and subsequent figures. Phase 1 (Impact Force Transit Testing) Simulation Run Summary The goals of the Phase 1 testing Simulation Runs included: Quantified impact force Location of Impact force Severity analysis of impact force by impact location for Inbound and Outbound transits with Loaded and Empty barges Phase 1 was designed as an assessment of possible impact forces to the bridge structure by vessels transiting to/from the upper harbor past the bridge. The run scenarios simulated barge strikes of the bridge fender structure and recorded the various impact and shearing forces imparted to the bridge. These scenarios provide data to consider in designing suitable protection systems for the bridge structure itself (e.g. dolphins, absorption barriers, etc.), and culminated in a report detailing the situations and forces as well as any other noted conclusions. Phase 1 Scope of Work: For a given set of operational conditions ("average passage"), runs determined the impact forces imparted from a towed cargo barge (in two draft conditions, loaded and empty) to the surrounding structure of the new Johnson St. Bridge. Operational conditions include: Nominal winds and currents (5 kts winds and slack water) Limiting winds (30 kts) roughly perpendicular to the direction of transit Maximum expected currents (based on current model) Typical speed of towing vessel (4-6 knts) Typical tow cable length (50ft bridle with shackle 15ft off stern of towing vessel) No use of assist tug Varying degrees of offset angle with approach to bridge (ranging from 0 degree offset to 10 degree maximum) Both north (inbound) and south (outbound) runs with same above conditions Both fully loaded and empty conditions, in both north and south directions Runs 1-13 are for Familiarization only Runs 36, 38-54, 56, 58, 60-61, 63, 68, 70-71, 74-77, 80, 82-83, 85-87, 9-0-96 were unused or spare line items Table 3 - Phase 1 Runs Parameters Summary (less familiarization, unused line items) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 28 of 68

Run Angle of Impact Location of Impact Speed (kts) Summary Force (t) Tug Barge Transit Wind speed (kts) Wind Direction (Deg T) Tide Difficulty Safety 14 Head-On Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 3.5 250 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 15 Head-On Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 5 250 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 16 Head-On Off-Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 3.5 130 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 17 Head-On Off-Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 5 295 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 18 Glancing Bow Corner Strike East Fender 3.5 250 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 19 Glancing Bow Corner Strike East Fender 5 0 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 20 Shearing Parallel to Bridge Fender East Fender 3.5 0 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 21 Shearing Parallel to Bridge Fender East Fender 5 55 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 22 Head-On Perpendicular North End of West Bridge 3.5 640 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 23 Head-On Perpendicular North End of West Bridge 5 850 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 24 Head-On Off-Perpendicular North End of West Bridge 3.5 250 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 25 Head-On Off-Perpendicular North End of West Bridge 5 750 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 26 Shearing Parallel to Bridge Fender West Fender 3.5 75 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 27 Shearing Parallel to Bridge Fender West Fender 5 250 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 28 Glancing Bow Corner Strike West Fender 3.5 115 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 29 Glancing Bow Corner Strike West Fender 5 125 Medium Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 30 Head-On Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 5 1200 Large Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 31 Head-On Off-Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 5 1000 Large Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 32 Glancing Bow Corner Strike East Fender 5 1000 Large Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 33 Shearing Parallel to Bridge Fender East Fender 5 130 Large Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 34 Head-On Perpendicular North End of West Bridge 5 1100 Large Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 35 Head-On Off-Perpendicular North End of West Bridge 5 240 Large Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 37 Glancing Bow Corner Strike West Fender 5 55 Large Loaded Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 55 Head-On Perpendicular South End of old East Bridge 5 900 Large Loaded Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 57 Glancing Bow Corner Strike East Fender 5 250 Large Loaded Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 59 Head-On Perpendicular South End of old West Bridge 5 1060 Large Loaded Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 62 Glancing Bow Corner Strike West Fender 5 40 Large Loaded Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 29 of 68

