TECHNICAL REPORT CERC-89-16

LOS ANGELES - LONG BEACH HARBOR COMPLEX

mi. 2020 PLAN HARBOR RESONANCE ANALYSISNumerical Model Investigation

by

Francis E. Sargent

Coastal Engineering Research Center

Ln DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYWaterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers

3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-6199

TTI

DTI~ELECTF

DECO 610

November 1989Final Report

Approved For Public Release, DistribUtion Unlimited

Pepared for US Army Engineer District, Los AngelesLos Angeles, California 90053-2325

Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not returnit to the originator.

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an officialDepartment of the Army position unless so designated

by other authorized documents.

The contents of this report are not to be used foradveitsing, publication, or promotional purposes.Citation of trade names does not constitute anofficial endorsement or approval of the use of

such commercial products.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FoMB Npov7-0d8

aREPORT SECURITY CASSIF CATION lMb RETRCTV MARKINGS8:lb RETITV IsARKINGS0

2a SECURITY CLASSFICATJON AUTHORITYF 3 DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

Approv.ed for pubM ic releas di b:' :2b DECLASSIFiC-ATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 111ni jn'A ted

4 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5 MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NuMBER(S)

-lRceport *F ~ ~ _____________________________________

6a NAME OF PERFORMING ORG .ANIZATION 6b OFFICE S 'MBOL 7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

Coastal Engnerg (if apikabile)

x~ta Ch ent)ierI

6c- ADDRESS (City, State. and ZIP Code) 7b ADDRESS(City, State, and ZIP Code)

''Pal Is Ferrv Roaid

ga NAME OF FUNDING iSPONSORING 8b OFFICE SYMBOL 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

RGANIZA T ION U-(if applicable)

'1 Lo(s Angto1 o ,

8c. ADDR2 SS (Oty, State, and ZIP Code) 10 SOuRi.A OF FUNDING NUMBERSPROGRAM IPROJECT ITASK IWORK UNIT

"iee A -10I 0) <1ELEMENT NO INO NO jACCESSION NO

I1I TITLE (Include Security Clasdication)

L.-, ie les -Long B a:li (Ci rho r K ' crp 2e''-0 1Pla1 Harbor Resonance Anal vsis Cv'ti 1

1I.'~tiration.12 PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

F:Kcni 1rancis EL.

13a TYPE OF REPORT i3b TIME COVERED 14 DATE OF REPORT (Year, Moonth. Day) 15 PAGE COUNT

i. an. report FROM :1,r 88 TOOjct 88 Cv erb t.r 1 98 9q

16 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

:Iiibl fI orrt Nc nal 0 lntormaoton Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,Srig

17 COSAT' CCOES 18 SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse f necessary and identify by block number)

FIELD GROUP SUB GROUP

Se e ro. r "I,

19 ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse of necessary and identify by block number)a C.',I' (II.K). .os Angeles - Long Beach ((arblor Co,q

':~tudv 1,,irlmr os, I '' . ' c pe-riod 1r11".- -K.......

'Irei i, x on;an~d two Phase 2 .,iid on&-I)'--'. i ., 1), roer i-a L inode I HARBD. whiclK I,

1 l I1sed I this',~~ . I

0':~! in e s Ia: -- 1c 1'I lt P phaSe 2 c IT.,, A -(Iu'i' (l ', Kb.

fl (1 d 1) v . III'' Ir-1K F , 'spolsI thai((t Phase I Scherle R 11-1I

-:0 ;(I s e .. c' Ie. ol II Ph(i: c ~K1 onsilered t1),-:, 1rC-spaI Se O

I'o0:iK ' 1-. . I 0 x, 1'1,1 I, a -tihl plan0P50), "L !c% 01K

hi ~ ~ 1 1:'~l'')K;' s w rc I,~ Al 1l,' 1:1,.1 . KU

20 DiSTRi~u1'ION/AVAIIAEILI(Y OF ABSTRACT VK ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

0 UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED El SAME AS RPT 0 j)TIC USERS 1'In' lass i ti

22a 14AME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 1:.- 'ELEP'nk'F 6-a1

"~ r'.. 1~..K(2? OFFICE cYIVBO

DD Forrm 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsoiete SECI'R,'Y ILASSIF!CAT'ON Of THIS PAIIE

UnclassiieSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continued).

Harbor resonanceHarbors- -Hydrodynamics (LC)Harbors- -California (LC)Los Angeles (Calif.)--Harbor (LC)Long Beach (Calif. )--Harbor ILC)Numerical modelsShip motion2020 Master Plan (WES)

Aooestiom For'

NTIS GRA&I

DTIO TABQU Anounced

Distribut ion/

KAvllabillty Oode

_ Avail and/orDist Speoial

Unc lassified

SEC,-7i.T'r -,.ASI1FCATION OF THIS PAGE

PREFACE

A numerical harbor resonance model investigation of the Los Angeles -

Long Beach Harbor Complex was authorized by the US Army Engineer District, Los

Angeles (SPL), on 1 March 1988. The model investigation was sponsored by SPL,

arid funding was provided by the Ports of Los Angeles (POLA) and Long Beach

(POLB) under a study agreement with SPL.

The numerical study was conducted at the Coastal Engineering Research

Center (CERC) of the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) from

March to October 1988 in the Wave Processes Branch (WPB), Wave Dynamics Divi-

sion (WDD), CERC, under the direction of Dr. James R. Houston, Chief, CERC;

Mr. Charles C. Calhoun, Jr., Assistant Chief, CERC; Mr. Claude E.

Chatham, Jr., Chief, WDD; and Mr. Douglas 6. Outlaw, Chief, WPB. The numeri-

cal model investigation was conducted by Mr. Francis E. Sargent, Hydraulic

Engineer, WPB, and Ms. Robin Hoban, Contract Student, who provided assistance

in grid preparation This report was edited by Ms. Shirley A. J. Hanshaw,

Information Technology Laboratory, WES.

During the course of the investigation, liaison between POLA and POLB

was maintained by means of conferences, telephone communications, presentation

of prelimirir: results. and monthly progress reports. Messrs. Vern Hall and

John V'arwar wr,e the points of contact (POC) for POLA, and Messrs. Dan Allen,

Rich Weeks, and Y,;t' Burke were POC's for POLB.

Project .a:igement for SPL was administered by Mr. Angel P. Fuertes

under the geneora! direction of Mr. Stephen S. Fine, Chief, Coastal Branch and

Mr. Alan Alcorn, Chief, Waterways and Harbors Section, North Coast, in the

Planning Division. COL Tadahiko Ono was District Engineer of SPI. during the

course of this study.

COL Larry B. Fulton, EN, was Commander and Director of WES during report

publication. Dr. Robert W. Whalin was Technical Director.

CONTENTS

PREFACE.................................... . . .......... . . .. .. .. ......

