Some could be adopted easily, while others
veals that the following measures are selected
would involve large expenditures and ambitious
for consideration:
construction or rehabilitation programs. More-
Departure
over, since there is such a wide range of naviga-
from
tion project ages, conditions, traffic levels, func-
existing
Automation measure
Level
Purpose
procedure
tional designs, and operating equipment, a
project function that would be straightforward
Controlling the opening
D
b
N
and closing rates of lock
to automate at one project could prove compli-
filling and emptying valves
cated to automate at another project. These dis-
Latching lock gates in their
C
a
M
tinctions cannot be addressed in detail in this re-
recesses
port.
Interlocking lock gate open-
C
a
L
However, a portrayal of the candidate auto-
ing with gage readings on
mated project functions is needed that allows
both sides of the gate
them to be described according to the automa-
Controlling closure of
D
b
L
tion characteristics (level, purpose, etc., de-
miter gages needing a
scribed in Table 1). Therefore, Table 5 has been
specific sequence
prepared to present the navigation project func-
Monitoring and controlling
B
b
L
tions and their associated automation opportu-
sump pumping equipment
nities in a matrix format along with the determi-
at locks
native characteristics that have been judged to
As another example, suppose a proposal for
best describe each of the 43 potential automation
automation was desired that was based primari-
measures. The judgments used in assigning the
ly on improving the safety of operations, and yet
determinative characteristics to each automation
would represent little or no departure from ex-
measure have been based on analysis of the au-
isting operating procedures. A sorting of the
tomation survey and on the information collect-
data of Table 5 for Safety in the Purpose catego-
ed during project visits. These judgments could
ry, and for L or N in the Departure from Existing
change as further studies are performed.
Procedure category, would yield the following
It is important to emphasize that the judg-
automation measures for consideration:
ments made in developing Table 5 are general.
When a specific navigation project is considered,
Difficulty of
Cost of
a different profile of characteristics is likely to
Automation measure
Level implementation implementation
emerge from the same judgmental process, due
to that project's unique set of features.
Balancing filling and
A
M
M
emptying flows between
The matrix format of Table 5 allows selec-
lock chamber sides
tions, comparisons, sortings, or rankings to be
Programming filling and A
M
M
made among the project functions and automa-
emptying valve operation
tion alternatives. These processes can be done on
for various vessel types
a global basis for developing general Corps of
Interlocking lock gate
C
L
L
Engineers policy and guidelines for operations
opening with gage read-
and management. Or, on a project-specific basis,
ings on both sides of the
the selections, comparisons, sortings, or rank-
gate
ings could be performed after development of a
new project-specific matrix modeled after Table
At present, the data contained in Table 5 are
5. Results of the project-specific approach would
not extensive enough to place in a database, and
provide decision support for an automation plan
the sortings of the foregoing examples were
for that particular navigation project.
done manually. However, if additional lock, dam,
Some examples will illustrate the uses of the
or navigation functions are identified as amena-
matrix of Table 5. For the first example, assume
ble to automation in the future, or if new deter-
that it was decided to consider a program of au-
minative characteristics are developed for more
tomation at navigation projects involving only
thoroughly evaluating automation measures, the
those automation measures that were judged
development of a database is indicated. This
low in difficulty of implementation and also low
would permit more versatile use of the automa-
in cost of implementation. A sorting of the con-
tion matrix for planning and management pur-
tents of Table 5 on these two characteristics re-
poses and for decision support.
12
Previous Page