Run Angle of Impact Location of Impact Speed (kts) Summary Force (t) Tug Barge Transit Wind speed (kts) Wind Direction (Deg T) Tide Difficulty Safety 64 Head-On Perpendicular South End of old East Bridge 3.5 900 non Empty Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 65 Head-On Perpendicular South End of old East Bridge 5 0 non Empty Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 66 Head-On Off-Perpendicular South End of old East Bridge 3.5 250 non Empty Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 67 Head-On Off-Perpendicular South End of old East Bridge 5 700 non Empty Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 69 Glancing Bow Corner Strike East Fender 5 130 non Empty Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 72 Head-On Perpendicular South End of old West Bridge 3.5 250 non Empty Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 73 Head-On Perpendicular South End of old West Bridge 5 700 non Empty Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 78 Glancing Bow Corner Strike West Fender 3.5 180 non Empty Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 79 Glancing Bow Corner Strike West Fender 5 35 non Empty Inbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 81 Head-On Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 5 520 non Empty Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 84 Glancing Bow Corner Strike East Fender 5 185 non Empty Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 88 Head-On Perpendicular North End of West Bridge 3.5 300 non Empty Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 89 Head-On Perpendicular North End of West Bridge 5 450 non Empty Outbound 5 230 Slack NA NA 97 Head-On Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 5 1100 Large Loaded Outbound 30 315 Ebb NA NA 98 Head-On Off-Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 5 800 Large Loaded Outbound 30 315 Ebb NA NA 99 Glancing Bow Corner Strike North End of East Bridge 5 160 Large Loaded Outbound 30 315 Ebb NA NA 100 Shearing Parallel to Bridge Fender East Fender 5 160 Large Loaded Outbound 30 315 Ebb NA NA 101 Head-On Perpendicular North End of West Bridge 5 975 Large Loaded Outbound 30 315 Ebb NA NA 102 Head-On Off-Perpendicular North End of West Bridge 5 140 Large Loaded Outbound 30 315 Ebb NA NA 104 Glancing Bow Corner Strike North End of East Bridge 5 140 Large Loaded Outbound 30 315 Ebb NA NA 105 Head-On Perpendicular South End of old East Bridge 5 600 Large Loaded Inbound 30 230 Ebb NA NA 106 Head-On Off-Perpendicular South End of old East Bridge 5 480 Large Loaded Inbound 30 230 Ebb NA NA 107 Glancing Bow Corner Strike East Fender 5 370 Large Loaded Inbound 30 230 Ebb NA NA 109 Head-On Perpendicular South End of old West Bridge 5 750 Large Loaded Inbound 30 230 Ebb NA NA 110 Head-On Off-Perpendicular South End of old West Bridge 5 250 Large Loaded Inbound 30 230 Ebb NA NA 112 Glancing Bow Corner Strike West Fender 5 125 Large Loaded Inbound 30 230 Ebb NA NA City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 30 of 68

Run Angle of Impact Location of Impact Speed (kts) Summary Force (t) Tug Barge Transit Wind speed (kts) Wind Direction (Deg T) Tide Difficulty Safety 113 Head-On Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 6 900 Large Empty Outbound 30 230 Ebb 9.5 0.5 114 Glancing Bow Corner Strike North End of East Bridge 4 40 Large Empty Outbound 30 230 Ebb 9.5 0.5 115 Head-On Perpendicular North End of East Bridge 3.8 45 Large Empty Outbound 30 230 Ebb 9 1.5 116 NA NA 5 0 Large Empty Outbound 20 230 Ebb 5 6 117 Shearing Parallel to Bridge Fender East Fender 5 60 Large Empty Outbound 25 230 Ebb 9 2 118 Glancing Bow Corner Strike North End of East Bridge 5 125 Large Empty Outbound 30 230 Ebb 10 2 119 Head-On Off-Perpendicular South End of old East Bridge 5 130 Large Empty Outbound 30 230 Ebb 10 3 120 Shearing Parallel to Bridge Fender East Fender 7.8 75 Large Empty Outbound 30 230 Ebb 10 3 121 NA NA 5 0 Large Empty Inbound 30 230 Ebb 7 5 122 Shearing Parallel to Bridge Fender East Fender 5 50 Large Empty Inbound 30 230 Ebb 8 4 123 NA NA 5.6 0 Large Empty Inbound 30 230 Ebb 3 6 Table 4 - Phase 1 Runs 1-123 Composite Data Table The following figures provide analysis of the results of the above runs, by location on the bridge structure and summary force of impact in tonnes. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 31 of 68

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1000 370 295 250 250 250 250 185 0 0 55 130 130160 130 607550 0 0 0 Phase 1 Runs (1-123): Summary Force (t) by Location of Impact 1200 1100 1000 520 800 900 160 140 640 125 4045 850 750 250 1100 450 300 240 975 900 900 140 0 250 700 600 480 1060 130 250 750 700 250 250 75 115 125 5540 East Fender East Fender East Fender East Fender East Fender East Fender East Fender NA NA North End of East Bridge North End of East Bridge North End of East Bridge North End of East Bridge North End of East Bridge North End of East Bridge North End of East Bridge North End of West Bridge North End of West Bridge North End of West Bridge North End of West Bridge North End of West Bridge South End of old East Bridge South End of old East Bridge South End of old East Bridge South End of old East Bridge South End of old West Bridge South End of old West Bridge South End of old West Bridge West Fender West Fender West Fender West Fender 180 125 35 Summary Force (t) Figure 23 - Phase 1 (Runs 1-123) Composite Data Analysis: Location and Force of Impact City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 32 of 68