CONVERSION FA~CTORS, NON-SI 'rO SI (METRIC)

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT.............................3

PART I: INTRODUCTION............................4

The Prototype..............................4

Purpose of Study............................6

PART II: NUMERICAL MODEL.........................10

PART III: APPLICATION OF NUMERICAL MODEL........................12

Numerical Data Analysis........................13

Grid and Boundary Conditions...............................14

PART IV: RESULTS...................................15

Long Beach..............................................15Los Angeles..............................17Los Angeles-Long Beach Complex and 2020 Landfill . . . . . . 19JC

PART V: CONCLUSIONS.......................................20

REFERENCES.............................................22

BIBLIOCRAPHY..................................

TABLE 1

PLATES 1-68

2

CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI

(motric) units as follows:

Multiply By To Obtain

acres 4,046.856 square metres

feet 0.3048 metres

tons (2,000 pounds, mass) 0.907194 metric tons

LOS ANGELES - LONG BEACH HARBOR COMPLEX

2020 PIAN }ARBOR RESONANCE ANALYSIS

Numerical Modi! investigation

PART I: INTRODUCTION

The Prototype

1. The L.oa; Angeles - Long Beach Harbor Complex is situated in San Pedro

Bay ( 1gure 1) on the south California coastline (118015 ' , 33C45 ' N). The

Ports are protected from incident wave energies by three rubble-mound break-

w~ters (Bottin ]988). Breakwater construction began with the San Pedro Break-

water during 1900-12, ccntin ued with the Middle Breakwater during 1932-37 and

1940-42, and finished with the Long Beach Breakwater during 1941-43 and

1946-49. The breakwaters provide sufficient pr'otection for short-period waves

hut are considered to be highly permeable to low amplitude-low frequency waves

iI')u.s toI 196 ). The present day bathymetry and harbor geometry has evolved

from cont inued growth and development by the Ports and Federal interests.

2. Future growth of the harbors is expected during the next few decades

as shown in the Operations, Facilities, and Infrastructure Study (Vickerman

Zachary Miller, Inc. 1988). Cargo throughput by the year 2020 is projected to

be 221 800,000 tons,* while the maximum historical throughput to date has been

RA, 900,000 tons. Maximum prdctical capacity of existing facilities is

estimated at 144,500,000 tens. The major growth factor will be caused by an

i icreasqe in Pacific Rim trade.

TO i satis fv expected growth, the Ports have undertaken a long-range

cooperative planning effort known as the 2020 Plan. The principal components

of the 2020 Plan are (a) landfills in outer harbor areas covering 2,400 icres

and development of 600 existing acres, providing space for 38 new terminals;

(b) deep-draft channels at various depths from 55 to 90 ft (providing most of

the mat,,erials for the landfills); and (c) an extensive system of rail and

lmg}'hway connections and intermoda] container transfer facilities. Construc-

ini. .;i I I be done in two major phases, Phase 1 to be completcd about the y'ea-

efol I owed by Pluast, 2 completion in 2020.

A table of factor:; for converting non-SI to SI u-nits of meas;uremen* ispre.ted on page .

7/

/ 2

I

zo :~Y iiV "*rj~ ~

-I

/

~-~- z -~

I

C

'N C

UN C

____________ N

- = - /

= a -I____ hI

6~Z

\ \\~~ ~

~ ~4K

~0. -~

-z,*.. 0..,2.4.. 7

pC

J

Purpose of Study

1. The purpose of this study was to ive-:igate hw< ri ,>., i'' ,

excited by long waves with periods from 60 to 400 sec using a finite r ,:

numerical model. Four layouts, includi g existing condi,io's, w< re tee'c .,

determine whether adverse harbor oscillations would occur in existing or in o-

posed basins. Although a ship motion analysis was not undertaken i. OK

study, the present results can be used in a relative compari son Ca ito

where ship motion problems are most 1il'elv to develop Th. present W= 1i

limited to the 60- to 400-sec periods and does not inIcude vv lis i: 'K

to 60-sec range which may also he important in addressing ship molion.

5. Existing conditions, shown in Figure 2, were studied to povid-

baseline comparison for the three alterlative schers Ve-sted. The aitc.ai:i

schemes consisted of two Phase 2 layouts and one Phase I Iavout. The

ti on of the Phase I layout was based on a preliminary analysis, of tic Ph,,

results. The Phase I configuration of Scheme B is shown in Figure

layouts for Scheme B and Scheme A are shown in Figures 4 a ) ,

- \ EAsr

BASIN 6- WFST RA S IN

Figure 2.Existing coii(!tions for Los Arngales -Long Beach

Har~bor C0iiiple\

'05.

PhaseI

I*1.2

t

'.I.

-. Si

- -~ ~IJI, ~'77

5- 4mz

C

C

C-U'

Q.~ ~,-

~

C

* *. C

\ ~b%

\~ ~

'-'S.'

\\ \~,4

N -~N

AC !~- S- SI ~

-5-f-i 5.

*1 -

PART II: NUMERICAL MODEL

6. The numerical model, originally developed by Chen and Mei (1974),

uses a hybrid finite element solution to a generalized Helmholtz equation.

The model has been successf,01,, -pplied to several study areas by the Coastal

Engineering Research Center (CERC) (Bottin, Sargent, and Mize 1985; US Army

Engineer Waterwavs Experiment Station (WES) 1987; Farrar and Chen 1987; and

Crawford 1988). Houston (1976) included variable depth bathymetry and the

nispersion relationship from linear wave theory. The effects of bottom

friction and boundrry absorption were incorporated into the model by Chen

(1984, 1986). This more accurately models the conditions seen in prototype

data and physical model testing and is consistent with theoretical arguments

of energy dissipation. Chen and Houston (1987) wrote a user's manual for two

versions of the model: HARBS for shallow water and HARBD for arbitrary water

depth.

7. Applying linear wave theory to the governing cont'4nuity and momentum

equations and noting that all the dependent variables are periodic in time

with angular frequency w yields the following governing equation (Chen

1986):

V • Acc8 Vo + cg 2 = (i)9 C

where

c = w/k phase velocity

k = 27/L , wave number

L = wave length

cg =c/2 + ckh/sinh(2kh) , group velocity

spatial complex velocity potential

'- tt;.: friction factor A is assamed proportional to the maximum flow

scpeed at the bottom and defined as

1(2)

0+ h a ieisinh(kh)

10

where

= dimensionless parameter that varies spatially

a. = incident wave amplitude

h = local water depth

I = phase shift between bottom stress and flow velocity

For example, when 6 = 0 then A = 1 , and Equation 1 reduces to Chen and

Mei's (1974) original equation without bottom friction.

8. The absorptive boundary condition on the solid boundaries adopts

the impedance condition used in acoustics in terms of the boundary reflection

coefficient kr to be

0 (3)a Y

along the boundary with

a ik I - k, (4)1 +k,

and 77 is the unit normal vector outward from the fluid domain. Similar to

the friction coefficient, when a = 0 , Equation 3 reduces to a statement of

zero velocity normal to the boundary, which is implicit in Chen and Mei's

original formulation.

9. A conventional finite element approximation with triangular ele-

ments of nodal type is used in the near region, while an analytical solution

with unknown coefficients is used to describe the far region as an elemellt of

coefficient type. A variational principle usig a proper functional is csta.-

fished so that the near and far fields are matched along an outer semicircle

(or circle) bounded within a semi-infinite (or infinite) domain. The cocffi-

cients on the semicircle are obtained from the analytical solution for the

specified wave direction. The analytical soluti on assumres a constant depth or

very mild slope in the far region and neglects bottom friction in the far

regi on.