North end of West Bridge 1100t (17%) 1200t (28%) North end of East Bridge West fender 250t (16%) 370t (19%) East fender South end of Old West Bridge 1060t (9%) 900t (12%) South end of Old East Bridge Figure 24 - Phase 1 Visual Summary of Impact Forces Maximums by Location on Bridge Structure, with percent occurrence City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 33 of 68

North end of East Bridge 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 Summary Force (t) 0 Head-On Head-On Head-On Off- Head-On Off- Head-On Head-On Off- Head-On Head-On Head-On Off- Glancing Bow Glancing Bow Head-On Glancing Bow Head-On Glancing Bow Figure 25 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (North end of East Bridge) South end of old East Bridge 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Summary Force (t) Figure 26 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (South end of old East Bridge) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 34 of 68

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 North end of West Bridge Summary Force (t) Figure 27 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (North end of West Bridge) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 South end of old West Bridge Summary Force (t) Figure 28 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (South end of old West Bridge) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 35 of 68

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 East Fender Outlier: this was actually a Head-On, Off-Perpendicular Impact (Run 32) Summary Force (t) Figure 29 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (East Fender) West Fender 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Summary Force (t) Figure 30 - Graph showing Forces by Amount and Location (West Fender) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 36 of 68

Summary Analysis of Phase 1 Simulation Runs A total of ninety (90) simulation trials were run. Forty seven (47) were run with loaded barges and forty three (43) with empty barges. In Phase 1 testing, the North end of the East and West Bridge sections sustained both the greatest force of impact (Severity). The East and West Fenders sustained both the least force of impact (Severity). The last group of Phase 1 runs served as an excellent transition to the Phase 2 tests, and began to identify some potential best practices in terms of operational considerations such as environmental conditions, operating configurations, and human factors such as training and experience. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 37 of 68

Phase 2 (Best Practices) Simulation Run Summary The number and type of tugs, towing configuration and operating procedures are also effective risk management tools for tug and barge transits. Phase 2 was an analysis of towing operations in this context, specific to transiting the Victoria Johnson Street Bridge. Phase 2 simulation trials were an exploration of operational considerations (speed, number of tugs, towing configurations, barge displacement, environmental conditions etc.) that affect the potential for bridge strikes. This entailed the use of experienced tug masters, subject matter experts and tug masters with local knowledge to conduct bridge transit trials. The trials were a combination of discovery and validation for different combinations of: Tug types Towing configurations Barge conditions Environmental factors Tug master experience The objective of the Phase 2 simulation trials was to provide: Quantitative data points to evaluate risk factors Qualitative data from tug masters and subject matter experts as to: o Safety factor associated with each specific transit scenario o Difficulty associated with each specific transit scenario o Towing configuration and procedure recommendations Recommend Best Practices that identify critical equipment, procedural and human factors Exploration of best practices is a logical extension of current practices presently used during transits of the Johnson Street Bridge waterway. Specifically, tugs are used by at least two different service providers to move barge cargo north and south (in and out) of the waterway channel between the Upper and Lower Harbor, through the waterway. Typically, this transit is made with a single tug towing ahead on a short wire and roughly 50 foot barge bridle, with a much smaller escort tug running free astern of the barge. The free running tug is then directed by the lead towing tug to assist as required, and is in compliance with the City of Victoria regulations concerning the need for a free running assist tug. These standard procedures were confirmed by representatives of the two leading service providers who participated in the testing. Phase 2 Scope of Work: Based on both given and additional tugs, and different methods of makeup, assist and speed management, determine best practices in order to increase control over positioning of barge when passing through Johnson St Bridge, and to decrease the possibility of the barge striking the bridge structures. Operational conditions include: Nominal winds and currents (5 kts winds and slack water) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 38 of 68

Limiting winds (30 kts) roughly perpendicular to the direction of transit Maximum expected currents (based on current model provided) Appendix B: Run Data Phase 2 contains the complete run sequence, test matrix, observations, and analysis. For each run, a standard set of run information is included in the report: Run Number, Force Diagram, Track History, and relevant visuals from the Simulation Control Station. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 39 of 68

Towing Best Practices Tug Capacity Tug capacity is the establishment of the number and performance specification of tugs required to maneuver a vessel safely in the specified maximum working conditions with inherent safety and redundancy factors. One purpose of the Phase 2 Simulation trials was to establish a best practice for the size, specification and number of tugs required to transit the Johnson Street Bridge. Risk Management Risk management is a process of risk discovery, assessment and implementation of risk control measures. In this case, the identified risk is an allision and consequence of a bridge strike. Risk controls fall into four (4) categories, listed in order of priority and effectiveness: Engineering controls Procedural controls Human factor controls Protective Equipment A bridge transit is a complex maneuver that is affected by multiple factors acting in a variety of combinations. No single risk control measure can eliminate or reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Managing the risk of a bridge strike takes a multi-layered approach that incorporates risk control measures from all four (4) categories. Engineering Controls Examples of engineering controls built into the bridge design are: Height and width of the span Alignment with the navigable channel Design and construction of bridge supporting structure Depth of the channel Removal or placement of previous bridge structural components Please note that fendering is not included as an engineering control. Procedural Controls In the context of the Johnson Street Bridge procedural controls are: Best Towing Practices Victoria Harbor Practices and Procedures City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 40 of 68