10 j Within the hounding semi ci ri'c l he re gion is- di scre t ir.ld i 1'.t

fiIlite numl)ber of coordinite p i -:; called nlod(e poi . Th c 1od( oi

related to adjacent nodes vi a trianinular ciemelfits (thr-ee, le r a- ,

I 11

The local depth h and bottom friction factor I are defined at the element

level. Th1 reflection coefficients kr are specified at boundary elements

which are defined as a subset of the element data. Once the physical geometry

of the finite element mesh is defined, a series of values for wave period T

wave direction 0 , and wave amplitude a. can be supplied as input to the

model.

11. The finite element solution is obtained from a global matrix of

nodal coefficients that is assembled at the element level with respect to the

governing equations and specified boundary conditions. The element matrices

are symmetric with global bandwidths equal to the maximum numerical difference

between adjacent node indices. It follows that the assembled matrix is

symmetric with a bandwidth (maximum extent of nonzero coefficients from the

diagonal) equal to the largest element bandwidth. The size of an element is

denendent on the depth and minimum wave period tested which define the minimum

wavelength via the dispersion relationship. Quantitative accuracy can be

obtained when the number of node points per wavelength exceeds 4.* Elements

with equilateral sides are most convenient since this minimizes the nodal

density in addition to maximizing computational accuracy.

12. The assembled matrix is solved using Gaussian elimination with a

solution time proportional to the number of unknowns (nodes) times the

bandwidth squared. With the exception of calculating A for each element,

the solution is normalized with respect to an incident wave of unit amplitude.

The resulting complex velocity potential 0 at each node is then represented

as an amplification factor and corresponding phase angle. In general, the

solution consists of standing and progressive wave components.

* Personal communication, 1988, H. S. Chen, CERC, WES.

12

PART III: APPLICATION OF NUMERICAL MODEL

Numerical Data Analysis

13. A vectorized version of the IARBD model was run on a CDC Cyber 205

for this study (Crawford 1988). Initial runs indicated a disproportionally

large amount of computational time was expended in computing k for each

element. This problem was solved by using an algorithm presented by Wu and

Thornton (1986). The resulting model can be used efficiently for all wave

periods from shallow-water to deepwater conditions.

14. For purposes of this study, results from the model were reduced to

a data set consisting of boundary element (or "panel") amplification factors.

These factors are the most relevant with respect to moored ship motion. The

mean panel amplification is defined as

1

A 12 = J i121 dr (5)

0

where

I121 -[a, + r(a 2 - a,)]I + [b1 + r(b 2 - bl]z})] (6)

01 a, + ibl , 2 = a2 + ib 2 (7 ab)

and r is the normalized position along the boundary element. Equation 6 is

simply the amplification factor at any point along the boundary. Once

analyzed, particular panels or sequences of panels representing particular

basins were selected for graphical and tabular presentation. Basin response

is calculated by taking a weighted av:rage of the respective panel factors.

Further analysis of the selected basins was then done by averaging the basin

response curves into several period bands varying in length from 30 to

100 sec.

13

Crid and Boundary Conditions

15. Plates 1-4 show the grid geometries for existing and planned

layouts. The harbor geometries were determined from National Oceanographic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) charts, information provided by the

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. and several other auxiliary data sources.

The elements vary in size to reflect local changes in water depth. Nodal

spacing v. ried from 200 ft for the minimum water depth of 9 to 800 ft for

depths exceeding 75 ft. This spacing provided a minimum of 4 nodes/wavelength

for the 60-sec minimum wave period tested.

16. The bottom friction coefficient was 0.1 for all elements except

the 80 elements representing the San Pedro and Middle Breakwaters. The fric-

tion coefficient for the breakwater elements was 50. Water depths were deter-

mined from NOAA charts and information provided by the ports. The water

depth for the breakwater elements was 29.5 ft. The model was run for a fixed

water depth of +3 ft mean lower low water.

17. The boundary reflection coefficients varied from 0.965 for depths

below 10 ft to 0.995 for depths exceeding 60 ft. The coefficient was

incremented 0.005 for each 10-ft increase in depth. For each configuration, a

total of 121 wave periods was selected between 60 and 400 sec. The period

varied in 2-sec increments from 60 to 200 sec and 4-sec increments from 200 to

400 sec. For comparison purposes, the wave amplitude was fixed at 0.065 ft

for friction computations, and the wave direction was set at 210 deg from true

north.

18. Plates 5-8 show the boundary locations selected for data presenta-

tion. Several line segments, representing prominent basins or slips, were

selected from the Los Angeles, Long Beach, and proposed 2020 landfill areas.

Results for these segments were obtained as outlined in Paragraph 14.

14

PART 1V: RESULTS

19. Plates 9-68 show the mean amplification response factors as a

function of wave period for the line segments defined on Plates 5-8. In

addition to the numbering scheme, a descriptive title is included on each

plate to aid in identifying -he location. For each location the results are

presented on two successive plates for the 60- to 180- and 180- to 400-sec

wave period bands, respectively. To adequately compare the four data sets

shown on each plate, the amplification response (vertical) axis varies in

magnitude from plate to plite.

20. A summary of r.sults for Plates 9-68 is shown in Table 1. The

values in Table 1 are tim( averaged response factors for the indicated period

bands. For brevity, the four basin geometries will be referenced as existing

conditions (EC), Scheme A - Phase II (A2), Scheme B - Phase II (B2), and

Scheme B - Phase I (Bl). Unless stated otherwise, all comparisons made are

with reference to EC.

Long Reach

Pier J extension

21. This area is not presently used for shipping, and all three modifi-

cations to it are identical in geometry. Results shown in Plates 9-10 are

markedly similar for the proposed changes below 240 sec, while some variation

in amplification is seen in the principal mode occurring at 280 sec. Smaller

amplification peaks of 2.5 aiid 1.5 occur at 65 and 90 sec, respectively.

These results are similar to those presented in a report by Tekmarine. Inc.

(1987), for the Port of Long Beach.

Southeast Basin

22. Plates 11-12 show the overall response of Southeast Basin, with B2

showing the largest increase. A2 increases above 300 sec, while it decreases

below this point; and BI decreases, with the exception of the 140- to 170-sec

period range. Table 1 shows that between 60 to 180 sec, A2, B2, and Bl change

-11, +23, and +11 percent, respectively. Above 180 sec, the response of the

basin is largely a function of a 220-sec peak developing in the pier G-J areas

and a 380 peak devcloping throughout the basin. While A2, B2, and BI all show

significant reduction of the 220-,;ec peak, B2 increases 103 percent in the

15

240- to 300-sec band. For the 360- to 400-sec range, A2 and B2 have an

approximately fourfold increase in response, while BI has an approximate

twofold increase. Plates 13-18 show the response for three subsections of

Southeast Basin.

East Basin

23. Plates 19-20 show the overall East Basin response, and Plates 21-22

and 23-24 show subsections located in the Pier B and Pier D areas, respec-

tively. In the 60- to 180-sec band, East Basin response decreases under the

proposed plans with changes of -24, -28, and -13 percent for A2, B2, and Bl,

respectively. For the modified plans, response between 60- to 180-sec never

exceeds 2.0 in the Pier B or Pier D areas, as shown on Plates 21 and 23. East

Basin response above 180 sec is dominated by a 200-sec peak which develops for

B2 and B1 in the Pier D slip and a broad 300 to 400 sec response in the Pier B

and Pier C slips for the three proposed plans. East Basin changes in the 180-

to 240-sec band are -20, +51, and +31 percent for A2, B2, and Bl, respec-

tively. Similarly, changes in the 300- to 400-sec band are +115, +101, and

+157 percent for A2, B2, and Bl, respectively.

Naval Basin

24. Response curves for the entire Naval Basin and its west end are

shown on Plates 25-26 and 27-28, respectively. Changes in Naval Basin

response for the 60 to 150 band are -35, -9, and -17 percent for A2, B2, and

Bl, respectively. The response above 150 sec is characterized by a sharp peak

at 162 sec for all four plans, smaller peaks at 188 sec 2nd 208-12 sec, and a

broad response in the 300- to 400-sec band for the three proposed plans.

Changes in the 150- to 180-sec band are +49, +32, and +83 percent for A2, B2,

and B1, respectively. Changes in the 300- to 400-sec band are +107, +93, and

+170 percent for A2, B2, and BI, respectively.

2020 Landfill

25. The overall response of the Long Beach 2020 landfill can be seen on

Plates 63-64. Plates 65-66 show the overall response of the landfill slip,

and Plates 67-68 the response at the slip's end. The curves show large

variations in response between A2, B2, and BI, not unusual considering the

major differences in plan geometries.

26. With reference to Plates 67-68, the response curves are dominated

by B1, which has a large peak of 5.62 at 86 sec, a broad peak between 120 and

145 sec averaging 3.5, and a large response above 240 sec averaging 4.4. The

16

B2 response is somewhat similar to BI between 120 and 240 and usually of lower

magnitude outside this range. The A2 response, typically the lowest, has a

narrow peak at 122 sec reaching to 4.9 and, relative to Bl or B2, a larger

response between 176 and 206 sec. Between 60 and 180 sec, the change in

response from BI to B2 is -37 percent, and from B2 to A2 is -30 percent.

Los Ang-eles

Main Channel slips/West Basin

27. The Slip 5 response curves (Plates 29-30) show the four plans have

a fairly low response below 180 sec and a significant reduction occurring in

the 240- to 300-sec band for the three proposed plans.

28. Plates 31-32 are the Slip I response curves which show principal

peaks occurring at 78 sec, 130 to 150 sec, 276 sec, and 356 to 388 sec. The

curves for A2 and B2 are very similar, which, as will be seen, is typical for

most of the Los Angeles locations. Changes in the 60- to 180-sec band are

+13, +14, and -7 percent for A2, B2, and BI, respectively. Above 180 sec,

response decreases for the three proposed plans with major reductions from EC

peaks at 276 sec and 388 sec.

29. West Basin response curves on Plates 33-34 show little change

occurring under the proposed modifications. The maximum response n,,er

exceeds 1.6 for any of the four plans.

30. Response curves for Slip 93, on Plates 35-6, show a large peak

fsring at 110 to 130 sec for A2 and B2, and smaller peaks appearing at 140 to

160 sec and 210 to 220 sec for A2, B2, and Bl. The 110- to 130-sec peak would

appear to be a contribution of the East Channel landfill, a feature of A2 and

B2 but not included in B1. Changes in response in the 90- to 150-sec and 180-

to 240-sec bands are +45 and +25 percent for B2 and -4 and 427 percent for BI,

respectively.

31. The SP Slip response curves on Plates 37-38 show changes occurring

iii the 150- to 180-scc and 240- to 300-sec binds, where large reductions

occur, and in the 180- to 240-sec band which has increased significantly.

Changes in the 150- to 180-sec and 180- to 240-sec bands are -29 and 446 per-

cent for B2 and -20 and +57 percent for B1, respectively.

32. Plates 45-46 show Slip 240 responds mostly in the 150- to 300-sec

range where peaks occur at 156 sec and 186 to 202 sec with :ragilitudes

17

close to 5. Response changes in the 150- to 130-sec and 180- to 240-sec bands

are -22 and +38 percent for B2, and -15 and +47 percent for BI, respectively.

East Channel/Landfill

33. East Channel geometry remains unchanged for Bl but is replaced by a

landfill for A2 and B2 geometries. Response curves for the channel/landfill,

located on Plates 39-40, show A2 and B2 are nearly identical, while differ-

ences between EC and Bl are significant. Between 60 to 240 sec, Bl response

increases +41 percent, and above 240 sec there is a -22 percent decrease.

Within the 60- to 150-sec band, the mean response of 1.731 for EC increases to

2.565 for Bl and 1.807 for B2.

Watchorn Basin, Cabrillo Marina, and Fish Harbor

34. Response curves for these areas are shown on Plates 41-42, 43-44,

and 47-48 for Watchorn Basin, Cabrillo Marina, and Fish Harbor, respectively.

With the possible exception of Watchorn Basin, these areas are not expected to

be adversely affected by any changes in response for the 60- to 400-sec band.

Most vessels which occupy these areas have principal modes of oscillation

occurring at periods below 60 sec. Changes in Watchorn Basin response between

60 and 180 sec are +11 and -3 percent for B2 and Bl, respectively. Changes in

Cabrillo Marina response between 60 and 180 sec are +10 and -3 percent for B2

and BI, respectively. Fish Harbor shows significant reductions in response

for the three proposed plans throughout the 60- to 400-sec band, with the 60-

to 180-sec band showing changes of -48 and -54 percent for B2 and Bl,

respectively.

2020 Landfill

35. Plates 54-55 show the overall response of the Los Angeles 2020

landfill, and Plates 56-62 are response curves for several subsections in this

area. As noted earlier, the B2 and A2 curves are very similar, with the

largest differences seen at locations in closer proximity to the Long Beach

2020 landfill. Two possibilities for similar iesponse curves are (a) A2 and

B2 Los Angeles geometries are identical and (b) orientation of, and distance

to, the Long Beach 2020 slip. The two major geographical features of the

landfill will be referred to as the Northern Slip and Southern Slip.

36. From Plates 57-58 the major response features of the Northern Slip

are several peaks with magnitudes of 2 to 3 between 120 and 200 sec, a peak at

280 sec for B1, and a broad peak at 310 sec for B2. Between 60 to 180 sec,

the change in response from Bl to B2 is +15 percent.

18

37. Major features of the Southern Slip response curves, shown on

Plates 61-62, are an amplification peak of 2.5 to 3 between 80 and 100 sec,

and a strong peak reaching 7.5 at 240 sec for BI. Between 60 to 180 sec, the

change in response from B1 to B2 is +2 percent.

Los Angeles-Long Beach Complex and 2020 Landfill

38. Plates 49-50 show the space-averaged response of the harbors, while

Plates 51-52 show the response for the Los Angeles-Long Beach 2020 Landfill.