Human Factor Controls Human performance is a critical element in making a safe bridge transit. In other words, it takes skilled, experienced hands on the helm to maximize the effectiveness of design, equipment and procedures controls. Human factor risk controls include establishing standards for: Familiarization Experience Training Demonstrations of Proficiency Protective Equipment Protective equipment is the last line of defense in managing risk. Protective equipment can never eliminate a risk. Rather it is designed to augment the other risk management tools should the engineering, procedural and human factor controls either fail or have reduced effectiveness. This is the role of the bridge protective fender design and construction. The focus of the Phase 2 simulations was to accumulate data, utilize the input of experienced tug masters and subject matter experts and make recommendations of Towing Best Practices. These recommendations are in the context Procedural and Human Factor risk controls for the Johnson Street Bridge transit. Participants Key participants in the simulation trials were two (2) tug masters with local knowledge, two (2) vessel operations managers with towing experience and a maritime consultant with extensive experience and expertise in towing operations. They provided invaluable feedback toward validating the vessel and area models, and ultimately the realism of the simulated scenarios, and constitute subject matter expertise concerning the transit of this waterway. Methodology A hybrid methodology was utilized throughout the simulation trials. The initial intent of the trials was to follow a previously established test matrix. However, it quickly became apparent that the most productive use of the limited time would be to test different towing configurations, and evaluate transit safety and control in various environmental conditions. In other words, it was more productive to leverage the fusion of the five (5) participants experience and expertise to discover, test and evaluate towing practices than follow a prescriptive trial matrix. Limiting Conditions The simulation trials created worst case environmental conditions by utilizing previously established wind, current and number of tug limits. These were: Maximum wind of 30 knots Maximum predicted ebb or flood current (Approximately 1 knot) Two (2) tug towing configurations City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 41 of 68

Models Employed The simulation trials employed the use of (3) three tug models in different combinations, and two (2) barge models. The models employed are discussed in detail in Section 2. Table 5 - Phase 2 Tug Models Employed Tug Size/Name HP # Propellers Bollard Pull Small 435 Twin-screw 6 Tons (Est) Medium 750 Twin-screw 13 Tons (Est) Large 1300 Twin-screw 18 Tons Table 6 - Phase 2 Barge Models Employed Barge Condition Length x Beam x Depth Displacement (Meters) Victoria Barge Loaded 79.81 x 21.698 x 4.9 8,145 Tons Victoria Barge Empty 79.81 x 21.698 x 0.73 1267 Tons Principles of Effective Towing Configurations There are multiple towing configurations that can be effective for any given transit. An effective configuration must account for a variety of critical factors in order to enable maneuvering the tow safely and efficiently. These factors include: Tug Performance Tow Specifications Maneuvers required on the intended route Pivot Point location and migration on the tow Transit parameters Tug Performance Factors Tug horsepower (Bollard Pull) Tug propulsion type (Conventional, Z-drive, Voith) Tug steering system (rudder, nautical systems, rudder propeller etc.) Tug dimensions Tug fendering Tug winch Tug stability Towing point on tug Tug connection to barge Tow Specification Factors Barge dimensions Barge displacement Barge trim City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 42 of 68

Maneuvering Requirements of the Intended Route Speed over ground Steering Stopping Headway Sternway Directional stability Lateral Movement Pivot Point Factors Location,-forward, amidships, aft Pivot point relative to position of tugs Length of maneuver arm Number and extent of pivot point transitions Transit factors Length of transit Number and angle of required turns Depth restrictions Width restrictions Docks/Moored Vessels/Obstructions Berth configurations Vessel Traffic Navigation Aids City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 43 of 68

Pivot Point In general a vessel moving through the water will have pivot around a point located roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the barge s length, aft of the leading end of the tow. Figure 32 - Pivot Point illustration Figure 31 - Pivot Point with towing mode illustration The position of the assist tug relative to the pivot point defines a maneuvering lever that can increase the effectiveness of corrective forces applied by the tug to the tow. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 44 of 68