Referring to Table 1, the harbor response below 180 sec decreases for all

three proposed plans, whereas above 300 sec just the opposite occurs. Rela-

tive to B2, A2 has a lower response below 120 sec and essentially the same

response above 120 sec. The overall changes for A2, B2, and Bl are -7.2,

-3.3, and +0.1 percent, respectively. Overall changes for the landfill,

relative to B2, are -7.1 and +12.2 percent for A2 and Bl, respectively.

19

PART V: CONCLUSIONS

39. Based on the results from the numerical model, it is concluded fci-

Long Beach Harbor that:

a. The three landfill schemes' influence on existing areas is seen

principally above 180 sec. Between 60 and 180 sec, for the Naval,East, and Southeast Basins, changes in response (relative to EC)are -17, -13, and +4 percent for A2, B2, and Bi, respectively.

Similarly, overall changes between 60 and 400 sec are 424, +33,and +39 percent, respectively.

b. The Scheme B laycuts show a significant increase in response forthe 2020 Landfill Slip relative to the Scheme A layout; between 60and 180 sec, changes in response are +51 and +136 percent for B2and Bl, respectively. Similarly, overall changes between 60 and

400 sec are +44 and +106 percent, respectively.

c. The Pier J Extension Slip is not significantly influenced by the

three landfill schemes.

Overall, A2 appears to be the best plan for minimizing harbor response for

Long Beach. While the B2 layout has a stronger response, its effect is

located primarily within the 2020 Landfill Slip. The magnitude of the B2

layout response is not sufficiently above the A2 response to consider exclud-

ing B2 from plan selection. With respect to ship motion, other factors such

as response characteristics in the 10- to 60-sec period band, ship types.

fender types, mooring line types and configurations, downtime criteria, and

wave statistics are necessary in determining the best plan.

40. Based on the results for the numerical model, it is concluded for

Los Angeles Harbor that:

a. Response characteristics for A2 and B2 are virtually the same forall locations, the largest differences occurring with proximity toLong Beach Harbor. It appears that the similar response may be

due to two factors, (1) the Los Angeles Phase 2 geometries are

identical and (2) orientation and distance of differences in LongKBeach Phase 2 geometries.

b. With the exception of Slip 93, the Main Channel basins/slips do

not show significant changes in response for the three proposed

plans. The large increase between 90 to 150 sec at Slip 93

appears to be due to the presence of the East Channel Landfill.

c. For the Phase 2 layouts, East Channel response between 60 to150 sec is about the same as EC, while the Bl layout shows a

significant increase. Above 150 sec, response for the three

proposed plans decreases significantly (except for a substantial

increase in the 180- to 240-sec band).

d. Watchorn Basin .i.-l Cabrillo marina do not change significantly.The changes that occur are not expected to adversely affect

20

typical vessels in tiiese areas since principal ship motionresponse periods are below the most significant changes (or infact below 60-sec minimum period studied here).

c_. ['ish Harbor shows significant reduction in response for all three

proposed plans.

f. Although the 2020 Northern Slip shows significant changes inresponse between Phases 1 and 2, the overall responses are

relatively small (compared with East Channel or 2020 Southern

Slip).

_. The 2020 Southe-rn Slip shows strong response between 80 to 100 sc.and above 180 sec for the three proposed plans. The responseabove 180 sec is largest for Bl, in particular between 200 to270 sec, where the amplification factor approaches 8 at the slip'send.

'lhe critical areas for Los Angeles Harbor appear to be the BI configuration

for i{si:t Channel and the three proposed plans for the 2020 Southern Slip.

P, It mve to EC for East Channel, the 2020 Southern Sl ip shows a smallerrpon,-,e helow 180 soc and a larger response above this point. The relative

x-:po.;tre of the.so ocat ion; and their proximity to Angle'.s ate, couled wit

.ido t vav.e e orcies in tht, 10- to 60-sec period bard, could -ad to ;ic!vrst

i , ma: iotn events unre.t k:r(no wave conditions.

1 The ove -a I res poil O of the Los Angeles - Long; h- ach ., o r ,im I -x

11 propotst 2020 1 and f I I areas show that A2 has the lowest re ; po ns o fo IlI owc.

, 0i2 ae I 1, respect i v .%

21

REFERENCES

Bottin, Robert R., Jr. 1988. "Case Histories of Corps Breakwater and JettyStructures; Report 1, South Pacific Division," Technical Report REMR-CO-3, JSArmy Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

3ottin, Robert R., .r., Sargent, Francis E., and Mize, Marvin G. 1985."Fisherman's Wharf Area, San Francisco Bay. California, Design for WaveProtection: Physical and Numerical Model Investigation," Technical ReportCFRC-85-7, US Army Engineer Vaterways Experiment Stat-on, Vicksburg, MS.

Chen, H. S. 1984. "Hybrid Element Modeling of Harbor Resonance," Fourthinternational Conference on Applied Numerical Modeling, Tainan, Taiwan, R.O.C.

1986. "Effect- of Bottom Friction and Boundary Absorption on

Water Wave Scattering," Applied Ocean Research, Vol 8, No. 2, pp 99-104.

Chen, H. S., a.Iu Houston, J. R. 1987. "Calculation of Water Oscillation inCoastal Harbors, HARRS and 11ARBD User's Manual," Instruction Report CERC-87-2,US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

Chen, H. S., and Mei, C. C. 1974 (Aug). "Oscillations arid Wave Forces in -.nOffshore Harbor," Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory Report No. 190, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Crawford, Peter L. 1988. "Comparison of Numerical and Physical Models ofWave Response in a Harbor," Miscellaneous Paper CERC-88-11, US Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Farrar Paul D., and Chen, H1. S. 1987. "Wave Response of the Proposed Harborat Agat, Guam," Technical Report CERC-87-4, US Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

houston, James R. 1976. "Long Beach Harbor Nuir.erical Analysis of HarborOscillations; Report 1, Existing Conditions and Proposed Improvements,"Miscellaneous Paper 11-76-20, US Army Engineer Wterways Experiment Station,Vicksburi, MS.

Tekma rine, Inc. 1987. "Ship Motion and Harbor Response Study for Pier JExpansion Project," Tekmarine Report No. TCN-108, Pasadena, CA.

US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 1987. "Disposal Alternativesfor PCB-Contaminated Sediments from Indiana Harbor, Indiana; Volumes 1 and 2,"Miscellaneous Paper EL-8/-9, fn.ironmental '-aboratory. Vicksburg, MS.

Vickerman Zachary Miller, Inc. 1988. "2020 OFI Study Suiminarv San Pedro Baytorts of Los Angeles and Long Beach," Oakland, CA.

Wu, Chung-Shang, and Thornton, E. B. 1986 (Jul). "Wave Numbers of LiVrarProgressive Wa"es," Journal of Waterways, Po-t, o.ostal and Ocean Engineering_Vol 112, No. 4, pp )36-40.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burington, Richard S. 1965. Handbook of Mathematical Tables and Formulas,4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Gallagher, Richard H. 1975. Finite Element Analysis: Fundamentals, Prentice-

Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. The Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and

Port Hueneme, California, Port Series No. 28, Water Resources Support Center,

Fort Belvoir, VA.