Towing Configurations An effective towing configuration must have tugs in positions in which there is enough control of the barge to have time to perceive a deviation from the desired course, determine the appropriate corrective action, apply the corrective force, and have the tow respond within the space and time restrictions of the intended route. The towing vessels must be in positions that account for the time it takes for the tug(s) to: Position itself relative to the barge to apply a force in the correct direction and amount. Apply sufficient force to create the desired change in the tow s course, speed or swing. In addition, the towing configuration must account for the drag effect of the tug when in a neutral position and the time it takes the tow to react to a corrective force applied by the tug. An effective towing configuration will leverage the advantages of the various towing modes and minimize the disadvantages. Towing Modes There are three basic towing modes: Towing astern Towing alongside (on the hip) Push/pull Each type of towing mode has advantages and disadvantages and each may be particularly suited or illsuited for a particular type of tug. Each towing mode is associated with a capability to propel the tow, manage its speed, maintain its directional stability, steer the tow, stop the tow and control the barge as a unit. The various advantages and disadvantages by towing mode are shown in the below tables. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 45 of 68

Towing Astern Table 7 - Towing Mode: Towing Astern (advantages and disadvantages) TOWING MODE Towing Astern ADVANTAGE Wheelwash can augment directional stability of the tow Creates an effective maneuvering lever between barge pivot point and tow connection on the leading end of the tow Able to apply steering forces at acute angles to the leading end of the tow Able to have fine control of the rate of turn on the leading end of the tow. Able to have fine steering control of the leading end of the tow Able to manage speed of tow Excellent view of course to steer, ranges, and future points of execution DISADVANTAGE Dependent on tow line and bridle connection Must shift tug position relative to the barge to create desired steering angle Difficult to apply retarding force to the tow Indirect but not positive control of the tow s trailing end Time consuming to recover from a mistake that placed the tug out of position relative to the barge Potential for girting of tug City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 46 of 68

Towing Alongside (On the Hip) Table 8 - Towing Mode: Towing Alongside (advantages and disadvantages) TOWING MODE Towing Alongside (On the Hip) ADVANTAGE Can be positioned on the opposite end of the tow s pivot point to create a highly effective maneuvering lever Is made up hard to the tow so that it is one with the tow. Doesn t require repositioning the tug to apply different propelling and steering forces Immediate transfer of propelling and turning forces from tug to tow Able to transfer steering forces to the tow by shifting the tugs rudder and/or twin-screwing Tug s position offset from the tow centerline creates additional leverage for an outside turn (tug scribes an arc on the outside of the turn radius) Able to have fine control of the rate of turn of the tow Able to have fine steering control of the trailing end of the tow Able to manage speed of tow Able to apply retarding force and stop the tow Excellent sightline down one side of the tow to steer on landmarks, gauge rate of turn and clearance on obstructions DISADVANTAGE Dependent on lines holding the tug fast to the tow Creates added beam to the tow (tow width + tug width) Exposed to damage should clearance to an obstruction close on the side of the tow the tug is on the hip Indirect but not positive control of the tow s leading end Tug s offset position from tow centerline reduces leverage for inside turns (tug scribes an arc on the inside of the turn radius) Tug s offset position from tow creates drag and may affect tow s directional stability Limited or no vision of side of tow opposite of where the tug is made fast (blind side). Unable to judge clearance on obstructions on side of tow opposite of tug Dependent on accurate and timely communication from barge pilot to safely pass obstructions on blind side City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 47 of 68

Push/Pull Note for the purposes of this report Push/Pull is defined as a tug in contact with the tow and tethered to the tow by a single headline. The tug can apply force to the tow by pushing on the tow structure or pulling on its headline. A variation on this is a tug in contact with the tow but with no headline up in which case it can only apply corrective force by pushing. Table 9 - Towing Mode: Push/Pull (advantages and disadvantages) TOWING ADVANTAGE MODE Push/Pull Can assume a variety of positions relative to the tow s pivot point to create maneuvering levers of various lengths and effectiveness Able to apply lateral force to the tow by pushing at an angle perpendicular to the tow s centerline Able to shift position relative to the barge if required Immediate transfer of propelling and turning forces from tug to tow when pushing Able to adjust its angle of push relative to the barge When positioned on the trailing end can act as a steering tug Excellent sightline down the side of the tow the tug is push/pulling on DISADVANTAGE Dependent on headline to the tow (when pulling) Creates added beam to the tow (tow width + tug length) Exposed to damage should clearance to an obstruction close on the side of the tow the tug is push/pulling Tug s offset position from tow creates drag and may affect tow s directional stability Difficult for tug to remain in effective pulling position if the tow has headway Limited or no vision of side of tow opposite of where the tug is push/pulling (blind side). Unable to judge clearance on obstructions on side of tow opposite of tug Dependent on accurate and timely communication from barge pilot to safely pass obstructions on blind side City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 48 of 68