I~~ I

0' -00 N -) I Dt -0 VnC D0C) 20 2 0 1V M 0 f -C )

0 o 140 L) 0 C t- N 40 N0N0 0fU 0 ) 0-) 0 0 Cb 0o 0, V)~ V V-) C C

0Oi 4O D 0 0t- & U 0 - 1 0 c 04 10 Nt o - -V

o) 000) r- r 2w -0 0 0 0)0)0 v0)' 0 4- 40 v m n n 0 0 0 0t- '00' 0 04 CY D 04lN N t-t ) .Da C 00( 04 -. o0 C)4 o(

0 CD 4 0 NVt- r) M - 0l 0 q '00 2 N VN CD 40 N ) -ao2- to n t0

04 -0'' (X)co v 0LW4 'o r- 0 r, Q 0 e) WIVr_ c 0 w Lo 0 r-40N4 r t) 0) ~ 00 to ' 0 v

0'N r4)0r) -.o - --4)0 -

IFEnQo0 N40 to 0) N v'rv r V n r04 o 0. J.4 '000 0 N0ma40 0 0 N 400 4 -040 - 04'00 c

N00 N to))0 w 0 '0'03n l)1) 0 w co ID N r- t-00 (c Q)' 00v t0--

0

z

.,4 0 CD40 0 0) CD D 4 00 - 040 04)'0 -- a )-- - -4N0 N 0

0 0 r. 40 - -- 0~4) 0)0)0 404040 n lN v w w0 0400 r) CD 2 0) 04004 400

U 0

0 0'

o1 0 D' 0 N v0 400 '00 0 co ) to0 - N-. 40 C 0 C ~0- N0 -. 00 a *40 0 c (4 r) 4-4 N) N2 0444 N I I-.0 r- 04 U4004 tor r r ) )00 0402t4"040 q ' r 0244 20.0 02220 040 t C)0 ))

0 4-

. 1 0 '1

Hz uV 2- V00 CD CID0DC 004D4 0 0.0- t-0t 0 0V0 t.-0. 04040404 Ci 0000 0000 -.

E-E- I--' r-. - NN N4400 0 4 CD a0 c L t0..co 00200 t- r- t-r- 0t)0)0In0) r)0n ))(44 t~- -0 t C DCDC D D(1 C r-t - - t t404 r-.00 t-.00 '0 0040 0000 00020 t- r-r- , 4000;

,-4 - '

-l -C -C 04 E4 0 C 0C 0) E-0) C F C-C- -- C-

00 -'- Cf V4 a)040 0 00

21 4 co 0 N 0 0 4 OD 0

w20 N) w) C) O) ' N. W 4D 4D

.44r) r) 0) 0) In v)4 . .4

00N2

.4 Ix

4,z '0

U'V) -C z 0 0'

-.2 x -1

- a.a. U E-'U '0a.- ~ ~ ~ ~ A -) -U 2. 0 - U

E/) U) ul n) U) L) U

0, r C 0 CV N 0 v - Cbr 0oo0 Mt' v k 0 0 cCo C 02Cto -W,o~ ID 0 0 wr-r) V) Cqto 11)~ v Cb . b( V U 2 r~ ) U) r-0 0c' v

(4 vw~ c C4 NaeN r- r-C -0 co0 Cw - r)2f 0 0 t C

t) 0 4r r N0 Q..nr- Co2' W c n 0 00NO C . -t 0 V ) 3)N - UI N Coo CD NN a N wo t2- Cocl a 0 0 a) NC 0 C lfCD D t-O t-r) 0

w a co 0 U tr- 0 C o CD wC 10 a O2t,- 0Ow aC0 CO N ~ C 0

-a - N- 000 N -v v 0O M

0'2 r)C )M C4r ) r O 0t -vt

o )L O oO N U)0 N w r o., no~ 00- aCl N r-~ ~ wowwv00 ) 0 C0 No0 000 -. O- e) o 0 C nr 0,o 0 (C ? w C) -4 t

0'

~~~ a10 m-~ a2 0cc 02-0 0'2 n-o m o v '-0 r7 o 0 Dr-. ac 0~ In o 0- 0o r) o (

0 -- --. - - -- 4 C4 r

20: mt-sCo vmm mno 001- noW) 4.00 04M 0012 man zot-ow. GO I oc-Co 1t- C C O tc- in W v-- 000b -0 0 vo- 02' n00 a o

000wv 0 v to 0 0-0 0o l LC to r)0v(4 ace ) Dco r-- n-c o o i

0a -i!o '0.) w r- a 0 0 -oI- ow 00 t- ; wo w v t-~2 omo. o ou cc a .' 0. -C_ IDw 0'nC 4.-i

D wr- w wa) wI- Q co 0) ~ Vw Vo V0( (0- (D r otl -C o 4 C

~0-4

r. 00 ' -wo Nc~ CD~4 (o In n nN 0 0- -0 ql- wa v0 a 0 o - L) 0 0 00m1-m0 a0 -- 0 m w -0 N t 00

? wI-w- CD - 020 C . 4 a)o I)2' N V C4 0 0) -. 0 o ED w 04a.0

C410.

-4

0. r)02 2 0 0 0(0 000 C4 r)n moo N 0) C -0 00o C ;t-to. Ow-C P-o c oa q -0 I- enO r) N"N f -0NC moo 0-Coo ) o @ 01-2)- 0 N 00w 0 00 D co 00O OD 0 M04 N u wwDo, o

Z ) N r-o D (1 o Q)()r )v L o- 4r o

0, 0 U- 0c

U) v

Co L

U)~ 0 -1 a0) - ac 1 0 000 000 a)~ n0 1

-oco 1-) 100 0 00 0 0 a

0 -a] X 0 cr. -C 0

m02 0 0 ) 0 n oo~~~o r n 12 04

<1..

o LO c C4!2 n -- ~ In~~ n co~4~ CO0 Q O vr 0 UQcc 0 0~ r-4 v ul t-U

o 0 nC4~~ C 0 t -C DC - 0 - .-.-. -Or)N0 ar-a

0.

0 - MCOI -O 0 0. t n inAW r- VN O N V M V -C LO V0 r- n' r- 0lcN

n r- o~~ co~? ar)40 o W ? aD ~)a o)Wf r)u a)o n t o N nn Nm a) v o)-) c) n~U

o~ C4- v r - CD to N r-- -0 ) 0 t -, 0 )2C

cno - -- - - -N

n V, V.-) t- 0,14 0 f1)QD0 0-r) V ,0 LO ,1- C- In 20 N 4 C0 t-l0nIn ?0 CO0(w 0 0,.41 I41- b - CbrOM C Q D 2 o )(wc 00Lf 0)n~ c-1~W )a4. to)f 04. u 0fr l

00

Go inI0 U) v N v MI (0 M0U N,.~ V),44 40 n .1) U)~ r)0,n. ) co1 ~(10) 0~

0l

0 -O 0- -V Q !. r- M OD- t,- i02 C4C-1 ) n LO1CO0 0,) r) V ~10N M ) Ua)0a a

c,, t- -1 t-- C- -O le 0 0w vNv O ) o0 t

0l

I- ( CC 1 2 C,4 V V C 0 V 111- -t- W 4.4.V4M. r)))1) b0 00) LO.4 WU)aU &020 O 2W(DC

-W t twl r.--- W)WW)U )i haC) M) (0(1- (0 In C e - 0 4 0 t- t- 11- t-t- t- t- 2 OD.44 COCOCD V.V4.vv 4.-

-a- 4I C nI ) o oa t nU ) I )t U)4 t4 -. -r-r-- I- w. 0 --D X W ' oW

w 04 w 0 0i 0

2n1( 2b~2. W EdW m wwI 2 w 9 21Jw w 2c1I.JI. 21.11.3W 2141W 21.31.3

= . p.-C4 < E.-4 4 1444 1.4<44 < -444 1-44< ; 144 < -E-4 < -4 4 ;:-444 m0', c3xxx &2= Oxx2 InZXM 10==X 10220 10220 W/2 10=2x (0==

c) .- Ua. .a. CL..U .. a...U.UX.CL

-- 0 W O., 11)

4

:M: 4. v( U'- 0 0 0,0-014 -- )1call

0 a,

IWO 2 i

a0 0 &

I 1-

Z1( 10

E-1. z

r I- to) En -) .: U

0' 4 0 -C21.3 ca m a

a; 24 -C

Wn (.3 1.1 (0 CO z.

ca 0l ca w m 4 m

300 600 FfNiTE ELEMENT MESH__ 000EXISTING CONDITIONSFUT 64 %FW-CL-ri SEGMES

677 fiN'' LLWNTS

4493 t.Lk&oxis2117 HOUIS

PLATEI

0,o 3000 mou F;NITI ELEMEAWT K:SH~~ CHEVE A - PHAS~E2

SCJAXRY EUIOTS

PLATE 2

Jocx 0 YM &(Mo~'T ELE.'LNT lYLSHSCHEM'l R PHASL 2

F Ff f -,4PO IC"R Urf~s

1373 ~2m8

PLATE 3

14M 0 300 EooKiIlLMEINT M4ESH

FUT - SCHEV~E 8 - PHASE 1

4030 CLEW2flS

PLATE 14

00

z V

x0

Z ZI

:0

0(-

0-

o-

PLATE

00

00

W )

0 0 -

01

mm

Lij

UJ0

PLATE 6

El)

0

K ZCN

01

OLJ

Z LLI-

U0

PLATE 7

100

0 z

L

V-)

0L-

PLATE 8

*0 Z-N.-LL c -

0-

0 LLJ < IN

---

o JzI,' zI-J

W.i1

LL LU

p-)a

I0 V

I,' 00LU

L0J

- 9 Wc,4

4L4

0* - '

- /V

ci:cLJ < I

1cn

I'llIn

/ 0'

DLJ

7 -D

CA LL-Z

"J WZJ

-0

LiJ

>N

0

C1 J NU

ON Onvv4 .4L <

C14 ZL.J&JL.

n LJ Wa W- TI

FTLT E 10

UIJi

Li) i

IT I

{P)~~> Oa -itwC

NQ~iv~fld~V ]Li

-- 20 UQ

M 0

LLJ <

N,

0

0

/ Li/ I' )

/0

IO

l I I

-. - . -miLJUju7,r

Lo ) 0 LU?

NOitV3I]IldV4V 3AVM

PLATE 12

o z0

ooL

-0 UJJZ

0j I

0 Du

a:TIC)--azL

<iLd

PLAE 1

Z a-

0 -j

-- (- -

L\J z

Z -N

iLLJ 0

Ia

09

0

rxfOLJ

1 C14Ile:

NNN

I.../U

/L w

-U (-

C4 ko-i -- -- 4

NO IiVOIJ lldV 3 AV

PLAT 11;-IXU~)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o0n

/ 0 Z-

7~: ,..

00

LLZ

Lii Lii

Lii

0 A

000

~o I

x UU

u)Lo LOPV

NO I VOI J I IdkN' AVM

PLATE

01

-

IN. LIJ )0 i ~

'I1/. C-) zi

uJ J w

oUU.J

U: <

'0

~CN

0 0((1 / ,

-0- -- ~J~Zw

NOI I V Jld ) V

PLATE 16

0

LA

T,

0 LU mc

N\ 0

~~ o0

IN I1' <

LJ

00

0"N

- --. Q- rr

j )ULJU

NOliVDIJIdNV Ji\VM

DLATE I

0

-- o 0 - LO

T- (f ,

o"

IL

U

PLATE 18

oz

o

- ~ c~a- 4am

LLJ a e

- - 0 0J 0 0 .

----I -----....... ------V'M'YLAT 1

0 -o0

zI z

u-z)(3 LU )

L/L)

LI Ir

PI U

r 0>

0 LLNOIIVDdI~d~v ]AV

PLATE ?O

UU

CC"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -

VV Il CL<

0 00

-~ - - - - - - -d -A- ---

-- L

-a

CC) 0

s L-L <

0oJzLz

CN WZu <

0

-

PLAT 22 O~iDI]Id~NV]AV

(N

0

Cn )

-~1- - Z00

g~CL

NO~~iV301: 3M LAE2

0 00

0-

--

C-C4

PLA\TE 4

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ oZ0

Lf)Q<

0 Z- Lj C

DLA

0

-T r

o<U <

NQIIO~jILLN LAVMoLT V)

CO 0

Q- a

DU C

(N WZ0

u lj (V

o D Ledr

(N~C >)I

PI 0 <

PLAT 26

1Lj

N. -

**1LL - )

to m

Lf 0 iI

NO~iVDjI~d~T ]AV