Application of Effective Towing Configuration Principles to the Johnson Street Bridge Transit The two primary functions of the tugs during a bridge transit are to steer and manage the tow speed. Tug Performance Three (3) twin-screw, conventionally propelled tugs of 6, 13 and 18 ton bollard pull were available to be deployed in different towing modes and positions relative to the barge. Tow Specifications The barge was approximately 79 meters long, 21 meters wide and loaded either at 8,145 tons displacement or empty at 1267 tons displacement. Tow maneuvering requirements The maneuvering requirements varied depending on whether the transit was inbound or outbound. Inbound transit Inbound transits require: 1) Executing a 90 turn to port 2) Checking the swing of the barge 3) Maneuvering clear of a marina and piling obstructions on the southeast side of the bridge 4) Attaining an approach line in advance of the bridge transit to: a. Attain directional stability of the tow b. Maintain a course heading for the middle of the bridge span and parallel to the bridge fenders. 5) Maneuvering through the restricted width between bridge fenders Outbound transit Outbound transits require: 1) Executing a 30 turn to starboard 2) Attaining an approach line in advance of the bridge transit to: a. Attain directional stability of the tow b. Maintain a course heading for the middle of the bridge span and parallel to the bridge fenders. 3) Maneuvering through the restricted width between bridge fenders 4) Maneuvering clear of a marina and piling obstructions on the southeast side of the bridge 5) Executing a 90 turn to starboard 6) Checking the swing of the barge Pivot Point Location Because the barge always has headway during the bridge transit, the pivot point of the barge is stable and located approximately 1/4 to 1/3 aft of the leading end of the barge. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 49 of 68

Additional Notes: The tug masters are dependent on visual cues to judge the heading, rate of turn, set of the barge, and clearance of obstructions. The sight lines from the tug master s station should be considered in determining an effective towing configuration. In addition, the exploration of different methods or techniques to transit the bridge with tug and barge was new to the subject matter experts in that they predominantly tow the barges from the front with an assist tug in the vicinity. Transiting with an assist tug made up on the barge stern or with the primary tug made fast to the barge on the hip were considered new methods to these mariners for the specific purpose of this transit, and their initial performance on the these runs may be viewed either less safe or less controlled. However, these alternative techniques are considered industry best practices, and it was evident that after allowing the operators time to practice these alternative techniques that they become quickly acclimated to the maneuver and rapidly saw the value of the new configuration. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 50 of 68

Towing Configurations Johnson Bridge Transit In consideration of the above factors, six (6) towing configurations were utilized. Figure 33 - Six (6) towing configurations utilized during these Phase 2 simulation trials City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 51 of 68

Summary Analysis of Phase 2 Simulation Runs A total of twenty-five (25) simulation trials were run o Seventeen (17) inbound and seven (8) outbound. Nineteen (19) were run with a loaded barge and six (6) with empties. o Ten (10) were successful transits Five (5) of these were with tugs made up alongside (50%) Three (3) of these were with primary tug towing Two (2) of these were with a head line up. Only two (2) of these were with a tug towing, without a tug tethered astern. o Three (3) were marginal (grazing contact) o Nine (9) were unsuccessful o Three (3) were not completed. Two (2) were conducted using a Z Drive (ASD) Tug. Ten (10) transits were in a tow configuration with the primary tug towing and the assist tug running free. o Two (2) were successful. 20% success rate. o This configuration required the highest speed (4 to 7 knots typical) to maintain barge directional stability. Three (3) transits were in a tow configuration with the primary tug towing and the assist tug tethered to the trailing end. o Three (3) were successful. 100% success rate. o This configuration required moderate speed (3.5 to 5 typical) to maintain directional stability due to the drag of the assist tug. Ten (10) transits were in a tow configuration with the primary tug made up alongside on the hip and the assist tug tethered of the primary tug before the bridge. o Five (5) were successful. 50% success rate. o This configuration required the lowest speed (3 to 4 knots typical) to maintain directional stability of the barge. o Having the assist tug forward of and on the same side as the primary tug is critical. o Having the tugs on starboard side, inbound, proved much less difficult and much safer than on the port side. (Difficulty 1/Safety 8.5, compared Difficulty 8 /Safety 2)) ( 10 being most difficult and also most safe ) Most unsuccessful transits were inbound and due to either direct or indirect consequence of the tugs ineffectiveness in checking the starboard slide of the barge. This occurred after the 90 turn to port, and/or the swing of the stern to starboard. The effect was that the barge hit pilings by the marina, struck the bridge, or placed a tug in extremis. Operator familiarity with specific towing modes was a performance factor. Tug masters rated the degree of difficulty on a scale of 1 to 10. Ratings ranged from 1 to 8 with an average of 5.3. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 52 of 68

North end of West Bridge North end of East Bridge West fender 205t (14%) East fender South end of Old West Bridge 250t (2%) 110t (2%) South end of Old East Bridge Figure 34 - Phase 2 Impact Risk Graphic (tonnes, t, of impact force, % of runs that impacted) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 53 of 68

Recommendations Both known factors (environmental conditions, tug capability, tug master familiarity and experience, and barge size, load and trim) and unknown factors (e.g., current anomalies or high vessel traffic density) are required in determining an effective towing configuration and bridge transit plan. Rather than being prescriptive, these best practice recommendations describe critical elements that towing companies and operators should consider in their policies, procedures and training programs as tools to minimize the risk of allision. Two tugs for each transit Minimum 1500 aggregate HP between the two tugs, for the big barge Maximum environmental conditions of 30 knots of wind and 1 knot of current (25 mph winds) Towing configurations should enable o Direct control of the tow leading and trailing ends o Minimal added width to the tug/tow unit o Checking the starboard slide on inbound transits with strong westerly winds Recommended Inbound Towing Configurations are: o Primary tug towing astern/assist tug tethered to the barge starboard stern o Primary tug towing on the hip, made up on the barge port stern, assist tug free forward opposite side o Primary tug towing on the hip, made up on the barge starboard stern, assist tug tethered forward of primary tug. (Most control, slowest speed required) Recommended Outbound Towing Configurations are: o Primary tug towing astern/assist tug tethered to one or the other side of the stern o Primary tug towing on the hip, assist tug towing astern o Primary tug towing on the hip, assist tug tethered forward of the Primary tug. With strong NW wind this configuration should have both tugs made up on port side of barge to better enable barge to be held up into the wind and control barge setting into the south span. Towing companies to hold additional trials to establish standard towing configurations suitable for each companies tug and barge specifications Towing companies to develop tug/barge communication protocols to establish standardized terminology and procedures to communicate the barge set, line-up, distance to obstructions and corrective actions Towing companies to establish tug master qualification standards for Johnson Street Bridge Transits including: o General towing experience o Tug familiarization o Number of route familiarization transits o Required training o Route standard of competency criteria Install visual navigation aids such as range markers or lights to assist vessels in determining effective line up for safe bridge transit City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 54 of 68

Summary Conclusions Towing best practices are procedure tools to manage the risk of allision during a Johnson Bridge Transit. They, in combination with engineering, human factor and protective equipment controls, will bring the risk of bridge allision to an acceptable level. The inbound transits with a loaded barge were most challenging due the 90 turn, set towards the marina on the east side, and limited distance and time to attain an effective line-up for the bridge. The outbound transits were less challenging because the required 30 turn prior to bridge lineup was shallower than on the inbound and allowed more time and distance to make a good approach to the bridge span. It is critical to have sufficient time and distance to establish an effective approach line and regain directional stability on the inbound transits. Managing speed is a critical factor in creating an effective ratio between the tow s rate of turn and advance on the inbound 90 turn to port. Positive control of the tows trailing end is critical to checking the stern and slide to starboard on the inbound transit. Positive control of the tow s trailing end can be achieved by making up the primary tug on the hip or tethering the assist tug on the stern. A tug running free and pushing on the starboard quarter of the barge is of limited use in checking the starboard slide on the inbound transit. Towing astern is an effective towing mode for controlling the leading end of the tow. Tug masters use visual cues to judge heading, rate of turn and distance. Sight lines should be considered as a factor in towing configurations Comment about Safe Speed A limit on the maximum transit speed is commonly considered as a risk management tool. There are circumstances when a fixed maximum speed is appropriate, such as areas of high vessel traffic density, or to minimize wake damage. However, a fixed maximum speed limit is not appropriate in the context of a bridge transit. Rather transit speed should meet safe speed criteria. Safe speed is slow enough to build a cushion of space and time for the towing operators to perceive a deviation from the intended track, maneuver the tug to apply a corrective force and have the tow respond in a timely and effective manner. Safe speed is also fast enough to add directional stability to the tow. Both these factors will vary depending on tug capability and towing configuration. Tug masters are constantly balancing these criteria and thus safe speed is not a fixed number but varies throughout the transit. And safe speed depends on how the tugs are made up. The speed associated with a successful bridge transit is a consequence, not the cause, of tug operators successfully balancing these factors. The simulator trial data indicates a range of 2.5 to 4.5 knots as the speed over ground associated with successful transits. Speed varied widely from light barge to loaded and towing alongside vs. towing astern. Light barge outbound was over 5 knots most of the time when line haul tug towing astern. Loaded barge was less than 4 most of the time. Made up alongside allows tug to approach slower and maintain adequate control. Line haul tug alongside speed was below 4knots consistently. Being made up alongside the tow City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 55 of 68

does not depend on directional stability as much as towing astern because a tug made up alongside has more direct control. Line haul tug towing astern will always require more speed to maintain directional stability. The data indicates that the Johnson bridge transit presents a moderate maneuvering challenge that requires experienced tug operators and tugs positioned in a towing configuration that enables positive control of both the leading and trailing end of the tow. This last is the most critical point. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 56 of 68