I ___________ - -- - -_________ ___________________________________Q)_

-7,t 0

,, /i

0 LCr-i

C)

0 t

U 43

L-L)

Nv Z C

N, o

-G-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 '

(N - 0oC1

NOIIVtjI~dv ]A0

F~L~ FE 2b __4

- 0

0 0- L,a-J.

/~ (J

C) -

o LJ oc)

Du~(-- > n-

WZ*i LiJ

0001

EN

0,

............

T Tfll~

NlitVO3I]!IdNV 3AVM

PL'7E 7

* 0

*0 0 w

0 -~~PO m

u - N

LLJ L)0*N LL iz

D L AJ ccj) >2C

Q) <

C4:

I'd

(N

-. ~ ---in- I

(N 0

NOiIVDIJIId&W IAVM

PLATE 30

0

ifl* 0a

rhl

NO~tVtAI~d 3AVM

0

-I') 02:

(n)

OLo

(* C)

N L L -W ZLUd

C14L w

21

(N4

0

U C ~ Lr1

NO I V3 IJI~dNV3A(N

PLATE 3

* *~ 0

02

00Lil4

a- a-izf M.Oh <LnC

UJ

(NI~~- LLJ z N~D(

o a a0NQ~tVDi~ldkV ]AV

LATE -3a

co 0 -o

LflCC

CD~Qa-r

LU - Lo

o LiCNC

ooC(NN

0 C:

It Ld f I

(NJ~~~C LL ZO( O * (0~ <

N~iID~iIdLJ JAVMPLATE 3

o Z0

L)

-IL

ot

_Lj 0

aa

LI Lo

ci:J

NO~tVO]I~d~Z 3AVM

PLTEZ

C Z-o t

a ~_ L

uJl

-ca*L "'qZ "

z T4

C A

0

L d

C4

4C

001

C4 ZLIJ LJd IA

Ir li LuzwU L

NO liV3 LtJ llAf3

PLATE 36

ouU-

o-

LO Z - 64

LIt I _

~~C) <~Ip.*J .-

NO~tVOiV~d~V J'W

0LT

04-to c

JiLl

u <1

LI LiJ

0l

-0

0

oWU

Li

4

CN4

(-'4 ('4 -

o0 y

-2~ ------ x o

NOlIVO)IJI JV 3AM

PLATE

V %-

QLJ

Li_

('0-

0 LLF_-L

T I- -

U C.

z

I.)C3 >N

LfLJ .JW

Of z.L Z L

N~OlLV.~Kd~< a-NVPLJLLT 3

_ _~~~L ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

KL'i

zLijJIZ~

ULi az c)

/7 0

4/z crLa Li

LiJ

(N

/11

a.C

(N WW"

CN 0

P LATE 14%

/ oZ

0

Io

0>

D UL

V-)

00

~LU

I I

C] vi~ LAJ Uco 1- C

1.1

~L I

a _j '

o Z 1 0z

ID ~ 4 jT~(ra

C) >

0 O

LO

0

rN

(N 0ZI 0C-k

lIi

1~u

0JW~d

(nL N I

NO0I-V Ii IdVIV ]AVM

PLATE 42

0

SO0

LL F-

00

LZJ

4Lw .i

~LLJC) V

W)

Go.~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

mi

(N 0

NO II'V3 K1dNV 3AM

PL ATE *

Q-cr

_j L

u

ZL'

< z

C1 L LUC) <

QLo

o LAU* 4

(N

o Qj, a.

.4(NC1

' -1 L.JL.

IA I I V

K) 0N%

NO itVO IJ I~dhV 3AVM

PLATE 44

O Z

0

ow0-

T I r

o c

LZ

D LLA LC)>N

<. C U V

NO~tVD~j~dfrNV 3AV

PLATEZ

z

(00

U

F0 Z _-

oLU

<LU

(0

0 C(NN

ol(Nj r

> N

V)

o Jco

-to

CN

NOIID~jIdkNV]A0

PLATE(14

0-0

o - CLJ

Z 1 <Lnel

o w

LiIF

a L a

UU

-o .11..........

at) at at)

0L

NOIIVK~I~dNV 3M

......PL..TE

0

U0

-(JL

7'7-- 0

-L ., 07'T .4 (N

LL)

LU

0

(N

01

... gl..... ..... m C1

(N 6 61 L

NQIVDLI~dN' ;-AVM 3PLAT 48 u

0-

<RoO-o

T

u J-J 0aNZ 7

U a-

o 0Z

C4

LL Z

oLli

-Pe.

- 0

f~~L V)* 0

>. CLo

/ 0:11

-~ -, 0, 0 0

NQILV~j~d~V ]AVco GoE

____ ____ ___ ____ ___ ____ ___ ____ ____ ___ ____ ___ ____ __

Z - j0 LL I

a > -C-)U

X/Li

an Ta/ * N U Eli

0 L

- '1i

LU

/) <

/ 0

// 4

o 3./ 0 (MN(

/ 0N

4 mm

VI tU J WL"

WJV) V 4)

NOliVOIJIdNVV ]'WM

PLAME 1110

___ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ z

0

00

LLJ <

-~T N zw

C Q>c00

N, 0 LLZ

N LUJ LUi

001

--

aO

-K

m

-U L)

u0 Iu

Go kor4 00 o C,b,

:)A -d IV IAV,

____ ____ ___<

z-

LLJ <

>-- CC)Cc Ili

Z r- K ,

"I~

0 1<>cc

0

(0\L

0

aN LLn

/ I-K

r T

0u-CiNn

clq- \l T

PVN I Ia I rdNv A

rIATN ",

00

/ oLJV)

0 0LL

UJ

'1- 0-L

LUi

9 LJ J r-

>

<rru <

w L I

____ ___ ___ _ _(A_ :>:

0C 0 0a

0 z

>/ QD I0L

~~0

UJj

Li

C)

LlU

/1A <

T& E

0

LiLJ <:r

I-)-

CDToOr

>- a-:A L

L.L

0 Li Z,' -

w LJL

0)

* L

0

<K

U-.

A Ic

> Ln41

Z0~

00'

00~Z

(N<

/1 LL4')

/-

o A

(N

(N L

04 4)

NOIPVI]1 V ]AVM I

/ 0

Z Lj

a-o-

c) UW -1

0>0

-J

Z~ auJ w

C4

0

a)a-

I at

-c m

NO I 2V 3!I47cNV ]AVM

P L,,T F

oCLK -j

0 2

7 W<~Wko cc)

T-J

WL -JOc

LJ N

U <

VV

0r-

U aJCL

wk4<

C)

L L

0 CI

CN (N

W)) C5

NO IVD IJ KdA.V 3]AVM

P LA TE 5

0

0 ZLi -j

0

/1)00

// LaM

Q) Lj

C:c-

oOZC) LU

u <U

o0

-0

(X)

LitJ i

NO IiV3 I 'dNV 3AVM

PLATE 59

__ __ ____ ____ ____

/ / </UiiL

00

UD Li N

(N0,z, (

< (T

\\ \4

oW

IL LU J

I,,-0

I) C\0

o LL(N

(N

0 (1 r40 ) ) .

NO~tVO]I~d~V ]AV

LATE 60T

Wr <

o~u

00

a- L

LL L

"-T

I

- - 0r-' - -0

0

U <

-o

3MLM

NO I VWA Id VN0

P4 m 4

a- -0

'C) I~:/nUC-)

(N

0

o, LiJ

Ii (N

(N U

0 co m

0) 00

CN 0

NO~vKl~~d'N iAVM

PLATE 62

- _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ 0z0

0-

F- mn

WI i

LLi

o V)

L&j

>

<

00

-4 0

04.- -

-I-

L )

r\'4

LLA

LA4

*0

\\o OL.J-a Yavli

/C/C

/CN/V "L

/1/c

NN

PL T 640 i.j.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Cz

0

N LwJ</

Uo .--K.n

~ 'I Li

-0-

CC

LAJ LLJ

- (C )

00

-. I

-u w

-- n If C

~.

LPL

/1o LL K

ItI

NW L

IL..

0ou-i

10(

CD

- I-- 0 z

I IL itPrD CN 0

NOILVDjfld~V0]>0

<LTE6

1 0

-

C) L T

( ( C Lo>L)i -i Cn

0

LL Lii

I 0

0 Ld-0 /(1 I

C14 U.i

0 It? ~

-r ----- ~T~ IN

NC w~ W-

NO I VO I JIVdHNV 3AVM I

PLATE 68