4 Appendices Appendix A: Run Data Phase 1 contains the complete run sequence, test matrix, observations, and analysis for Phase 1. Data points captured for Phase 1 included: Average Force of impact Maximum force of impact Direction of impact relative to fender structure Sheering force (estimated) Appendix B: Run Data Phase 2 contains the complete run sequence, test matrix, observations, and analysis for Phase 2. Data points captured for Phase 2 included: SOG at Bridge Swept Path of Barge through Bridge Minimum clearance between barge and bridge Average clearance between barge and bridge (estimate) Average power used of Tug 1 Peak power used of Tug 1 Average amount of rudder angle used of Tug 1 Peak rudder angle used of Tug 1 For each run, a standard set of run information is included in the report Run Number, Force Diagram, Track History, and relevant visuals from the Simulation Control Station.) A Table provides the set of run information. This correlates the Run Number, detailing each vessel model condition and configuration, with the environmental parameters such as wind, current, and sea state conditions, followed by a narrative of observations and captured data points from the run. Diagnostics and other visual screen shots are also provided to further analyze more complex runs and to illustrate the observations. The diagnostics graphs include the following parameters: Table 10 - Diagnostics graphs parameters and sample key Vertical axis: Horizontal axis: Fender, Summary Force (t) Heading (º) Fender, Lateral Force (t) Course Over Ground (COG) (º) Fender, Longitudinal Force (t) Speed Over Ground (SOG) (knots) Appendix C: Pilots Cards contains a summary table identical to that found within the body of the report, in section 2, and copies of the detailed pilot cards for each modeled vessel. Appendix D: Glossary contains various terms used in the report, and Appendix E: References contains a complete listing of published references relevant to this study. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 57 of 68

Appendix A: Run Data Phase 1 Appendix A contains the complete run sequence, test matrix, observations, and analysis for Phase 1. Data, diagrams and figures for Appendix A are contained in a separate document titled Appendix A and B. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 58 of 68

Appendix B: Run Data Phase 1 Appendix B contains the complete run sequence, test matrix, observations, and analysis for Phase 1. Data, diagrams and figures for Appendix A are contained in a separate document titled Appendix A and B. City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 59 of 68

Appendix C: Pilot Cards The ship modeling program for the simulator renders a pilot card for each model. A pilot card is reproduced below for each model used Table 11 - Vessel model particulars Name Condition Length /Beam/Draft No. 1_PMI Small No. 2_PMI Medium No. 7_PMI Large Displacement / Bollard Pull (t) N/A 11m /4.77m/1.5m 40t / 7.6t N/A 27.02m /9.1m/2.7m 350t / 13t N/A 28.75m /7.78m/2.72m 256.23t / 18t Victoria Barge Empty 79.87m /21.70m/0.85m 1267t N/A Victoria Barge Loaded 79.87m /21.70m/4.9m 8145t N/A ASD Tug 1 N/A 25.3m /10.36m/2.74m 366t / 53t Key: bp FPP kw m t ZD bollard pull (tractive force of a tug, expressed here in metric tons) Fixed pitch propeller kilowatt (1000 kw = 1341 mechanical horse power) meters tons (or Metric Tons; 1000 tonnes = 1102 tons) Azimuthing drive Power (kw) 2 x 162 kw FPP 100% = 440 rpm 2 x 1119 kw FPP 100% = 307.4 rpm 2 x 486 kw FPP 100% = 253.7 rpm 2 x 1566 kw Azimuth FPP City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 60 of 68

City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 61 of 68

City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 62 of 68

City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 63 of 68

City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 64 of 68

City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 65 of 68

Appendix D: Glossary of Terms Amidships - in the middle of a ship: Difficulty subjective, quantified evaluation from tug master on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being most difficult, regarding the level of challenge of completing a particular transit Inbound track of vessel is proceeding in from sea to harbour Outbound - track of vessel is proceeding out from harbour to sea Pt qtr port quarter; see graphic below Safety - subjective, quantified evaluation from tug master on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being most safe, regarding the danger in safely completing a particular transit Skeg - a sternward extension of the keel of boats and ships which have a rudder mounted on the centre line. The term also applies to the lowest point on an outboard motor or the outdrive of an inboard/outboard. Stbd qtr starboard quarter; see graphic below Figure 35 - Boat Nomenclature and Terminology (source: AmericanBoating.org) City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 66 of 68

Figure 36 - Bridge structure locations and angles of strike City of Victoria Johnson Street Bridge Maritime Simulation Study 2016 Page 67 of 68